All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Multiple Teams in a World
5/29/2013 8:51 AM
I've noticed recently a lot of threads discussing the issue of multiple teams per user in a world.  There's been quite a bit of misinformation floating around in those discussions.  I will answer any questions about this issue here over the the next day or two. 

Just to start things off I'll throw out some background:

The game was designed to allow one team per user per world.  That should be clear by the fact that you can't add another team on an account if you have one in that world already.  If we had wanted to allow multiple teams, we would have allowed them on the same account.

It's not possible for us to actively monitor for multiple teams, mainly because it's not always possible to definitively link multiple accounts to the same person.  We could potentially build out some automated system to report on possible violations, but the end result probably wouldn't be much better than the current system of community policing.

Because of this, we have always allowed multiple teams in a world.  For a long time, there wasn't a set rule associated with it, so what was acceptable was subjective on our part.  After a while, we settled on an informal distance requirement of about 700-800 miles.  This was instituted mainly because when FSS was introduced, it opened up that possibility of sharing information between teams. 

The informal distance requirement generally worked fine, but here and there it caused problems because it was subjective, so some cases were treated a bit different than others.  Not too long ago it was decided to spell out a distance requirement (we settled on 1000 miles), and enforce that objectively. 

We made one exception to that 1000 mile rule.  There was a user who was forced to move just weeks prior to the release of the 1000 mile rule.  We explicitly approved his move at about 800-900 miles.  We didn't feel it was fair to make him move again right after approving that move, so the exception was made.  This was the only exception made.  Recently we decided to eliminate that exception and he was told to move again to abide by the 1000 mile rule.

If there is a violation of the 1000 mile rule, we generally ask the user to move at the end of the current season in order to satisfy the requirement.  In most cases we will help the user move to a comparable job if there are issues with loyalty or something.

All of this applies to a normal situation, where the only violation is having teams too close.  In a case of cheating, things are handled on a case by case basis.  We have issued numerous punishments for cheating.

I completely understand and sympathize with the long-time users who have to give up a team.  There is no easy, obvious solution to this problem.  If there were, it wouldn't be such a hot button issue.

There is very little chance that the current rule will change any time soon.  If it does, it won't become more restrictive.  Down the road, I'd like to come up with a solution that allows multiple teams while greatly diminishing any possible advantages to it.  To do that will require changes to the game itself, potentially extensive changes.  Once a decision is made on changes, I'll pass along that information to you guys.

Like I said, if there are specific questions or concerns please post them here.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
5/29/2013 10:28 AM
Do you want us to "turn in" people in violation of the 1000 mile rule?
5/29/2013 10:33 AM
Posted by stinenavy on 5/29/2013 10:07:00 AM (view original):
Did you tell, or imply via tickets, that users could violate the 1000 mile rule as long as no one complained about it? That seems to be a prevailing argument among those violating the rules.
That's not the argument in any way whatsoever, but feel free to morph the issue to fit your agenda.
5/29/2013 10:34 AM
Posted by stinenavy on 5/29/2013 10:07:00 AM (view original):
Did you tell, or imply via tickets, that users could violate the 1000 mile rule as long as no one complained about it? That seems to be a prevailing argument among those violating the rules.
I can't speak to every CS ticket response, but as mentioned, we do not actively monitor for these violations.  So obviously it's possible to get away with a violation if no one reports it.  When we changed to the 1000 mile rule, we encouraged people to self-report violations or to move on their own to satisfy the rule. 
5/29/2013 10:35 AM
Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/29/2013 10:28:00 AM (view original):
Do you want us to "turn in" people in violation of the 1000 mile rule?
Yes, we'd like to have violations reported. 
5/29/2013 10:37 AM
Posted by seble on 5/29/2013 10:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 5/29/2013 10:07:00 AM (view original):
Did you tell, or imply via tickets, that users could violate the 1000 mile rule as long as no one complained about it? That seems to be a prevailing argument among those violating the rules.
I can't speak to every CS ticket response, but as mentioned, we do not actively monitor for these violations.  So obviously it's possible to get away with a violation if no one reports it.  When we changed to the 1000 mile rule, we encouraged people to self-report violations or to move on their own to satisfy the rule. 
I'm not doubting this, but I'm pretty active and I don't remember anything proactive by WiS encouraging people to self-report or move. Can you tell me where I might have found such advice?
5/29/2013 10:41 AM
i think many (if not most) people who are not a fan of this rule or the way it was handled, are actually more upset about the way its handled, than the rule itself. so i have a few questions.

1) the first issue is the way the rules have been communicated. about a year ago when the change to 1000 miles happened, there was no explanation from the site staff. there was merely, as best anyone can remember, a post to conference chat that the fair play guidelines were updated. nothing specific about the rule change itself. if this situation is important enough to cause coaches to lose teams they have so much invested in, teams they picked up in full compliance with the rules, then isnt it important enough for site staff to say something about it? would it be possible, in the future, to get quality communication about what actually changed, and how coaches suddenly in violation should deal with that issue? maybe a discussion even?

2) there seems to be some disagreement about what the rule change actually was, a year ago. actually, ive yet to hear a single coach state the opinion (which is surprising, as every possible opinion one could conceive, and then some, have come out here) that they thought teams 10 miles apart in different divisions were NOT allowed 1-3 years ago, roughly (before the 1000 mile rule, after the same geographic region rule). but in a ticket, you explained that you felt teams in different divisions couldnt be 700-800 miles apart, just like teams in the same division. most importantly, the fact that this great gap in understanding between yourself and coaches exists, it just highlights how important the first issue is. secondly, would it be possible to print here, for the purposes of clarity, the rules on this subject as they stood in the different versions of potential, and what exactly they mean to you?

3) it seems fairly split over "theoretically", if people would like to allow multiple teams or not. however, it seems a strong majority feels its not worth totally screwing up people's situation over, and that if WIS puts out a rule (like the 1000 mile rule) that suddenly puts compliant coaches in violation, something needs to be done about that situation. minimally, site staff should make it clear what those people should do. for example, maybe you could have said, well, we wont do anything to help anyone, but you have 6 seasons to transition gracefully before we enforce the rule on people who had both teams when this rule came out. it doesnt do much to alleviate the pain, but it does provide *some* direction on what these people should do. can we at least, in the event of future updates, get some clarification on not only what the rule is, but how people should respond to it?

4) building on the last point, when you have coaches who have spent years of time, and potentially hundreds of dollars with it, building up two resumes or two teams in a world, its a pretty big blow to make them give one up. is there anything that can be done to mitigate this situation? for example, i am forced to drop a high d1 account, but i have no other world with a resume to pick that up. ive tried exactly 5 times in the past few years, since the first rule change to not allow same geographic region teams maybe in the same division maybe not - to try to get in a position where a multiple team ban wouldnt be so tough. but it takes a couple years to build a resume up from nothing to high d1, why should coaches who paid to do that already on existing accounts, have to start over from scratch? is there anything that could be done to help the situation? resume transfers? team transfers? credits to start in a new world, maybe starting in a new world at least in d1 or something. maybe people with existing situations get grandfathered in. a lot of ideas have been thrown out, but the majority of people seem to think its unfair to do nothing. is there anything that can be done?


the reality of the situation is that the coaches who have multiple teams, who put all the time and effort into building up teams/resumes, were suddenly thrown in violation. zero direction was given to people on what exactly changed, so there was and is a significant amount of confusion on what the rule really is. and no suggestions, direction, or help were offered to people who were put into those situations. coaches who picked up teams in compliance and put all the resources in, have made significant investments, and its not fair to wipe that out without *any* guidance whatsoever. that is why this problem has gotten so bad, in my opinion. its not the rule itself, as much as the way that rule was communicated and how the issues it created were handled (specifically, how the rule was not communication, and how nothing was done to handle the issues it created). 

it makes things even worse that the only people who actually get in trouble for this are those who have been transparent about their IDs, usually, far predating any restrictions on teams. there are dozens if not hundreds of coaching in violation right now, right this minute, but most people havent a damn clue who any of them are. so the people who would conceal multiple IDs and use them to gain an unfair advantage, have not been impacted. people who did things the right way are impacted. when you throw that on top of the situation where there is no communication or direction for coaches suddenly in violation, it really creates a situation where the ONLY possible outcome is a great deal of negativity, frustration, anger, and hurt feelings.
5/29/2013 10:46 AM
Posted by fd343ny on 5/29/2013 10:37:00 AM (view original):
posted elsewhere

http://whatif.cincinnati.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=468136&TopicsTimeframe=30

lets address proper other conduct where you have two teams in a world, 1000+ miles apart - some are easy - some are less clear at least to me

1. you dont schedule games against each other

2. when you meet in postseason - do you (a) leave neutral settings? (b) game plan for each blind of what you do for the other? (c) pick a winner and adjust to decide the result? (rather clear to me that (c) is wrong - dont know for sure between (a) and (b) - I think (a) is the best course - just neutral settings and the let SIM run

3. you dont recruit near the other school - whether or not you use FSS, better not to do so

4. you dont use FSS or eval results from one for the other

5. you dont use one school to compete against a third school that is competing against the other school where you coach

6. for international recruits, do you (a) have each school recruit blindly pursuing international recruits that may be of interest or (b) do you divide international recruits between the two schools and have each pursue a different set - neither of these is a great answer, overlaps are bad, but so is allocating recruits

7. is it okay to schedule some common nonconference opponents - like if you want both schools to play against a SIM that will have 9 returning seniors okay for both to do so - I think so - but am I missing something?

8. you dont recruit a transfer from the other school, cause you may know his potentials when others cant

9. you dont post on forums as if you were different people - disagreeing or agreeing with each other
1. I agree - don't schedule your own team, although exhibition games aren't really a problem.

2. I don't really have an answer for this.  Either way one team is moving on and one team is not, so the net effect is the same.  Ideally you should game plan as if it were someone else's team.

3. Agreed, it's best not to raise any suspicions.  Any time something fishy happens you open yourself up to consequences if someone reports it.

4. No brainer - that's the whole point of the 1000 mile rule, to minimize the chances of sharing this info.

5. Another no brainer. 

6. Avoid pursuing the same players with both schools, international or not.

7. I don't have a problem with this one.

8. No, don't do this.

9. If you do this, be ready to look dumb when it comes out that it's an alias.  It also makes you look like you're hiding something.

Of these, numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are major problems.  Doing any of these things is considered cheating to some degree or another and will result in punishment.


5/29/2013 10:47 AM
Posted by isack24 on 5/29/2013 10:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by seble on 5/29/2013 10:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by stinenavy on 5/29/2013 10:07:00 AM (view original):
Did you tell, or imply via tickets, that users could violate the 1000 mile rule as long as no one complained about it? That seems to be a prevailing argument among those violating the rules.
I can't speak to every CS ticket response, but as mentioned, we do not actively monitor for these violations.  So obviously it's possible to get away with a violation if no one reports it.  When we changed to the 1000 mile rule, we encouraged people to self-report violations or to move on their own to satisfy the rule. 
I'm not doubting this, but I'm pretty active and I don't remember anything proactive by WiS encouraging people to self-report or move. Can you tell me where I might have found such advice?
In the Fair Play Guidelines it says: "If an owner finds himself in this situation due to accident, he should submit a support ticket and request to have himself transferred to a different school or removed from the world."
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
5/29/2013 11:01 AM
Posted by gillispie on 5/29/2013 10:41:00 AM (view original):
i think many (if not most) people who are not a fan of this rule or the way it was handled, are actually more upset about the way its handled, than the rule itself. so i have a few questions.

1) the first issue is the way the rules have been communicated. about a year ago when the change to 1000 miles happened, there was no explanation from the site staff. there was merely, as best anyone can remember, a post to conference chat that the fair play guidelines were updated. nothing specific about the rule change itself. if this situation is important enough to cause coaches to lose teams they have so much invested in, teams they picked up in full compliance with the rules, then isnt it important enough for site staff to say something about it? would it be possible, in the future, to get quality communication about what actually changed, and how coaches suddenly in violation should deal with that issue? maybe a discussion even?

2) there seems to be some disagreement about what the rule change actually was, a year ago. actually, ive yet to hear a single coach state the opinion (which is surprising, as every possible opinion one could conceive, and then some, have come out here) that they thought teams 10 miles apart in different divisions were NOT allowed 1-3 years ago, roughly (before the 1000 mile rule, after the same geographic region rule). but in a ticket, you explained that you felt teams in different divisions couldnt be 700-800 miles apart, just like teams in the same division. most importantly, the fact that this great gap in understanding between yourself and coaches exists, it just highlights how important the first issue is. secondly, would it be possible to print here, for the purposes of clarity, the rules on this subject as they stood in the different versions of potential, and what exactly they mean to you?

3) it seems fairly split over "theoretically", if people would like to allow multiple teams or not. however, it seems a strong majority feels its not worth totally screwing up people's situation over, and that if WIS puts out a rule (like the 1000 mile rule) that suddenly puts compliant coaches in violation, something needs to be done about that situation. minimally, site staff should make it clear what those people should do. for example, maybe you could have said, well, we wont do anything to help anyone, but you have 6 seasons to transition gracefully before we enforce the rule on people who had both teams when this rule came out. it doesnt do much to alleviate the pain, but it does provide *some* direction on what these people should do. can we at least, in the event of future updates, get some clarification on not only what the rule is, but how people should respond to it?

4) building on the last point, when you have coaches who have spent years of time, and potentially hundreds of dollars with it, building up two resumes or two teams in a world, its a pretty big blow to make them give one up. is there anything that can be done to mitigate this situation? for example, i am forced to drop a high d1 account, but i have no other world with a resume to pick that up. ive tried exactly 5 times in the past few years, since the first rule change to not allow same geographic region teams maybe in the same division maybe not - to try to get in a position where a multiple team ban wouldnt be so tough. but it takes a couple years to build a resume up from nothing to high d1, why should coaches who paid to do that already on existing accounts, have to start over from scratch? is there anything that could be done to help the situation? resume transfers? team transfers? credits to start in a new world, maybe starting in a new world at least in d1 or something. maybe people with existing situations get grandfathered in. a lot of ideas have been thrown out, but the majority of people seem to think its unfair to do nothing. is there anything that can be done?


the reality of the situation is that the coaches who have multiple teams, who put all the time and effort into building up teams/resumes, were suddenly thrown in violation. zero direction was given to people on what exactly changed, so there was and is a significant amount of confusion on what the rule really is. and no suggestions, direction, or help were offered to people who were put into those situations. coaches who picked up teams in compliance and put all the resources in, have made significant investments, and its not fair to wipe that out without *any* guidance whatsoever. that is why this problem has gotten so bad, in my opinion. its not the rule itself, as much as the way that rule was communicated and how the issues it created were handled (specifically, how the rule was not communication, and how nothing was done to handle the issues it created). 

it makes things even worse that the only people who actually get in trouble for this are those who have been transparent about their IDs, usually, far predating any restrictions on teams. there are dozens if not hundreds of coaching in violation right now, right this minute, but most people havent a damn clue who any of them are. so the people who would conceal multiple IDs and use them to gain an unfair advantage, have not been impacted. people who did things the right way are impacted. when you throw that on top of the situation where there is no communication or direction for coaches suddenly in violation, it really creates a situation where the ONLY possible outcome is a great deal of negativity, frustration, anger, and hurt feelings.
1) I honestly don't remember exactly how that change was communicated.  It was a change to the site-wide rules (although mainly affecting HD and GD), so there were multiple people involved.  If there was a lack of explanation on our end, I apologize. 

2) As far as I know it's always been an informal geographical distance.  Since I took over, I've never mentioned or enforced any other variation of that rule, although I can't vouch for what took place before I took over.  This confusion and subjectivity is the very reason that the 1000 mile rule was put into place.  To clarify the policy and make enforcement consistent.

3) Yes, we should have done a better job explaining the change.  I underestimated how many coaches had multiple teams close together.  That's why there wasn't a huge announcement about the change - because I didn't think it would affect very many people.  It was only after the tickets came in and the discussions exploded that it became obvious that there were more out there than I thought.

4) I definitely sympathize with having to give up a team.  However, as I mentioned in the first post, the game was not designed to allow multiple teams per world.  We generally discourage people from doing it, but allow it for the reasons stated earlier.   I'm not sure what you mean by "starting over from scratch"?  All we require is moving to a different location.  That won't affect your coaching resume in that world.  We can't transfer someone's resume to another world. 


5/29/2013 11:19 AM
Just two thoughts that should be more obvious to everyone and I don't think can be debated really:

1. It's been mentioned before, but the people who are in favor of the rule continue to be blind to the fact that the people affected are the ones who have been open about having two teams in the same world within 1000 miles. If these people did anything that could be seen as cheating, it would be obvious and they would be reported. So they didn't cheat, but are being reported regardless. Even if you aren't in favor of grandfathering these people in, can't you at least see that all you are doing is "enforcing" the rule by reporting the people doing no harm while the real cheaters remain in place?

2. To the people who are doing all of the reporting, don't you see that WiS is using you? If this rule were really important to them, they would implement some sort of system to either prevent this or find the violators and get rid of them. But instead, since they don't want to spend the time or money on this, they say to us "go ahead, use your time to enforce our rule." And the result has been a bunch of people who haven't cheated lose out because their usernames are easy to identify (which should indicate to you that they are most likely NOT going to cheat), while I have yet to see a single case brought up where someone who was actually cheating got reported by another user. So to the people doing all of this "enforcing", you are both being used by WiS who doesn't want to dedicate its own resources to the issue while simultaneously doing nothing to stomp out cheating.
5/29/2013 11:53 AM
And let me say this to seble, although I can't imagine you're reading this:

as always I think you are admirably diplomatic in the face of angry customers. However, although I'm sure you aren't thinking about HD all day long, I think a lot of the dissatisfaction could be alleviated with a little addtional customer contact. We pay for this, it would be nice if we felt like WiS paid any attention to it.
5/29/2013 12:00 PM
Why wasn't there any kind of "grandfathering" instituted when this "rule" was created?

It seems that the people weren't in violation before the rule was instituted, but became in violation because of the rule, are damned without any chance of salvation...the only option for those users is to LOSE, and I happen to find that very ******.

To create a rule that you basically admitted that you're not going to police, except through the premise of what amounts to a "neighborhood watch", is crazy.  Guys like stinenavy act like they're rulers of some WIS HD covenant, protecting the sanctity, not of "their" game, but of a dumb rule that has a lot of elastic.  Since you don't want to police the rule, you should just make FSS free for everyone...that polices the rule more than you would/will.

I want to go on record here and say that I WILL NEVER REPORT ANY VIOLATORS (EVEN MY WORST ENEMY) OF THIS "RULE" BECAUSE I DON'T TRUST OR BELIEVE IN YOUR ENFORCEMENT.  The rule is dumb and almost pointless.

of 3
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Multiple Teams in a World

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.