i think many (if not most) people who are not a fan of this rule or the way it was handled, are actually more upset about the way its handled, than the rule itself. so i have a few questions.
1) the first issue is the way the rules have been communicated. about a year ago when the change to 1000 miles happened, there was no explanation from the site staff. there was merely, as best anyone can remember, a post to conference chat that the fair play guidelines were updated. nothing specific about the rule change itself. if this situation is important enough to cause coaches to lose teams they have so much invested in, teams they picked up in full compliance with the rules, then isnt it important enough for site staff to say something about it? would it be possible, in the future, to get quality communication about what actually changed, and how coaches suddenly in violation should deal with that issue? maybe a discussion even?
2) there seems to be some disagreement about what the rule change actually was, a year ago. actually, ive yet to hear a single coach state the opinion (which is surprising, as every possible opinion one could conceive, and then some, have come out here) that they thought teams 10 miles apart in different divisions were NOT allowed 1-3 years ago, roughly (before the 1000 mile rule, after the same geographic region rule). but in a ticket, you explained that you felt teams in different divisions couldnt be 700-800 miles apart, just like teams in the same division. most importantly, the fact that this great gap in understanding between yourself and coaches exists, it just highlights how important the first issue is. secondly, would it be possible to print here, for the purposes of clarity, the rules on this subject as they stood in the different versions of potential, and what exactly they mean to you?
3) it seems fairly split over "theoretically", if people would like to allow multiple teams or not. however, it seems a strong majority feels its not worth totally screwing up people's situation over, and that if WIS puts out a rule (like the 1000 mile rule) that suddenly puts compliant coaches in violation, something needs to be done about that situation. minimally, site staff should make it clear what those people should do. for example, maybe you could have said, well, we wont do anything to help anyone, but you have 6 seasons to transition gracefully before we enforce the rule on people who had both teams when this rule came out. it doesnt do much to alleviate the pain, but it does provide *some* direction on what these people should do. can we at least, in the event of future updates, get some clarification on not only what the rule is, but how people should respond to it?
4) building on the last point, when you have coaches who have spent years of time, and potentially hundreds of dollars with it, building up two resumes or two teams in a world, its a pretty big blow to make them give one up. is there anything that can be done to mitigate this situation? for example, i am forced to drop a high d1 account, but i have no other world with a resume to pick that up. ive tried exactly 5 times in the past few years, since the first rule change to not allow same geographic region teams maybe in the same division maybe not - to try to get in a position where a multiple team ban wouldnt be so tough. but it takes a couple years to build a resume up from nothing to high d1, why should coaches who paid to do that already on existing accounts, have to start over from scratch? is there anything that could be done to help the situation? resume transfers? team transfers? credits to start in a new world, maybe starting in a new world at least in d1 or something. maybe people with existing situations get grandfathered in. a lot of ideas have been thrown out, but the majority of people seem to think its unfair to do nothing. is there anything that can be done?
the reality of the situation is that the coaches who have multiple teams, who put all the time and effort into building up teams/resumes, were suddenly thrown in violation. zero direction was given to people on what exactly changed, so there was and is a significant amount of confusion on what the rule really is. and no suggestions, direction, or help were offered to people who were put into those situations. coaches who picked up teams in compliance and put all the resources in, have made significant investments, and its not fair to wipe that out without *any* guidance whatsoever. that is why this problem has gotten so bad, in my opinion. its not the rule itself, as much as the way that rule was communicated and how the issues it created were handled (specifically, how the rule was not communication, and how nothing was done to handle the issues it created).
it makes things even worse that the only people who actually get in trouble for this are those who have been transparent about their IDs, usually, far predating any restrictions on teams. there are dozens if not hundreds of coaching in violation right now, right this minute, but most people havent a damn clue who any of them are. so the people who would conceal multiple IDs and use them to gain an unfair advantage, have not been impacted. people who did things the right way are impacted. when you throw that on top of the situation where there is no communication or direction for coaches suddenly in violation, it really creates a situation where the ONLY possible outcome is a great deal of negativity, frustration, anger, and hurt feelings.