this thread is addressing if throwing the CT title game is cheap, and it is, because it is considered cheating by WIS. on that, there should be no debate. those who want to say because i didn't capitalize, i am not technically writing in english, and thus make no sense, thats fine. those who want to make a totally irrelevant argument about the structure of the fair play guidelines by some arbitrary standards they are imposing, thats fine, but i really don't think anybody cares. 

the bottom line is throwing the CT title game is explicitly not allowed by WIS, they have clarified ANY and ALL ambiguity on the subject, if there was any in the first place, by specifically coming out and forbidding it, and penalizing coaches, after the fair play guidelines were written.

Posted by tbird9423 on 6/7/2012 1:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 6/7/2012 10:19:00 AM (view original):
But again, WIS defines collusion as "between two or more users."

It's an off-point argument, because most of the people who don't think it's collusion still agree that it's wrong, but "collusion" is an inapplicable section in the fair play guidelines, if the fair play guidelines are the measurement here.

+1

My point exactly and in complete agreement.  I understand having different points of views and perceptions, but arguing about facts seems like people arguing just to argue.  Being too stubborn to admit that WIS (and the rest of the english world) define collusion as requiring two parties and thus isn't relevant to a coach making an independent decision doesn't make those who do understand the term "cheaters".  Especially when I think we have all agreed that losing intentionally is a questionable and frowned upon tactic and doesn't seem to make much sense.

To take it to the extreme, I think whoever pointed out that many teams already do this (sacrifice one year for an upcoming year and therefore not reach their full potential in that sacrificial year)  is right on and I would suggest that although some have said "that is totally different," I would question why?  How many rl college teams are made up of 6 srs and 6 jrs and no freshman or sophomores.  How many teams bench their currently better players just to get the young guys more playing time?  If the suggestion that intentionally losing a single game is unfair to others and not in "the spirit of the game," what makes doing that for an entire season alright?   

Can we all at least agree that this issue is most definetely not covered by the collusion section of the rules and therefore the scare tactics and threats issued toward the OP were off base?

WIS is the authority on the subject, and according to them, throwing the CT title game is cheating as covered under the fair play guidelines. end of discussion. talk about arguing just to argue, sheesh

Posted by colonels19 on 6/7/2012 1:29:00 PM (view original):
I'd go to court over $12.95 ;)

Because you're a cheater and want the court to back you up? 

Posted by theeyetest on 6/7/2012 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 6/7/2012 10:19:00 AM (view original):
But again, WIS defines collusion as "between two or more users."

It's an off-point argument, because most of the people who don't think it's collusion still agree that it's wrong, but "collusion" is an inapplicable section in the fair play guidelines, if the fair play guidelines are the measurement here.

The "two or more users" line is prefaced by "includes" rather than "is" in the collusion section. The fair play rules only provide examples of collusive activity. It's not exhaustive, and it's not intended to be exhaustive.  

This is dumb, but I'm bored, so...

"Collusion includes any act that supports bad, deceitful or illegal behavior agreed upon by two or more users."

I think it's pretty clear from a common sense perspective that you can't "collude" with yourself.  The "includes" language is referencing "bad, deceitful or illegal behavior."  "Agreed upon by two or more users" is not meant to be an example of collusion. 

On the flip side, I agree after reading it again that the sentence is ambiguous, which would mean we should look to everyday usage of the word "collusion," which you will find almost always includes "two or more people."

Again, this argument is a ridiculous red herring because I agree that's it wrong, I just don't agree that it's collusion. 

so now the argument isn't over whether it is wrong to throw the CT game, or even whether or not it is "cheating" to throw the game, but specifically whether or not it is "collusion" to throw the game? Some people have way to much free time...

Posted by dacj501 on 6/7/2012 1:59:00 PM (view original):
so now the argument isn't over whether it is wrong to throw the CT game, or even whether or not it is "cheating" to throw the game, but specifically whether or not it is "collusion" to throw the game? Some people have way to much free time...

Pot, meet kettle.

Posted by ike1024 on 6/7/2012 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 6/7/2012 1:59:00 PM (view original):
so now the argument isn't over whether it is wrong to throw the CT game, or even whether or not it is "cheating" to throw the game, but specifically whether or not it is "collusion" to throw the game? Some people have way to much free time...

Pot, meet kettle.

oohhh, burn...

Posted by ike1024 on 6/7/2012 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by theeyetest on 6/7/2012 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 6/7/2012 10:19:00 AM (view original):
But again, WIS defines collusion as "between two or more users."

It's an off-point argument, because most of the people who don't think it's collusion still agree that it's wrong, but "collusion" is an inapplicable section in the fair play guidelines, if the fair play guidelines are the measurement here.

The "two or more users" line is prefaced by "includes" rather than "is" in the collusion section. The fair play rules only provide examples of collusive activity. It's not exhaustive, and it's not intended to be exhaustive.  

This is dumb, but I'm bored, so...

"Collusion includes any act that supports bad, deceitful or illegal behavior agreed upon by two or more users."

I think it's pretty clear from a common sense perspective that you can't "collude" with yourself.  The "includes" language is referencing "bad, deceitful or illegal behavior."  "Agreed upon by two or more users" is not meant to be an example of collusion. 

On the flip side, I agree after reading it again that the sentence is ambiguous, which would mean we should look to everyday usage of the word "collusion," which you will find almost always includes "two or more people."

Again, this argument is a ridiculous red herring because I agree that's it wrong, I just don't agree that it's collusion. 

this is where you fall down -

"Collusion includes any act that supports bad, deceitful or illegal behavior agreed upon by two or more users. Here are a few examples:"

• Intentionally throwing a game to ensure another team improves its chances for a post-season bid.
• Intentionally signing questionable players that benefit the former club (i.e. Type-A free-agents in Hardball Dynasty.)

those examples DO NOT include an agreement between two users. the people who define what is cheating and what isn't, what is collusion and what isn't, right there, for the world to see, are telling you that you are wrong. collusion INCLUDES any act that.... it does not EXCLUDE acts by a single person, that fit a certain mold, such as the examples laid out by WIS listed here. if collusion was ONLY acts between two people, then those two examples could not be collusion. but they are.

again, your attempt to interpret this as a legal document is akin to a child scolded for forgetting to write their name on a paper, saying, it just said, "write your name", which i have clearly done, as you possess many pieces of paper with my name. nowhere does it say, "write your name, HERE AND NOW". just like a third grade math homework is not a legal document, nor are the fair play guidelines. and even if you want to play games and try to interpret it as a legal document (which is a bad idea, as WIS will penalize you regardless), it seems to me, you are failing pretty badly. you are saying things directly contradicted in the document itself. nowhere does it say that collusion is limited to interaction between two parties, and it is specifically shown that is not the case, through the examples.

PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST BEFORE COMMENTING.  The frustrating part for me, billy, is that you continue to refuse to read my entire posts.  Here, I'll post what I wrote in my first post, which you clearly never read despite responding to:

"Of course, whether it's "legal" isn't the issue, and strict interpretation doesn't have much place outside of the courts.  We can all use common sense and understand that it was WIS' intent to ban throwing games."

Regarding your most recent post: those are examples of collusion, which necessarily require two or mor users.  I agree that WIS doesn't want us throwing games, which I already said.  I disagree that's it's "collusion."  Which, as I said in the post above:

"Again, this argument is a ridiculous red herring because I agree that's it wrong, I just don't agree that it's collusion."

Posted by ike1024 on 6/7/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):
PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST BEFORE COMMENTING.  The frustrating part for me, billy, is that you continue to refuse to read my entire posts.  Here, I'll post what I wrote in my first post, which you clearly never read despite responding to:

"Of course, whether it's "legal" isn't the issue, and strict interpretation doesn't have much place outside of the courts.  We can all use common sense and understand that it was WIS' intent to ban throwing games."

Regarding your most recent post: those are examples of collusion, which necessarily require two or mor users.  I agree that WIS doesn't want us throwing games, which I already said.  I disagree that's it's "collusion."  Which, as I said in the post above:

"Again, this argument is a ridiculous red herring because I agree that's it wrong, I just don't agree that it's collusion."

i read all of the posts that each of those come from, and maintain what ive said. just because you say those things, you STILL are making the point you are making. such as - 
 
"For what it's worth, I think those who say it isn't a violation of the fair play guidelines are correct in a legal sense.  The first rule of construction in any written document is that if the langauge is claer and unambiguous, you don't look to the "intent," because the intent is presumably gleaned from the unambiguous written language.  These guidelines are unambiguous.  It requires collusion between "two or more users." "


i just don't agree with you on that point. and i think its ridiculous to even make the claim. you say you agree its a ridiculous claim, yet continue to make it - im not sure i can help you there :) its almost like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. i mean, i don't think that is your intention, not at all. i think you are just trying to qualify your position as one that has no bearing on whether the original issue is wrong or cheating, and qualifying it as a tangent, but you are making the point all the same. and i just don't agree with your position, with or without disclaimers.

you will have to explain this one to me though.
"Regarding your most recent post: those are examples of collusion, which necessarily require two or mor users."

what are you saying? those are examples of collusion, which necessarily requires two or more users... but there aren't 2 users making an agreement in those examples. in fact, neither example requires two users, in agreement or otherwise. so i really have no idea what you are saying there.

if you are trying to argue the WIS definition of collusion is not the dictionary definition, i won't disagree with you. if you are trying to argue the throwing of a CT game is not collusion under the WIS definition, then i will disagree with you.

So the overall answer is its cheating and should not be tolorated but if you want to throw the game then you can take the penalty and the punishment but you would be stupid. Final answer should then be A