I do not normally battle conference mates unless we got on a recruit at the same time.

I also don't normally jump on recruits that others are on at the last minute.

That is not collusion.

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/9/2014 11:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ettaexpress on 5/9/2014 10:56:00 PM (view original):
So you cheated, but you thought it was OK because no one cared. And many people still do (maybe you still do, for all I know) and that's OK because no one seems to care now either.

I think it's completely ridiculous that you're allowed to have multiple teams in the same world. There are a large number of worlds...no reason really to have multiple teams in one unless you have already have a team in every world or something, and then if you still want more maybe you need to start looking at the life choices you make.

scaturo joined the OAC in D-III while still having a D-I team whose resources he could use to gain information for the D3 recruiting. The funds aren't comingled obviously, but it would be simple enough to look at guys' potentials on the D-I team and say "hrm he could be useful in D3". Why even open the door to that happening? It's just wrong and it's cheating whether there's enforcement against it or not.

Sounds like you threw your toys out of the baby carriage in a temper tantrum because you didn't like the changes that were being made...hrm seems a lot like how people react to recommended changes to the sim that they don't like...

im not going to argue with you, all the fight is taken out of me on this one. numerous reasons are well documented on why people would want multiple teams (some of which had been picked up before FSS/potential even existed). also, its perfectly legal and allowed to have multiple teams in the same world, as long as they are outside the semi-arbitrary 1000 mile limit - even with both in d1, which is a far greater issue than in different divisions within 1000 miles. so, apparently even admin doesn't agree with you on your 3rd paragraph. you can easily find threads from which to educate yourself on the finer points, if you want more information. 

What do mean don't agree with me? It's factual; that possibility very clearly exists.

They may choose not to have a rule against it, but that doesn't preclude one from doing exactly what I said. If you had that setup, I don't know how you *wouldn't* use that information. You can't unlearn things or unsee them. If you notice something while recruiting for your D-I team that would work for D3, there's no way you're not going to act on that because your justification is going to be well I would have seen it eventually in D3 anyway.

In a way it might actually help more to have teams that are further away because then you could cover more of the country knowledge-wise in the course of your natural recruiting actions without even really extending. 

easy... d1 teams only look at d1, d3 teams only at d2/d3. it is possible today to recruit d1 from d3, but that wasn't the case in my time, or else i just didn't know about it. in that case, if you don't try to cheat, its impossible to see anything about the other team (i suppose you could accidentally search in the wrong division or something?). when i had 2 teams in d1, after FSS existed, i had a strict rule i followed, only to recruit scouted players, and never to overlap scouting areas on the 2 schools. problem solved (your problem, at least). its really not that complicated... its easy not to cheat, if that is important to you. it was important to me, even with multiple teams in compliance - you have the same issues, regardless on admin's changing stance on the topic.

i often wonder if those who can't fathom not cheating with 2 teams, are exactly the guys going around with multiple IDs that are kept secret, doing exactly that.

Like I say, not overlapping scouting areas actually increases your total field of vision.

I'm just saying that what you see, you can't unsee. Even if you intend not to comingle the information, you more than likely are.

Yeah not cheating was so important that you got called out for cheating and rather than comply you threw your toys out of the crib. So integrity. Such ethical.

It's not hard to imagine that there are people with multiple IDs, especially now seeing all the other cheating that goes on being brought into the public sphere and being shooed away by people like you that are dismissing it. 

Make a note of this day because I am completely in agreement with nacho that this is a big deal regardless of how long ago it was, or the "everyone was doing it" defense. You can say that we wouldn't have known if tanner hadn't made his post, but to me that's all undone by the fact that he deleted the post, lied about it, decided that having integrity wasn't really all that important after all. 

Ideal would be to only have one team in one world and that's your shot...you learn at the same rate as everyone else, you have the same chances as everyone else. But that doesn't appear to have ever happened here and likely won't because this site doesn't have near enough users. Part of that is because of the resistance to change and the lack of collective knowledge on the right ways to change from the people playing the game.

Ironically, you then attack the people that do have that knowledge that you collectively lack.

You're the one that keeps starting stuff with me. I couldn't care less if you exist.

How am I to blame for your actions, then?

I would call it more of returning the soup than throwing the toys out of the crib.

Posted by ettaexpress on 5/10/2014 12:09:00 AM (view original):
You're the one that keeps starting stuff with me. I couldn't care less if you exist.

How am I to blame for your actions, then?

Etta, you are not a victim.

Well it sure isn't my fault that some jagoff follows me around the board trying to start something. Probably just like the people that said they were trying to get me banned only now just being quieter about it. 

Pretty hard to argue you're not a target when people have told you that they're making you a target for removal from the board because they don't like you. 

etta, i understand what you are saying but you are totally wrong that we don't care about the kinds of activities mentioned here. the community puts a great deal of pressure on seble to crack down on collusion. apparently, the newer crowd even puts a great deal of pressure on him about multiple teams per world. i even have agreed that if i made a sim, i'd never allow 2 teams/world, but given how long it was allowed and how prevalent it is (even with teams outside 1000 miles, which is still totally ok per admin), its just not something you can butcher. you have to handle it gracefully. thats all im saying, i think thats all anyone is saying who has multiple teams. the game has changed, back when so many of us played multiple teams per worlds, the reasons to do so were greater, and the risks of cheating were much less. the target is moving, and i have no problem with that. i do have a problem with sebles approach. those are very different things.

back to the main point, the reason i thought people were too hard on tanner is because this was fairly widespread, and nobody else is being open about it to educate the newer coaches on how bad it can be - how bad it was. it would be a service to the board if tanner could share all the details of how it started, how it grew, how he got involved, etc... but that can't happen, because you all want to crucify him. its these instances exactly that make so many of us so hard lined on collusion. for what its worth, the guy who started this thread (nacho), he doesn't take that hard line approach. he says he follows the rules and i have no reason not to believe him, but he still would prefer a different system, and i think understanding where we came from, and the slipperiness of the slope, is important to understanding the position admin takes today - a position that is completely resultant from pressure from the (now veteran and retired) community. so to suggest we don't care is ridiculous. you are oversimplifying a complex issue, as you often do. its an important one and really i hope you will do it justice by thinking about it on a deeper level. similarly, if in a year or two, multiple teams are strictly prohibited (which would not surprise me at all), it will be a result of the efforts of the guys coaching today.

back to the main point again... i am in no way condoning the behavior of the tannermcc group, but, its so far in the past, its clear to me its far better to use it as an educational experience, than a punitive one - that accomplishes nothing, this group has already disbanded over half a decade ago. on the other hand, i'd bet half the coaches on here were unaware of the scale of collusion in the early sim - and of course, many still are. it would be valuable to the collective to hear these stories, but of course that can't happen - because this board reaction is 100% predictable. the reason you study history is to learn from it, not to assign blame, i think thats pretty clear cut...

So cheating is excusable as long as the risk of getting caught wasn't very high...

There's no slippery slope here. You either collude, or you don't collude. If you want to study that, use prisoner's dilemma. Other than that there's not much value in details, really. We're not talking about using cats against Egypt here.

I'd rather hear more about people's theories of collusion in the game right now. 

Posted by hughesjr on 5/9/2014 11:13:00 PM (view original):
I do not normally battle conference mates unless we got on a recruit at the same time.

I also don't normally jump on recruits that others are on at the last minute.

That is not collusion.

I do not normally battle conference mates because (A) I'm usually taking over a D or C prestige complete rebuild, and it's not wise to battle with guys in your conference when you're trying to rebuild a crappy program and (B) I have almost always been in areas where recruits are plentiful enough that battling w/conference mates is unnecessary.

I'm really starting to be happy about my "I'll battle whomever, wherever if I think I can win and want the recruit" policy...

I battle conference mates if the need arises. I am in a low level D1 conference with 4 human coaches. Unless I make the NT the chances are relatively low that  I can get in the PIT no matter the record because  the RPI is often killed  by the Sims. Of course I battle if the player is someone that can help my team win. I will attempt to weigh the chances of winning vs the next best available player.

Posted by dacj501 on 5/10/2014 1:12:00 PM (view original):
I'm really starting to be happy about my "I'll battle whomever, wherever if I think I can win and want the recruit" policy...

If I have a clear advantage (say the conference mate is >360 miles away, and I'm <100 miles away) I'll "protect my turf" and battle. But it needs to be something where I feel like I have an edge of some kind.