4/15/2013 1:34 PM

You're ignoring the fact that owners CAN join now AND still LEAVE if the world doesn't fill quickly.   Under your scenario, that would no longer be true. 

Do you really not think that a somewhat experienced owner looking to play would be less likely to jump in a world if he knew he could not get out if it doesn't fill quickly enough?   Currently, we are looking at this:

Here I Go Again 12 View 9 Moving to Next Season Purchase
Robinson 28 -- 5 Moving to Next Season Purchase
National Hardball League 26 -- 9 Moving to Next Season Purchase

And this:

ARomano 18 -- Yes ARomano 0 Eligible for rollover starting on 4/16
FizWorld 25 View Yes bigFiz 0 Eligible for rollover starting on 4/16
Ford 27 View No   0 Eligible for rollover starting on 4/16
Gleeman World 2 16 View Yes aarongleeman 0 Eligible for rollover starting on 4/18
Hardball Central 16 View Yes djbradford 0 Simulating World Series
No Trade Clause 8 View Yes mhulshult 0 Eligible for rollover starting on 4/16
Berra 27 -- No   1 Simulating World Series
Rice Not Lynn 23 View Yes cheez791 1 Simulating World Series
Spawn 19 -- Yes smanfredo 1 Simulating World Series
Stickball 21 View Yes mr_stickball 2 Placeholder Day
Hometown 22 View Yes bjharder 3 Simulating Regular Season Games
Jose Can U C 20 View Yes bullet6464 3 Simulating Regular Season Games
NCAA 20 View Yes hopkinsheel 3 Simulating Regular Season Games


Do you not think someone looking to join wouldn't wait 3 days to see what's up BEFORE joining a world with 5-9 openings?

4/15/2013 1:59 PM
Posted by KPMcClave on 4/15/2013 1:26:00 PM (view original):

it seems that, while we agree that there are other reasons for the issue I raised, the primary one is likely that owners want to play and not sit and wait. That's why they play musical chairs with teams. If everyone hasn't agreed with that, it seems there is consensus at least.

Some owners may not like a world, but in my experience virtually nothing offensive happens in the window of time we're discussing. The saber rattling starts with the first questioned trade or the "calling out" of the guy using a High A caliber player as his #1 SP. In other words, once the season gets under way.

So, if owner impatience is the problem I'm addressing, why would the suggestion *not* have a psoitive effect? You can't just say "owners won't join, they'll wait" as if there's reason to believe that. Maybe *you* would, but it is 180 degrees from the behavior that the group of owners in question has been displaying up to now. 

Nothing good can come from forcing people to wait out a world that is taking too long to fill.

Sometimes a bad solution to a problem is better than no solution at all.  This is NOT one of those instances.  This is just a bad solution, period.
4/15/2013 2:43 PM (edited)
Mike, first of all, neither of us really "knows" in the purest sense what would happen. So, no I don't know that owners wouldn't wait, nor do I know that they would.

More to your point though, no, I don't think the net result of the rule would be that enough owners would wait to make the current situation worse. I don't believe that even a little bit.
4/15/2013 2:45 PM
I think you're misjudging the market and underestimating the intelligence of current HBD players.

The info on which worlds are about to roll is available to everyone.   There is no mystery. 
4/15/2013 5:22 PM
Ultimately, it doesn't matter, as we're clearly only talking amongst ourselves.
4/15/2013 7:06 PM
I think we can agree on that.
4/15/2013 7:44 PM
Posted by joshkvt on 4/14/2013 11:46:00 PM (view original):
Trying to find ways to get worlds to fill is good, but as noted above this creates more issues than it solves. New owner decides HBD looks like fun, plunks down his money, finds a world/team and signs up. A week later, he's tired of reading through the useful forum posts one more time and really wants to play a game. Or set a budget. Or hire a coach. But he can't leave. Support says sorry, those are the rules. If the new owner is me, my next step is to call my credit card company to dispute the charge based on not getting what I paid for. What do you think the odds are that I ever try again?

Someone new to HBD isn't going to know to check out the world chat, look for absurd win-loss extremes, franchise hoppers, collusion problems, etc., before signing up. We want people who try out HBD to have the best experience they can, and if that means changing their mind about a world, good for them. Better they end up in a world they like. If you lose an owner who does not want to be in the world, you have lost nothing.

A basic truth remains: Good worlds fill.
To elaborate on this, when you purchase seasons, you actually have a contract with WIS.  You paid money and they provide access to season(s) of the particular game.   A person who bought a season should have a reasonable assurance that the season(s) he/she purchased should be able to use them within the guidelines at the user's convenience.   What happens when 25 owners are locked in and the world does not fill for months?    What will happen is you get 25 owners who resent the policy and cut back or leave WIS due to this?  What if they claim breach of contact?    Such a policy would open up a can of worms
4/16/2013 9:20 AM
KPM's intentions are good.   But the idea is ineffective.   I recall a similar idea that was equally ineffective.   It was only allowing two open, two private worlds to be available at any given point in time.  As with this one, it was essentially "forcing" owners into worlds.   Which was something that wouldn't work because, if I wanted to be in World G, I don't really give a rip about the openings in Worlds A-F.   I'd wait.
4/16/2013 11:08 AM
Posted by KPMcClave on 4/15/2013 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 4/13/2013 10:16:00 PM (view original):
"The world in question..." does appear to be a central reason for your original suggestion.  "The world in question..." rolled over on Feb 22nd and still has 7 openings due to people joining and then leaving.  It's pretty easy to interpret the frustration on the world chat.  These things are not coincidental.
Yes, I'm lying and it's never, ever happned in any world I've ever been in before. I've never ever posted the issue to other World Chats in the past couple of years. I lie all the time about a made up game with made up players that I play against aliases and people trying to lose on purpose.

You caught me.

These Suggestion threads result in such productive discourse.

 


These suggestion threads do result in productive discourse and this thread is an example of that.  You and I disagree on this subject, it's nothing personal.
4/16/2013 11:17 AM
Posted by KPMcClave on 4/15/2013 5:22:00 PM (view original):
Ultimately, it doesn't matter, as we're clearly only talking amongst ourselves.
Lol, that is Truth.
4/16/2013 11:30 AM (edited)
Posted by gomiami1972 on 4/16/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by KPMcClave on 4/15/2013 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 4/13/2013 10:16:00 PM (view original):
"The world in question..." does appear to be a central reason for your original suggestion.  "The world in question..." rolled over on Feb 22nd and still has 7 openings due to people joining and then leaving.  It's pretty easy to interpret the frustration on the world chat.  These things are not coincidental.
Yes, I'm lying and it's never, ever happned in any world I've ever been in before. I've never ever posted the issue to other World Chats in the past couple of years. I lie all the time about a made up game with made up players that I play against aliases and people trying to lose on purpose.

You caught me.

These Suggestion threads result in such productive discourse.

 


These suggestion threads do result in productive discourse and this thread is an example of that.  You and I disagree on this subject, it's nothing personal.
Disagreeing with me wasn't the issue. You implied I was not being truthful in my statement that the NHL world wasn't the driving factor in my posting. As if being on WiS for 10 years, HBD since the day it launched, and playing in various worlds public and private offered me no other perspective than my current frustration.

As with the other handful of suggestions I've made on this forum, they come from a broader experience than one world or I wouldn't have bothered to offer them.

In a case where taking me at my word causes nobody any harm, I don't take kindly to being portrayed as a liar.

4/16/2013 11:31 AM (edited)
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/16/2013 9:20:00 AM (view original):
KPM's intentions are good.   But the idea is ineffective.   I recall a similar idea that was equally ineffective.   It was only allowing two open, two private worlds to be available at any given point in time.  As with this one, it was essentially "forcing" owners into worlds.   Which was something that wouldn't work because, if I wanted to be in World G, I don't really give a rip about the openings in Worlds A-F.   I'd wait.

Again, I think this misses the point that nobody is being "forced" in to a world they haven't already been joining under current circumstances.

Which brings us back to our main sticking point. You think owners will start to wait it out without joining and I don't think they will in significant numbers.

Given that neither of us can "prove" our opinions in the purest sense, I don't see why trying the suggestion would be harrmful. If I'm wrong, for which I allow, then rescind the rule (as they did with the ineffective rule you mentioned).

Clearly, the current situation is far from ideal. Doing nothing seems a bad idea.

4/16/2013 11:32 AM
Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something wrong.   While the majority isn't always right, the majority of the folks in this thread disagree with the original suggestion.   In fact, I'm not sure anyone has agreed with it.

As for your tiff with gomiami, I'd venture to say that 98% of the suggestions in this forum are based on one's current, individual situation.    It's reasonably fair for him to assume this suggestion was based on your specific situation.   No idea if he implied you were lying as I hadn't read your first exchange.
4/16/2013 12:45 PM
Posted by KPMcClave on 4/16/2013 11:30:00 AM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 4/16/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by KPMcClave on 4/15/2013 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gomiami1972 on 4/13/2013 10:16:00 PM (view original):
"The world in question..." does appear to be a central reason for your original suggestion.  "The world in question..." rolled over on Feb 22nd and still has 7 openings due to people joining and then leaving.  It's pretty easy to interpret the frustration on the world chat.  These things are not coincidental.
Yes, I'm lying and it's never, ever happned in any world I've ever been in before. I've never ever posted the issue to other World Chats in the past couple of years. I lie all the time about a made up game with made up players that I play against aliases and people trying to lose on purpose.

You caught me.

These Suggestion threads result in such productive discourse.

 


These suggestion threads do result in productive discourse and this thread is an example of that.  You and I disagree on this subject, it's nothing personal.
Disagreeing with me wasn't the issue. You implied I was not being truthful in my statement that the NHL world wasn't the driving factor in my posting. As if being on WiS for 10 years, HBD since the day it launched, and playing in various worlds public and private offered me no other perspective than my current frustration.

As with the other handful of suggestions I've made on this forum, they come from a broader experience than one world or I wouldn't have bothered to offer them.

In a case where taking me at my word causes nobody any harm, I don't take kindly to being portrayed as a liar.

I am basing my opinion on the posts I have seen you make on this thread as well as those on the NHL world chat.

I stand by the opinion that the timing of your suggestion, in the midst of the NHL world's implosion, are not coincidential and are linked.  If you are offended by that, then so be it.  It is completely within your purview to be offended or not.
of 5

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.