I don't understand how the guy can say "How would that be collusion". 

Well, he's the kinda guy who would send that message in the first place, so I guess it's clear he doesn't have much of a grasp on what collusion is.

the confusion comes from people looking at the colloquial use of "collusion" which involves 2 or more people scheming for a common purpose. WIS has expanded its definition of collusion (for purposes of the rules and fairness) to include, among other things, anything that gives one person access to information that isn't readily available to all other coaches, assuming all factors are equal. (e.g., if two coaches had the same recruiting cash, they could both purchase FSS or an eval; but asking a coach what his intentions with a specific recruit are makes the availability of the information beyond the scope and/or control of the program, and is therefore prohibited as collusion). so i get why if we give the coach the benefit of the doubt he didn't get that its collusion per se, but how does he not get that its cheating? inappropriate? etc., even after it was pointed out to him?!?!

Posted by jtt8355 on 5/8/2014 3:49:00 PM (view original):
the confusion comes from people looking at the colloquial use of "collusion" which involves 2 or more people scheming for a common purpose. WIS has expanded its definition of collusion (for purposes of the rules and fairness) to include, among other things, anything that gives one person access to information that isn't readily available to all other coaches, assuming all factors are equal. (e.g., if two coaches had the same recruiting cash, they could both purchase FSS or an eval; but asking a coach what his intentions with a specific recruit are makes the availability of the information beyond the scope and/or control of the program, and is therefore prohibited as collusion). so i get why if we give the coach the benefit of the doubt he didn't get that its collusion per se, but how does he not get that its cheating? inappropriate? etc., even after it was pointed out to him?!?!

maybe he is related to a certain fellow who has recently infiltrated our beloved forums? 

I never talk to anyone who I am recruiting against in site mail ... I might post something in the coach's corner during recruiting.

It is collusion for two people to trade any information that is not available to everyone else ... that's just the way it is.

Even in the coach's corner, I would not post things that are clearly collusive ... like, hey "Coach A", I am going to stop recruiting "Recruit A", so get him if you want ...

The bottom line is, there is absolutely no reason to have private conversations between two coaches during recruiting.  The only exception to this would be private conversations for mentoring ... and even then the mentor would need to be careful not to give information that the other coach does not have (ie, make sure the mentee has purchased the proper FSS before discussing potential of a recruit, etc)

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/8/2014 4:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jtt8355 on 5/8/2014 3:49:00 PM (view original):
the confusion comes from people looking at the colloquial use of "collusion" which involves 2 or more people scheming for a common purpose. WIS has expanded its definition of collusion (for purposes of the rules and fairness) to include, among other things, anything that gives one person access to information that isn't readily available to all other coaches, assuming all factors are equal. (e.g., if two coaches had the same recruiting cash, they could both purchase FSS or an eval; but asking a coach what his intentions with a specific recruit are makes the availability of the information beyond the scope and/or control of the program, and is therefore prohibited as collusion). so i get why if we give the coach the benefit of the doubt he didn't get that its collusion per se, but how does he not get that its cheating? inappropriate? etc., even after it was pointed out to him?!?!

maybe he is related to a certain fellow who has recently infiltrated our beloved forums? 

that certain fellow is one of 3 coaches that i've blocked. (i think the other 2 don't even post in the forums anymore.)  its annoying when people quote him and i end up reading his drivel...

I'm not saying I don't think it's collusion (and I don't use these tactics), but how is that information not available to everybody...if you don't know something simply because you failed to ask, then??????

The case, in my opinion, that could truly be viewed as collusion is if a coach only gave that info to some users and not others.

nacho: once the site doesn't control who the information is accessible to, it falls within HD's definition of collusion. OP could theoretically give the information to one coach and arbitrarily withhold it from a second coach. that's why the dissemination of any information from one coach to another in a forum that's not public is collusion. i stress not public because imho, if someone posts something in a forum or coaches' corner, it should not be considered collusion. though i believe that standard has been debated in other forums...

Posted by ettaexpress on 5/8/2014 1:06:00 AM (view original):
It was me. I mean I get blamed for everything else here, I might as well get blamed for this too.

This is one of the few aspects of real life that it's probably best to leave out of the game.

Etta, you are not a victim.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/8/2014 7:02:00 PM (view original):
I'm not saying I don't think it's collusion (and I don't use these tactics), but how is that information not available to everybody...if you don't know something simply because you failed to ask, then??????

The case, in my opinion, that could truly be viewed as collusion is if a coach only gave that info to some users and not others.

hey nacho, if you were to say, as long as the coach tells everyone who asks, if he tells at least one person - then it would be ok for me to ask the top local coaches who they were going for, and if they answered, and nobody asked, now i would have a tremendous advantage - i could then avoid all those players! that is basically collusion at its worst. i guess it doesn't really make sense to me that the mechanism of asking somehow makes a difference - collusion in HD is getting information from a coach that gives you an advantage over other coaches.

also, FYI, seble has already made WIS's stance on this clear - asking for information like this is collusion - regardless of if you get an answer or not!! he even said, specifically, its collusion to ask the coach of a transfer, what that transfer's potential was. that is terribly minor compared to information about who someone is recruiting, but thats not allowed, so the case in this thread definitely is not allowed!

Posted by jtt8355 on 5/8/2014 2:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tcplotts on 5/8/2014 2:44:00 PM (view original):
easier solution would be to install a sitemail comm block during recruiting period. affects everyone equally. all comms would have to be done on public boards.

tc: there are too many problems with that. for one, people have teams across multiple worlds, so whatever they might be using the sm for in another world would be affected (for example, i give a running commentary for my conf mates on all of our post season match ups in naismith that i wouldn't want any of our opponents to see). also, when i was learning the game i'd reach out to some of my mentors (cjwolf, rogelio) during recruiting by sitemail to get their thoughts on my efforts, battles, recruits, etc. this is another thing that i wouldn't want being made public and we would / should never want to do anything that might discourage anybody wanting to learn the game from reaching out to more experienced HD'ers.

yeah, i didnt even think about multiple accounts and game. Guess you can just hope that this sort of thing isn't widespread. New players are ata disadvantage as it is without having to run up against a cartel of insiders trading information.

Posted by jtt8355 on 5/8/2014 7:25:00 PM (view original):
nacho: once the site doesn't control who the information is accessible to, it falls within HD's definition of collusion. OP could theoretically give the information to one coach and arbitrarily withhold it from a second coach. that's why the dissemination of any information from one coach to another in a forum that's not public is collusion. i stress not public because imho, if someone posts something in a forum or coaches' corner, it should not be considered collusion. though i believe that standard has been debated in other forums...

For the sake of argument, assuming the parameters for collusion you laid out accurately reflect those HD, then it would be perfectly acceptable to get on a coaches corner or world forum and release all the potentials for players in the state of Florida because it's a public forum.

Nobody is required to divulge info, especially info that only pertains to themself, which is why as long as the person doing so offered the same info to all inquirers then it couldn't be considered collusion.

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/8/2014 7:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/8/2014 7:02:00 PM (view original):
I'm not saying I don't think it's collusion (and I don't use these tactics), but how is that information not available to everybody...if you don't know something simply because you failed to ask, then??????

The case, in my opinion, that could truly be viewed as collusion is if a coach only gave that info to some users and not others.

hey nacho, if you were to say, as long as the coach tells everyone who asks, if he tells at least one person - then it would be ok for me to ask the top local coaches who they were going for, and if they answered, and nobody asked, now i would have a tremendous advantage - i could then avoid all those players! that is basically collusion at its worst. i guess it doesn't really make sense to me that the mechanism of asking somehow makes a difference - collusion in HD is getting information from a coach that gives you an advantage over other coaches.

also, FYI, seble has already made WIS's stance on this clear - asking for information like this is collusion - regardless of if you get an answer or not!! he even said, specifically, its collusion to ask the coach of a transfer, what that transfer's potential was. that is terribly minor compared to information about who someone is recruiting, but thats not allowed, so the case in this thread definitely is not allowed!

Disclaimer: I'm aware the action I'm defending is recognized by the site admins as illegal and/or inappropriate, and I do not engage in such practices, despite my difference of opinion on the subject.

As far as your first paragraph goes and especially your last sentence: If you FSS a state and nobody else FSSs that state...do you not have a tremendous advantage? If so, does that advantage come from you being the only person able to FSS that state or from nobody else taking the opportunity to FSS that same state?

I think the answer is pretty obvious, which is why IMHO it's only collusion if a coach only reveals personal preferences to specific users instead of all inquiring users.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/8/2014 7:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jtt8355 on 5/8/2014 7:25:00 PM (view original):
nacho: once the site doesn't control who the information is accessible to, it falls within HD's definition of collusion. OP could theoretically give the information to one coach and arbitrarily withhold it from a second coach. that's why the dissemination of any information from one coach to another in a forum that's not public is collusion. i stress not public because imho, if someone posts something in a forum or coaches' corner, it should not be considered collusion. though i believe that standard has been debated in other forums...

For the sake of argument, assuming the parameters for collusion you laid out accurately reflect those HD, then it would be perfectly acceptable to get on a coaches corner or world forum and release all the potentials for players in the state of Florida because it's a public forum.

Nobody is required to divulge info, especially info that only pertains to themself, which is why as long as the person doing so offered the same info to all inquirers then it couldn't be considered collusion.

I guarantee you that if you put it out there that you will give whoever asks info on what recruits that are low on your list or whatever, and then do so through site mail, you'd get in trouble for collusion.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/8/2014 7:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/8/2014 7:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/8/2014 7:02:00 PM (view original):
I'm not saying I don't think it's collusion (and I don't use these tactics), but how is that information not available to everybody...if you don't know something simply because you failed to ask, then??????

The case, in my opinion, that could truly be viewed as collusion is if a coach only gave that info to some users and not others.

hey nacho, if you were to say, as long as the coach tells everyone who asks, if he tells at least one person - then it would be ok for me to ask the top local coaches who they were going for, and if they answered, and nobody asked, now i would have a tremendous advantage - i could then avoid all those players! that is basically collusion at its worst. i guess it doesn't really make sense to me that the mechanism of asking somehow makes a difference - collusion in HD is getting information from a coach that gives you an advantage over other coaches.

also, FYI, seble has already made WIS's stance on this clear - asking for information like this is collusion - regardless of if you get an answer or not!! he even said, specifically, its collusion to ask the coach of a transfer, what that transfer's potential was. that is terribly minor compared to information about who someone is recruiting, but thats not allowed, so the case in this thread definitely is not allowed!

Disclaimer: I'm aware the action I'm defending is recognized by the site admins as illegal and/or inappropriate, and I do not engage in such practices, despite my difference of opinion on the subject.

As far as your first paragraph goes and especially your last sentence: If you FSS a state and nobody else FSSs that state...do you not have a tremendous advantage? If so, does that advantage come from you being the only person able to FSS that state or from nobody else taking the opportunity to FSS that same state?

I think the answer is pretty obvious, which is why IMHO it's only collusion if a coach only reveals personal preferences to specific users instead of all inquiring users.

Except that WIS has made it expressly clear that just asking for this information is in and of itself for the purposes of WIS considered collusion. By the common definition of collusion, The infraction here is only an attempt to collude. It would have only been actual collusion if the OP divulged the information. But again for the purposes of WIS just the act of asking is considered collusion.