Posted by jetwildcat on 8/27/2010 2:11:00 PM (view original):

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 1:55:00 PM (view original):

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.

unless a wis employee is sitting beside you at your computer they absolutely cannot know intent.

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"?

Posted by daalter on 8/27/2010 3:59:00 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"?

What about the person who does't know that it's possible to pull down a player? What about the person who doesn't know that a lot of what's in the FAQ is outdated and/or incorrect? What about the person who doesn't know any number of things related to the game?

Like anything else, the more you play, check out the forums, talk to other coaches, etc. the more you will learn.

Posted by tmacfan12 on 8/27/2010 7:05:00 PM (view original):
You are so stupid its mind blowing. Do you really think cornfused is the first person who has ever done this. WIS has been doing  this since I have been here. I was about to list all of the things they have done for me, but realized it might cause a half riot so I decided against it.

Also there was one misclick. He attempted to redshirt a guy to see what would happen. It did not work, so he went to unredshirt him and accidently clicked recind (the misclick). He then thought the pop up was for the taking off the redshirt, so he clicked accept.

Again, please give me a good reason why he should be punished for a little mistake that is easily fixed. He spent time building up his team (or getting to that team, I dont know his situation) and his program should not be seriously hurt because he clicked the wrong button.

No, I don't think cornfused is the first person to have done this, but just because he's the latest of the gaggle of folks to get away with this doesn't make it right.   Why do the rules only apply to some users and not others?  Just because WIS has allowed multiple users to compromise the integrity of HD time and again, doesn't make it an ethical process.  WIS needs to put its foot down rather than open the floodgates.

He shouldn't have gotten the player back.  You effed up, the player is gone...own it...you won't do it again.  Mistake or not, you did it, idiot...be accountable for your actions...my God, I didn't realize that that was so much to ask.  On top of that, please read the ramifications that happens in the game because cornfused gets his guy back...it's not done in a vacuum...other customers are DIRECTLY affected by him getting his guy back.  Give cornfused his cookie...he's crying too loudly...

Posted by cornfused on 8/27/2010 7:23:00 PM (view original):
Building up my team.  We were an Div I NT 1-seed last year, but 19-62 in the three years before I got there and not in the top 300 of DIII wins.

And it was definitely one misclick.

Posted by cornfused on 8/27/2010 7:35:00 PM (view original):
Y'know, I'm just gonna reblock colonels.  That'll make it better.

Posted by isack24 on 8/27/2010 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 8/27/2010 2:11:00 PM (view original):

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.

Well no, the analogy is faulty because it has to do with compensating for wrongdoing vs. self-inflicted damage.  People wouldn't think to ask for money if they warmed up the coffee themselves and then poured it on themselves. 

Your new analogies are fatally flawed because an arbitrarily-drawn line is neccesarily required.  Here, that's not the case.  HD could simply say, "you screw up, your fault," exactly the way HBD does.