4/26/2013 4:05 PM
Posted by gillispie on 4/26/2013 3:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 4/26/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by crazyivan on 4/26/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):
as long as WIS is getting $12/season, i don't think they're much interested in enforcing a rule that will lower their profits.

If the bottom line is the main concern regarding this issue, I would suggest that in the long run, a game with fairly enforced rules and reasonable competitive balance is the best way to attract and retain players. Catering to established players at the expense of fairness (perceived or real) limits long term growth potential.

I think most new players look at 2 things when deciding if they are going to stay in this game. 1) Is it a fair game? and 2) Is there a reasonable chance for me to be successful? If a player answers 'no' to either, it's probably going to be a one-and-done. That can't be good for profits, especially when a lot of those new players come in with discounts.
 

i think some people are characterizing the defense as, some people want the rules not to apply to them. rather, some people think its a stupid rule, and should be changed. i dont think hardly anyone is arguing for keeping the rule, but not enforcing it - that is just retarded.

Well sure, that's not my argument either. The point is, that WAS the status quo (before you were bitten) - a rule wasn't being enforced. That is going to be seen as a fairness issue. 

And beyond that, if the answer is to do away with the restriction completely, I think we're back to the 2nd question -  does a player feel there a reasonable chance to be successful in that environment? I can tell you, it would be a lot more intimidating knowing not only am I up against more experienced coaches, but also coaches who may have access to multiple scouting budgets etc to use against me. From a profit standpoint, I don't think looking the other way OR removing the restriction completely is a better answer than due diligence to enforce existing rules and restrictions.

4/26/2013 4:17 PM
i think they can make whatever restriction they want, even a multiple team one, but you are eliminating opportunities for a user to have a team they want. there are two scenarios i would definitely have been a lot more OK with that don't involve removing the restriction completely:
1) if seble said you could not PICK UP a team within 1000 miles, regardless of division (so coaches who have not been accused of abuse, who have had teams a long time, dont suffer for doing nothing)
2) if seble came out when he made the rule, and made it clear coaches had to drop their teams, and he would hard enforce it - checking for teams in violation with a simple script or something. for that to be acceptable to me, there would need to be some consideration towards a graceful transition - like, you have 6 seasons to move, and then hes going to enforce it - something like that. i wouldnt have been thrilled, neither would some other coaches, but at least expectations would have been set appropriately.

the main issue now is that its unclear if seble would really give up all the users with multiple teams, or multiple teams within 1000 miles (depending which rule he went for), to pacify the guys who complained. seble has overreacted to the comments of a few on a number of occasions, resulting in significant over correction. if seble was going to stand by the rule and make it clear, and enforce it on everyone, at least id go "well, that sucks, but at least i understand". now its like, is seble just pacifying a couple as a means of punting? does he REALLY want to enforce this rule, or just to have the rule so he can get people off his back, and has a mechanism to deal with abuse? that is totally not clear, i think its very possible seble is hoping people mostly just dont get reported, and having a mechanism that only works BECAUSE you dont widely enforce it, well, thats not a mechanism i have any respect for.
4/26/2013 4:21 PM
I completely agree, it's all about due diligence.
4/26/2013 4:37 PM
and correctly setting consumer expectations - just like any other company who provides products or services (basically, all companies) has to. any time you dont set customer expectations appropriately, there is going to be a disturbance when those expectations clash with reality. the problem is here, nobody really knows what the hell is going on. coaches still insist to me they've reported users and gotten totally ignored, and not just the one guy who had recently gotten approval for a specific team like 850 miles away, after moving shortly before that. 

i think to some newer coaches, they read the rule, and go "oh, that makes sense" - which is fine. but if you've been here for a long time and watched, its a different perspective. in all aspects of fair play guidelines, the written rules and what is enforced are consistently inconsistent. admins have tried to avoid dealing with the abuse issue since the beginning of time (ok, since the beginning of HD). collusion between d1 teams is a MASSIVELY bigger issue than this, as many coaches have said, and admins avoid that like the plague, seble included. the problem is, they just keep kicking the can, trying to avoid dealing with it, and when that is the case - its impossible to guess how they will respond to certain situations. its a systemic problem, greater than multiple teams, and has been for many years. communication is required to provided clarity, and we dont have that, and actions are not consistent, so you cant work off actions, so where are you left? here, basically.
4/26/2013 5:07 PM
I get the collusion thing. In simulation games like this, the goal should be to make it structurally impossible. If that's not possible, the next best thing is to try to create an "audit trail", so when suspicions are raised, admins can look into it and go, yeah I see what you're talking about. It's probably a situation where the multiple IDs are just the low-hanging fruit right now. I imagine collusion between two players would be much harder to prove than multiple IDs, or collusion between two players in a household. It could be that they simply haven't come up with a good way to fight it yet. But if it's actually a consistent problem between a couple or a group of players, I would think there would be some patterns they would be able to see. And even just knowing that actions are being monitored might help curb it a little bit. 

On the other hand, I shudder to think about how much "collusion" there is in real life college basketball. Realism. 
4/27/2013 12:03 AM
Posted by pkoopman on 4/26/2013 5:07:00 PM (view original):
I get the collusion thing. In simulation games like this, the goal should be to make it structurally impossible. If that's not possible, the next best thing is to try to create an "audit trail", so when suspicions are raised, admins can look into it and go, yeah I see what you're talking about. It's probably a situation where the multiple IDs are just the low-hanging fruit right now. I imagine collusion between two players would be much harder to prove than multiple IDs, or collusion between two players in a household. It could be that they simply haven't come up with a good way to fight it yet. But if it's actually a consistent problem between a couple or a group of players, I would think there would be some patterns they would be able to see. And even just knowing that actions are being monitored might help curb it a little bit. 

On the other hand, I shudder to think about how much "collusion" there is in real life college basketball. Realism. 
You'd be an idiot to think across college sports information about recruits isn't exchanged. Example: low level d1 assistant finds unknown gem, tells bigger d1, who down the road helps this person find a better job.

Not to mention the scouting info they give out.
4/27/2013 12:22 AM
Posted by pkoopman on 4/26/2013 4:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie on 4/26/2013 3:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 4/26/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by crazyivan on 4/26/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):
as long as WIS is getting $12/season, i don't think they're much interested in enforcing a rule that will lower their profits.

If the bottom line is the main concern regarding this issue, I would suggest that in the long run, a game with fairly enforced rules and reasonable competitive balance is the best way to attract and retain players. Catering to established players at the expense of fairness (perceived or real) limits long term growth potential.

I think most new players look at 2 things when deciding if they are going to stay in this game. 1) Is it a fair game? and 2) Is there a reasonable chance for me to be successful? If a player answers 'no' to either, it's probably going to be a one-and-done. That can't be good for profits, especially when a lot of those new players come in with discounts.
 

i think some people are characterizing the defense as, some people want the rules not to apply to them. rather, some people think its a stupid rule, and should be changed. i dont think hardly anyone is arguing for keeping the rule, but not enforcing it - that is just retarded.

Well sure, that's not my argument either. The point is, that WAS the status quo (before you were bitten) - a rule wasn't being enforced. That is going to be seen as a fairness issue. 

And beyond that, if the answer is to do away with the restriction completely, I think we're back to the 2nd question -  does a player feel there a reasonable chance to be successful in that environment? I can tell you, it would be a lot more intimidating knowing not only am I up against more experienced coaches, but also coaches who may have access to multiple scouting budgets etc to use against me. From a profit standpoint, I don't think looking the other way OR removing the restriction completely is a better answer than due diligence to enforce existing rules and restrictions.

Posts like these make me think that the "innocent bystanders" don't understand how much (or actually little) buying FSS with a second school affects the recruiting process, and that's why I really think everyone should do it for at least one season to at least understand the concept/action, first hand.

Again, there are so many solutions to the FSS issue in HD, but instead one coach is singled out and made an example of, and that still really burns my ***.  Choose a solution, don't knee-jerk to a perceived "problem"...stinenavy (dshook30?)...

4/27/2013 1:55 AM
Posted by colonels19 on 4/27/2013 12:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 4/26/2013 4:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie on 4/26/2013 3:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 4/26/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by crazyivan on 4/26/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):
as long as WIS is getting $12/season, i don't think they're much interested in enforcing a rule that will lower their profits.

If the bottom line is the main concern regarding this issue, I would suggest that in the long run, a game with fairly enforced rules and reasonable competitive balance is the best way to attract and retain players. Catering to established players at the expense of fairness (perceived or real) limits long term growth potential.

I think most new players look at 2 things when deciding if they are going to stay in this game. 1) Is it a fair game? and 2) Is there a reasonable chance for me to be successful? If a player answers 'no' to either, it's probably going to be a one-and-done. That can't be good for profits, especially when a lot of those new players come in with discounts.
 

i think some people are characterizing the defense as, some people want the rules not to apply to them. rather, some people think its a stupid rule, and should be changed. i dont think hardly anyone is arguing for keeping the rule, but not enforcing it - that is just retarded.

Well sure, that's not my argument either. The point is, that WAS the status quo (before you were bitten) - a rule wasn't being enforced. That is going to be seen as a fairness issue. 

And beyond that, if the answer is to do away with the restriction completely, I think we're back to the 2nd question -  does a player feel there a reasonable chance to be successful in that environment? I can tell you, it would be a lot more intimidating knowing not only am I up against more experienced coaches, but also coaches who may have access to multiple scouting budgets etc to use against me. From a profit standpoint, I don't think looking the other way OR removing the restriction completely is a better answer than due diligence to enforce existing rules and restrictions.

Posts like these make me think that the "innocent bystanders" don't understand how much (or actually little) buying FSS with a second school affects the recruiting process, and that's why I really think everyone should do it for at least one season to at least understand the concept/action, first hand.

Again, there are so many solutions to the FSS issue in HD, but instead one coach is singled out and made an example of, and that still really burns my ***.  Choose a solution, don't knee-jerk to a perceived "problem"...stinenavy (dshook30?)...

i really dont agree with this... its cheating to share FSS data on multiple teams, i think everyone going out and trying it is a bad idea. plus, you have to pay. i just dont think thats the answer...

also, the whole point is, if you are sharing info on multiple teams, you are cheating, and there should be punishments for that, beyond having to give up one team. what i wonder is this - seble says he doesnt want multiple teams to reduce FSS sharing - i wonder if hes looked around to try to get a feel for how much its happening? like, does he really think its a major problem, or just a bunch of people worry it might be a problem? 

anyway, i think the standpoint of, to what magnitude is explicit cheating an advantage? is less important than the standpoint of, to what magnitude is having 2 teams and trying to play them fair, an advantage? if the answer is not much, i dont think its fair to assume everyone is cheating, most of the guys here are good guys, a lot of people are super passionate about this game, and i just dont think cheating is that rampant. maybe im naive, but i like to presume people are innocent unless there is a direct reason to think otherwise.
4/27/2013 3:30 AM
I have one login on the site. Three teams in three worlds. I have never had another team. My screen name is my name. Don Shook. 30 is the number I wore on my sports jerseys. I live in Amelia Ohio. I'm not on Facebook but in the phone book (if you can actually find one). I work at a broadcasting school and cover reds and bengals games on the side. I also do fill in traffic reporting. So sorry colonels your "investigation" was for nothing. Perhaps drinking and posting in the forums is a bad mix for you ;)

If there is someone who actually shares the same coaching style as me, I feel sorry for them. A gazillion seasons and no championships. That's a model to emulate! Maybe I'm supposed to be emulator. Well then I aparently suck at that too.

I have no doubt that the recruiting experience I just had wasn't the first time this type of thing happened in WIS and certainly won't be the last. I will still only have one login in any world I go in though. Not sure how this actually came up but I assure you I am the only me in the entire WIS network.
4/27/2013 10:31 AM
Posted by gillispie on 4/27/2013 1:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 4/27/2013 12:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 4/26/2013 4:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie on 4/26/2013 3:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 4/26/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by crazyivan on 4/26/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):
as long as WIS is getting $12/season, i don't think they're much interested in enforcing a rule that will lower their profits.

If the bottom line is the main concern regarding this issue, I would suggest that in the long run, a game with fairly enforced rules and reasonable competitive balance is the best way to attract and retain players. Catering to established players at the expense of fairness (perceived or real) limits long term growth potential.

I think most new players look at 2 things when deciding if they are going to stay in this game. 1) Is it a fair game? and 2) Is there a reasonable chance for me to be successful? If a player answers 'no' to either, it's probably going to be a one-and-done. That can't be good for profits, especially when a lot of those new players come in with discounts.
 

i think some people are characterizing the defense as, some people want the rules not to apply to them. rather, some people think its a stupid rule, and should be changed. i dont think hardly anyone is arguing for keeping the rule, but not enforcing it - that is just retarded.

Well sure, that's not my argument either. The point is, that WAS the status quo (before you were bitten) - a rule wasn't being enforced. That is going to be seen as a fairness issue. 

And beyond that, if the answer is to do away with the restriction completely, I think we're back to the 2nd question -  does a player feel there a reasonable chance to be successful in that environment? I can tell you, it would be a lot more intimidating knowing not only am I up against more experienced coaches, but also coaches who may have access to multiple scouting budgets etc to use against me. From a profit standpoint, I don't think looking the other way OR removing the restriction completely is a better answer than due diligence to enforce existing rules and restrictions.

Posts like these make me think that the "innocent bystanders" don't understand how much (or actually little) buying FSS with a second school affects the recruiting process, and that's why I really think everyone should do it for at least one season to at least understand the concept/action, first hand.

Again, there are so many solutions to the FSS issue in HD, but instead one coach is singled out and made an example of, and that still really burns my ***.  Choose a solution, don't knee-jerk to a perceived "problem"...stinenavy (dshook30?)...

i really dont agree with this... its cheating to share FSS data on multiple teams, i think everyone going out and trying it is a bad idea. plus, you have to pay. i just dont think thats the answer...

also, the whole point is, if you are sharing info on multiple teams, you are cheating, and there should be punishments for that, beyond having to give up one team. what i wonder is this - seble says he doesnt want multiple teams to reduce FSS sharing - i wonder if hes looked around to try to get a feel for how much its happening? like, does he really think its a major problem, or just a bunch of people worry it might be a problem? 

anyway, i think the standpoint of, to what magnitude is explicit cheating an advantage? is less important than the standpoint of, to what magnitude is having 2 teams and trying to play them fair, an advantage? if the answer is not much, i dont think its fair to assume everyone is cheating, most of the guys here are good guys, a lot of people are super passionate about this game, and i just dont think cheating is that rampant. maybe im naive, but i like to presume people are innocent unless there is a direct reason to think otherwise.
No offense, if you have 2 teams in the same world and aren't using them to supplement each other as far as FSS goes, then you're an idiot.  It's 100% unpoliceable...like I've said all along having teams 10 miles apart or 5000 miles apart has no bearing on FSS cost, so one of the solutions that have been mentioned (make FSS free, make FSS only visible for your division and/or pulldowns/dropdowns, allow users to carry 1 team at each division in each world under 1 ID, etc) needs to be implemented stat.  People need to understand that the 1000-mile minimum is arbitrary and pointless, it does nothing to curb "cheating" which is mainly buying FSS with one school for the other/both schools...there really isn't anyway else you can cheat.  The way that dshook30's guys were poached, wasn't really cheating, it was just that the guy did it with 2 IDs like an idiot....but beyond that again, there's no way to cheat.
4/27/2013 11:00 AM
Posted by colonels19 on 4/27/2013 12:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 4/26/2013 4:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie on 4/26/2013 3:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pkoopman on 4/26/2013 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by crazyivan on 4/26/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):
as long as WIS is getting $12/season, i don't think they're much interested in enforcing a rule that will lower their profits.

If the bottom line is the main concern regarding this issue, I would suggest that in the long run, a game with fairly enforced rules and reasonable competitive balance is the best way to attract and retain players. Catering to established players at the expense of fairness (perceived or real) limits long term growth potential.

I think most new players look at 2 things when deciding if they are going to stay in this game. 1) Is it a fair game? and 2) Is there a reasonable chance for me to be successful? If a player answers 'no' to either, it's probably going to be a one-and-done. That can't be good for profits, especially when a lot of those new players come in with discounts.
 

i think some people are characterizing the defense as, some people want the rules not to apply to them. rather, some people think its a stupid rule, and should be changed. i dont think hardly anyone is arguing for keeping the rule, but not enforcing it - that is just retarded.

Well sure, that's not my argument either. The point is, that WAS the status quo (before you were bitten) - a rule wasn't being enforced. That is going to be seen as a fairness issue. 

And beyond that, if the answer is to do away with the restriction completely, I think we're back to the 2nd question -  does a player feel there a reasonable chance to be successful in that environment? I can tell you, it would be a lot more intimidating knowing not only am I up against more experienced coaches, but also coaches who may have access to multiple scouting budgets etc to use against me. From a profit standpoint, I don't think looking the other way OR removing the restriction completely is a better answer than due diligence to enforce existing rules and restrictions.

Posts like these make me think that the "innocent bystanders" don't understand how much (or actually little) buying FSS with a second school affects the recruiting process, and that's why I really think everyone should do it for at least one season to at least understand the concept/action, first hand.

Again, there are so many solutions to the FSS issue in HD, but instead one coach is singled out and made an example of, and that still really burns my ***.  Choose a solution, don't knee-jerk to a perceived "problem"...stinenavy (dshook30?)...

There is a good chance I am missing something here and I really don't want  to go back and reread all about these multiple team threads.  I have engaged in too many battles (I only play DIII and DII) especially in my first several season.  Some I won, but most I lost.  I know, based on the back and forth scholarship messages, that I have been very close on a few of those battles I lost.  If I had the, say, $2,500 extra at DIII that I saved on FSS because I bought them with another one of IDs (I only have one ID) I am sure I would have won at least a couple of those battles. 

I haven't done it first hand, but I could project how differently my recruiting battles could go if I had that extra money in the lower divisions. 

I agree that Gillespie is probably getting screwed by CS not being more diligent in enforcing the rules, but if they were more diligent he would have been asked to move from one of his schools anyway.

I also disagree with another statement that I read in one of the posts, that if CS did enforce the 1000 mile rule that there would be a mass exodus of coaches.  I understand that many teams would go back to simmy control and that is a bad thing, but why would the coaches leave the game entirely?  They go from loving the game so much that they have 15 teams to hating the game and leaving because now they can only have 10 teams?  That just doesn't seem logical to me.


4/27/2013 11:11 AM
It's the principle of it, coupled with the fact that there's no clear course of action in dealing with the matter, I mean hell, coach_billyg disappeared/was forced out faster than a Russian politician.

There are ways to shore up the rules to allow everyone to keep what they have, but everyone is interested in stripping coaches of their teams instead, and that's personally what I resent.  The swiftness by which billyg was simply whisked away was alarming as well, again with no clear cut course of action for these kinds of issues going forth.   If you've "cheated" before, you understand how pointless and arbitrary the 1000 mile rule is...it holds ZERO weight/bearing.

4/27/2013 11:26 AM
Everyone?  I think at most it's just a vocal minority.

Colonels, you have made it clear that you are upset by this issue.  I think you are more upset than gillispie.  He said that many people have site mailed him and told him that, while they believe the rule should be enforced, they are sorry that he is the one to to lose a team over the issue.  Why is this being prolonged?

4/27/2013 11:41 AM
I was just responding to your post.  Saying "everyone" was a bit of a stretch, but I think this thing gained steam after the dshook30 poaching incident and it seems that peoples' "cheating" radars are quite sensitive these days.  It may be the rule, but it's a dumb rule.  Enforcing a dumb rule doesn't solve this problem, and for only ONE person to suffer under a rule that's probably/eventually going to change or that a solution will be created for, is bullshit.  Whatever happens going forth, billyg will always be the one that was most ****** by this, and by a wide margin, and if you think he's not ****** because he's done talking about it, you're crazy.

I speak out because we need a resolution, not a hanging and claiming the problem is solved.

4/27/2013 12:03 PM
I am also on the side that believes this game is for fun and the rules should be written and enforced in a way that provides the most fun for its users. That has been used as a reason why multiple ids should be allowed, because this game is just for fun.  Well, knowing I am going against coaches that have multiple IDs and teams in the same world does make the game somewhat less fun for me.  When I started a in Knight there was a coach there who had a another ID and would schedule his two teams to play each other every season.  He actually wrote in the CC that everyone in our conference should schedule his alternate team in non conference to help get more wins for us.  If he is willing to do that, why wouldn't he use one team's funds to recruit for the other?  That made that conference a lot less fun for me.

I don't like the idea of multiple teams in a world, but I also don't wish anything bad on those who have multiple ids.  Again this sucks for coach billyg, (and I am sure he is ******, although I still might be crazy), but I think it is better for the game.  Had I known when I first signed up that this was done, I might not have invested so much time and effort

of 4

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.