Posted by vandydave on 8/27/2010 10:33:00 AM (view original):

once again, nothing against the original poster, glad he is happy and got his player back. but the precedent now is you can get wis to undo/redo anything you did based upon a misclick principle, because wis cant judge people's intentions, they simply must take users at their word or take no one at their word.

i misclicked "offer redshirt" during recruiting and didn't realize it, please undo this.

i misclicked "Always Double-team" when i intended "If Leading Scorer", please re-sim my game.

i misclicked "10 home visits" when i only meant "1".

yes, these examples aren't identical, but the principle of wis happily and voluntarily undoing our mistakes is a nice one but a terribly slippery slope. what about the person who accidently releases a player and doesnt realize they can simply send a ticket, but assume the "are you sure" safeguards are the final word they seem intended to be?

i like wis users being happy, but not at the expense of fairness and consistency.

VD, I don't really think those examples are all that analagous.

First, you can easily undo things like offer redshirt or taking away offered home visits on your own, you don't need WIS to rectify that for you. Second, we're talking about small potatoes there compared with the two circumstances that WIS has shown themselves willing to step in -- accidentally dropping a player and accidentally losing your team by not renewing on time.

I appreciate your slippery slope point, but I actually think it's pretty clear when WIS will and won't step in.

Posted by vandydave on 8/27/2010 10:33:00 AM (view original):

once again, nothing against the original poster, glad he is happy and got his player back. but the precedent now is you can get wis to undo/redo anything you did based upon a misclick principle, because wis cant judge people's intentions, they simply must take users at their word or take no one at their word.

i misclicked "offer redshirt" during recruiting and didn't realize it, please undo this.

i misclicked "Always Double-team" when i intended "If Leading Scorer", please re-sim my game.

i misclicked "10 home visits" when i only meant "1".

yes, these examples aren't identical, but the principle of wis happily and voluntarily undoing our mistakes is a nice one but a terribly slippery slope. what about the person who accidently releases a player and doesnt realize they can simply send a ticket, but assume the "are you sure" safeguards are the final word they seem intended to be?

i like wis users being happy, but not at the expense of fairness and consistency.

If you think they will undo recruiting efforts or re-do game results based on this 'precedent', you must be new here.

Posted by isack24 on 8/27/2010 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by daalter on 8/27/2010 1:09:00 AM (view original):
I disagree, isack. Yes, we're competing against each other, but it's still a game. If someone makes an honest mistake that's so obvious and can have significant long-term repercussions, I'm glad that it can be fixed for them. People forget to renew all the time and get reinstated to their teams, just another example. Honestly, I think it's a good example of common sense and customer service winning out, and I don't really see a legitimate negative that would arise from it.

Unless I'm wrong, you can only rescind between rollover and signings, right?

I'm not sure there is ever a totally obvious mistake during or near recruiting.  I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm sure it was, but how can WIS really know that you didn't just regret making some dumb, drunk strategic decision right before or during recruiting?

Anyway, that's not my point.  It's that WIS now has forced themselves to draw some arbitrary line on user "misclicks." 

Yeah, this opens up a new issue. During recruiting you have a small window to cut. You kind of got to guess if your players will sign, and if you'll have enough money to cut someone and replace him. There has been a couple times I cut a player, and then lost a battle for a guy and ended up taking a walk on. Now, I could just say I didn't mean to cut him and get him back rather then the walk on.

If you cut someone, don't they go back into the player pool?  So another coach could then start to put money into them once recruiting starts?

If that's true (and if not, just stop reading now and tell me I'm wrong), I think this was easy for WIS to correct because he did it inside the window of the season rolling but recruiting not yet starting.  If recruiting had started they would have had a much harder time reversing it because other coaches either could have already put money into the recruit or had been waiting on him - that would have been a mess and I doubt they would have tried it at that point.

This was just simple for them to reverse, so they did it.  I think it was the right call and I don't think it would go down the slippery slope like the examples that have been posted on here due to the circumstances involved.  But I certainly understand the concern.

Posted by antonsirius on 8/27/2010 11:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 8/27/2010 10:33:00 AM (view original):

once again, nothing against the original poster, glad he is happy and got his player back. but the precedent now is you can get wis to undo/redo anything you did based upon a misclick principle, because wis cant judge people's intentions, they simply must take users at their word or take no one at their word.

i misclicked "offer redshirt" during recruiting and didn't realize it, please undo this.

i misclicked "Always Double-team" when i intended "If Leading Scorer", please re-sim my game.

i misclicked "10 home visits" when i only meant "1".

yes, these examples aren't identical, but the principle of wis happily and voluntarily undoing our mistakes is a nice one but a terribly slippery slope. what about the person who accidently releases a player and doesnt realize they can simply send a ticket, but assume the "are you sure" safeguards are the final word they seem intended to be?

i like wis users being happy, but not at the expense of fairness and consistency.

If you think they will undo recruiting efforts or re-do game results based on this 'precedent', you must be new here.

Exactly... these guys for some reason dont like someone's honest mistake being fixed so they are throwing out garbage reasons of why it shouldn't have been. Obviously there is a huge difference between someone accidently cutting someone then there is someone accidently doubling someone and demanding to re sim the game. WIS can prove that he had a misclick by simply looking to see if the player was redshirted right before he was cut.

wis can never ever prove a misclick. ridiculous.

Posted by tmacfan12 on 8/27/2010 12:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 8/27/2010 11:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 8/27/2010 10:33:00 AM (view original):

once again, nothing against the original poster, glad he is happy and got his player back. but the precedent now is you can get wis to undo/redo anything you did based upon a misclick principle, because wis cant judge people's intentions, they simply must take users at their word or take no one at their word.

i misclicked "offer redshirt" during recruiting and didn't realize it, please undo this.

i misclicked "Always Double-team" when i intended "If Leading Scorer", please re-sim my game.

i misclicked "10 home visits" when i only meant "1".

yes, these examples aren't identical, but the principle of wis happily and voluntarily undoing our mistakes is a nice one but a terribly slippery slope. what about the person who accidently releases a player and doesnt realize they can simply send a ticket, but assume the "are you sure" safeguards are the final word they seem intended to be?

i like wis users being happy, but not at the expense of fairness and consistency.

If you think they will undo recruiting efforts or re-do game results based on this 'precedent', you must be new here.

Exactly... these guys for some reason dont like someone's honest mistake being fixed so they are throwing out garbage reasons of why it shouldn't have been. Obviously there is a huge difference between someone accidently cutting someone then there is someone accidently doubling someone and demanding to re sim the game. WIS can prove that he had a misclick by simply looking to see if the player was redshirted right before he was cut.

Comprehension fail.

Posted by girt25 on 8/27/2010 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 8/27/2010 10:33:00 AM (view original):

once again, nothing against the original poster, glad he is happy and got his player back. but the precedent now is you can get wis to undo/redo anything you did based upon a misclick principle, because wis cant judge people's intentions, they simply must take users at their word or take no one at their word.

i misclicked "offer redshirt" during recruiting and didn't realize it, please undo this.

i misclicked "Always Double-team" when i intended "If Leading Scorer", please re-sim my game.

i misclicked "10 home visits" when i only meant "1".

yes, these examples aren't identical, but the principle of wis happily and voluntarily undoing our mistakes is a nice one but a terribly slippery slope. what about the person who accidently releases a player and doesnt realize they can simply send a ticket, but assume the "are you sure" safeguards are the final word they seem intended to be?

i like wis users being happy, but not at the expense of fairness and consistency.

VD, I don't really think those examples are all that analagous.

First, you can easily undo things like offer redshirt or taking away offered home visits on your own, you don't need WIS to rectify that for you. Second, we're talking about small potatoes there compared with the two circumstances that WIS has shown themselves willing to step in -- accidentally dropping a player and accidentally losing your team by not renewing on time.

I appreciate your slippery slope point, but I actually think it's pretty clear when WIS will and won't step in.

what about the person who accidentally does it and doesnt know wis will magically undue their "mistakes"?

Posted by vandydave on 8/27/2010 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 8/27/2010 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 8/27/2010 10:33:00 AM (view original):

once again, nothing against the original poster, glad he is happy and got his player back. but the precedent now is you can get wis to undo/redo anything you did based upon a misclick principle, because wis cant judge people's intentions, they simply must take users at their word or take no one at their word.

i misclicked "offer redshirt" during recruiting and didn't realize it, please undo this.

i misclicked "Always Double-team" when i intended "If Leading Scorer", please re-sim my game.

i misclicked "10 home visits" when i only meant "1".

yes, these examples aren't identical, but the principle of wis happily and voluntarily undoing our mistakes is a nice one but a terribly slippery slope. what about the person who accidently releases a player and doesnt realize they can simply send a ticket, but assume the "are you sure" safeguards are the final word they seem intended to be?

i like wis users being happy, but not at the expense of fairness and consistency.

VD, I don't really think those examples are all that analagous.

First, you can easily undo things like offer redshirt or taking away offered home visits on your own, you don't need WIS to rectify that for you. Second, we're talking about small potatoes there compared with the two circumstances that WIS has shown themselves willing to step in -- accidentally dropping a player and accidentally losing your team by not renewing on time.

I appreciate your slippery slope point, but I actually think it's pretty clear when WIS will and won't step in.

what about the person who accidentally does it and doesnt know wis will magically undue their "mistakes"?

there were plenty of people who didn't sue mcdonalds for not putting hot labels on the coffee, since they didnt know they could win...then that one person did and got 2.1 mil...despite the fact that nobody else thought to sue.

you either think of it, or you dont. (fwiw i think mcdonalds thing was stupid)

Posted by vandydave on 8/27/2010 12:42:00 PM (view original):
wis can never ever prove a misclick. ridiculous.

prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? sure they can.

people forget to renew, and WIS fixes it. that already sets a precedent. and the precedent is really quite simple. if you really screw something up, that passes the litmus test of you clearly didnt mean for it to happen that way, and WIS can fix it easily without directly hurting anybody else, WIS will spend a few minutes to fix it for you. why? to keep you a happy customer. its no more complicated than that. do they have to draw a line? sure. the world is shades of gray, this is standard stuff, ask anybody who is even slightly involved in customer service anywhere.

"fwiw i think mcdonalds thing was stupid"

For what it's worth, the facts of that case are much different than people think.

Ultimately, the judge reduced the jury award to just over $600K, and the case settled for less than that.  McDonald's could have settled for the medical bills, but refused and offered almost nothing. 

And part of the issue there was that they had been told multiple times to reduce the temperature of their coffee because it has caused hundreds of injuries in the recent years prior to that trial. 

Just sayin', there's a lot more to that which makes your analogy not work.

The point still remains, WIS is now going to have to tell someone "no, we won't change that for you," when it seems marginally similar to what happened here.  There's a reason HBD doesn't fix user errors, and does everything they can to give you every chance to cancel the transaction (e.g. pop-up boxes).                    

Posted by gillispie on 8/27/2010 1:58:00 PM (view original):
people forget to renew, and WIS fixes it. that already sets a precedent. and the precedent is really quite simple. if you really screw something up, that passes the litmus test of you clearly didnt mean for it to happen that way, and WIS can fix it easily without directly hurting anybody else, WIS will spend a few minutes to fix it for you. why? to keep you a happy customer. its no more complicated than that. do they have to draw a line? sure. the world is shades of gray, this is standard stuff, ask anybody who is even slightly involved in customer service anywhere.

or ask a judge

Posted by isack24 on 8/27/2010 1:58:00 PM (view original):
"fwiw i think mcdonalds thing was stupid"

For what it's worth, the facts of that case are much different than people think.

Ultimately, the judge reduced the jury award to just over $600K, and the case settled for less than that.  McDonald's could have settled for the medical bills, but refused and offered almost nothing. 

And part of the issue there was that they had been told multiple times to reduce the temperature of their coffee because it has caused hundreds of injuries in the recent years prior to that trial. 

Just sayin', there's a lot more to that which makes your analogy not work.

The point still remains, WIS is now going to have to tell someone "no, we won't change that for you," when it seems marginally similar to what happened here.  There's a reason HBD doesn't fix user errors, and does everything they can to give you every chance to cancel the transaction (e.g. pop-up boxes).                    

the analogy isn't about where to draw the line...its about the people who "dont think to ask CS to fix their mistakes"...

drawing a line somewhere isn't the worst thing in the world. here's an analogy for ya. the ncaa tournament draws a line for teams that could be the national champion after 68 teams now, correct? the bcs draws a line too, after just two teams. where SHOULD the line be drawn? nobody call give a definitive answer, however we can probably agree that the 100th best basketball team in the country PROBABLY ISNT the best, and the 2nd ranked bcs team MIGHT be the best. just because you send the 100th ranked team home doesnt mean you have to send the 50th and 20th and 3rd ranked teams home.

Posted by jetwildcat on 8/27/2010 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 8/27/2010 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by girt25 on 8/27/2010 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 8/27/2010 10:33:00 AM (view original):

once again, nothing against the original poster, glad he is happy and got his player back. but the precedent now is you can get wis to undo/redo anything you did based upon a misclick principle, because wis cant judge people's intentions, they simply must take users at their word or take no one at their word.

i misclicked "offer redshirt" during recruiting and didn't realize it, please undo this.

i misclicked "Always Double-team" when i intended "If Leading Scorer", please re-sim my game.

i misclicked "10 home visits" when i only meant "1".

yes, these examples aren't identical, but the principle of wis happily and voluntarily undoing our mistakes is a nice one but a terribly slippery slope. what about the person who accidently releases a player and doesnt realize they can simply send a ticket, but assume the "are you sure" safeguards are the final word they seem intended to be?

i like wis users being happy, but not at the expense of fairness and consistency.

VD, I don't really think those examples are all that analagous.

First, you can easily undo things like offer redshirt or taking away offered home visits on your own, you don't need WIS to rectify that for you. Second, we're talking about small potatoes there compared with the two circumstances that WIS has shown themselves willing to step in -- accidentally dropping a player and accidentally losing your team by not renewing on time.

I appreciate your slippery slope point, but I actually think it's pretty clear when WIS will and won't step in.

what about the person who accidentally does it and doesnt know wis will magically undue their "mistakes"?

there were plenty of people who didn't sue mcdonalds for not putting hot labels on the coffee, since they didnt know they could win...then that one person did and got 2.1 mil...despite the fact that nobody else thought to sue.

you either think of it, or you dont. (fwiw i think mcdonalds thing was stupid)

Pretty much everything you have probably heard about that case is a lie.