Good idea.  But make sure you post in the world chat that you're going to do it. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/16/2011 9:25:00 AM (view original):

So, if a deal is good for both teams, it can't be collusive?

 

If it isn't secret or against the world's rules it isn't collusive.

By definition of collusion.   What say ye of tec's idea to share scouting info?

I've read much of but not all of this thread and I gotta say that by far this is the most highly controversial aspect of this game. The simplest solution, since opinions are so spread out, is to let the worlds set their own rules... kinda like the way it is now

I've read it all too - pretty funny ****.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/16/2011 11:56:00 AM (view original):
By definition of collusion.   What say ye of tec's idea to share scouting info?

I suppose if all the other managers in the world were okay with it, it would be fine.  In fact, I believe you and I both played in a world where that was allowed and encouraged Mike (whatever that name of the team world was before it was Shoeless Joe).

Posted by robusk on 9/16/2011 2:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/16/2011 11:56:00 AM (view original):
By definition of collusion.   What say ye of tec's idea to share scouting info?

I suppose if all the other managers in the world were okay with it, it would be fine.  In fact, I believe you and I both played in a world where that was allowed and encouraged Mike (whatever that name of the team world was before it was Shoeless Joe).

Didn't that "team" concept go down in flames?  I joined SJ after the fire, so I don't know what happened there, but I don't think you can point to that world as an example of how "fine" a world can be with those rules.

I think that was World "Bragging Rights".  Yeah, that shouldn't be used as a baseline or standard for comparison.  It was a very unique world, short-lived as it was.

Didn't really go down in flames as much as my dispute with WifS over world chat enforcement resulting in me removing myself as commish killed it.  No one wanted to take over so the concept went away.   But, yeah, I don't think I'd point to that world and say "As long as the other owners are cool with it...."

I am not saying it would work at all, it doesn't.  I am not part of any world that would allow that and I would probably steer clear of a world that did.  What I was saying is that it wouldn't be collusion if the world allowed it.

Collusion is collusion.  Whether the world tolerates it or not is a different story.  But it doesn't change what it is.

You don't understand the word collusion.

You don't understand the WIS Terms of Service:

Collusive transactions

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

• Trades that clearly benefit one side.
• Dropping/waiving a player so that another team may pick him up.
• Using 1 team to scout for another team.
• Making agreements with other users to go or not go after specific players with the intent of avoiding recruiting/negotiation battles.
• Coaching 2 or more teams in the same world using multiple user IDs within the same conference or regional area of the country is not allowed as it presents opportunities for collusive behavior. All such situations brought to our attention will be investigated and violations of this policy will result in the removal or relocation of one or all of the IDs.
• 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.)
• Arranging a trade with another franchise so the other franchise can sign a free-agent resulting in the other franchise receiving compensation picks.

Any owner caught colluding for the first time will receive a sitemail and email from us regarding the action. Future violations will result in appropriate consequences. This may include the stripping of all offending teams controlled by the owner(s).

We are arguing two different things here.

I assume you're arguing that if it's good for both teams and the world doesn't object that it's OK.  I'd point you in the general direction of 'tard worlds to prove it isn't.