Here is the problem with that Mike.  Stated in the WIS Fair play guidelines.  http://www.whatifsports.com/locker/fairplay.shtm , It shouldn't be happening at all.  

Collusive transactions

Collusion includes any act that supports bad, deceitful or illegal behavior agreed upon by two or more users. Here are a few examples:

• Trades that clearly benefit one side.
• Dropping/waiving a player so that another team may pick him up.
• Using 1 team to scout for another team (i.e. share projected ratings).
• Intentionally throwing a game to ensure another team improves its chances for a post-season bid.
• Intentionally signing questionable players that benefit the former club (i.e. Type-A free-agents.)
• Arranging a trade with another franchise so the other franchise can sign a free-agent resulting in the other franchise receiving compensation picks.

I hold a grudge against that guy that dates back to the very first season of HBD. I was an owner (still am) in the only other world he has played in. He played for the first two seasons and left, apparently because he was "alarmed at some of the trades". I saw no evidence of collusion way back in seasons one and two of that league. He bolted to run his own fiefdom.

ETA: from an interview 7 years ago "but didn't like the way people in the public world I joined were acting in terms of trades". Like maybe his were vetoed? Who knows.

If you feel he's colluding in a world you paid to be in, report it.    It's that simple.   I know you get nowhere trying to shout him down because, as I've said many, many times, his worlds are filled with his sycophants.   So, if you feel like collusive deals are being made, report it. 

I joined Musial many seasons ago.   A trade looked terribly one-sided.  I spoke up.   In unison, they said "We don't veto deals here.   24 of us(or some crazy number) know each other in the real world."   Which is fine.   Just don't expect me to sign up for that ****. 

24 is impressive. It's hard enough to get 24 specific people to show up for the same free lunch.

Oh, and I'll out myself as occasional guilty of 5 and 6. Never felt it violated fair play.

Yeah, I was surprised at that many.    But pimpbot has turned BBWAA into something similar.    I don't think there's anything wrong with it but, if you've got some sort of "special" rules, advertise it.   Fortunately for me, I found out early, jacked my payroll and put the team in the playoffs for only the 2nd time in team history.    Then I went on my merry way.

World	Franchise	Season	Player Payroll	Big League Record	Div Standing	WS Winner
Musial	MNT Mercenaries	20	$123.8M	99-63 (.611)	1	-

 

Moneyball was one.   No vetoing, cash was not restricted.  They advertised it and were pretty successful for awhile.   Now it's dead. 

Customer service is aware.  The last response I got from them was it was going to be kicked up to someone else for investigation.

I was asleep at the wheel and joined one of the Gleeman worlds. About 10 games in I vetoed a trade that was so one sided it was in danger of capsizing. Was told by 4 or 5 owners "we do not veto trades here." I pulled the plug immediately and he had a replacement before sundown.

I was in the Gleeman World 2 for the first 7 seasons... it's not collusion, it's just new players who love to trade AG players in trades that are always unbalanced. It's not always severe, but it's enough where the league isn't a fair fight. I was in his division and could start to see what the future of the league looked like in S7, amazing trades he pulled off that season and his prospects from his initial seasons were starting to contribute. I won the division on S5, and he's won everyone division title since with 100+ win seasons.

I'm not surprised it happened early on.   Recruits fans via his blog.   They already like him and when he tells them that 3 for 1 deal is good for them because they get a solid #3 SP, a new GG SS and a silver sllugger C for an all-star CF(that just happens to have HOF written on his forehead), I get why they accepted it.  But, when you see 14 consecutive 120 win seasons and dozens of 3 for 1 deals that preceded those seasons, a red flag has to come up.   But it doesn't. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/22/2015 11:04:00 AM (view original):
I'm not surprised it happened early on.   Recruits fans via his blog.   They already like him and when he tells them that 3 for 1 deal is good for them because they get a solid #3 SP, a new GG SS and a silver sllugger C for an all-star CF(that just happens to have HOF written on his forehead), I get why they accepted it.  But, when you see 14 consecutive 120 win seasons and dozens of 3 for 1 deals that preceded those seasons, a red flag has to come up.   But it doesn't. 

What if your the team getting 3, and it moves your team from 10th to 3rd -- cant you say the trade was still a win-win. Collectively, AG makes enough of those deals all around the league, your team might wind up back down at 6th. But arguably cant each trade be rationalized as win-win?

Posted by headpirate on 4/22/2015 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/22/2015 11:04:00 AM (view original):
I'm not surprised it happened early on.   Recruits fans via his blog.   They already like him and when he tells them that 3 for 1 deal is good for them because they get a solid #3 SP, a new GG SS and a silver sllugger C for an all-star CF(that just happens to have HOF written on his forehead), I get why they accepted it.  But, when you see 14 consecutive 120 win seasons and dozens of 3 for 1 deals that preceded those seasons, a red flag has to come up.   But it doesn't. 

What if your the team getting 3, and it moves your team from 10th to 3rd -- cant you say the trade was still a win-win. Collectively, AG makes enough of those deals all around the league, your team might wind up back down at 6th. But arguably cant each trade be rationalized as win-win?

No

Sure, every trade can be a win-win.    However, when a team wins 120 every season and the WS every other season, I'm not interested in them being part of a "win".   My goal is to win the WS.   It's hard to step over the guy on top if he keeps getting better even if I'm getting better.

When I'm offered a deal, I always try to figure out the "why".    The success of the other owner is part of that.    In MG, deanod won 4-5 WS in a row.    Every time he posted "Need a solid RH bat" or whatever, someone came running to give him said bat.  I finally said "Look, idiots, he's owning the AL every year and then kicking the NL's *** in the WS.    How the hell do you expect to beat him if you always trade him exactly what he requires?"    It was like no one ever thought of that and it mostly stopped.    He got ****** a season or two later because no one was catering to his every need and asked to be replaced during spring training.

I'd almost be inclined to sitemail this guy and invite him to join one of my leagues.  I'd make it like, "There's this thread on the forums about you, and you might not care but the consensus seems to be you can only win by ripping guys off in trades...maybe you'd like to try and prove them wrong by joining my league?  I have this team, and this team, and this team available."

I would be interested to see his response, at the very least.