ANTI-TANKING RULES Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by nfet on 9/18/2010 9:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/18/2010 8:35:00 AM (view original):
I think the review process is the problem.   Since you and harthj are here, you're my examples.    Both of you win 50 games.  Win requirement is 55 but with a review.   harthj has rambled on about how he's gonna kick everyone's *** in S3 once he gets his players in place.   He's generally disliked for his "outgoing" personality.    You've never made a post in the WC other than to say "This team has problems.  I'm doing my best."

Both of you appeal.   harthj has annoyed everyone for 85 days.   He gets an 0-5.   You haven't really bothered anyone and you're new to HBD.  You get 4-1.   You return, we demand that harthj is removed.   The difference in actual game play?  None.  You both lost 112.   The difference in how you're veiwed?  Huge.  Harthj=pain in the ***, you=quiet n00b.

Fair?   No.
it's not so black and white, Mike.  If the results of the review said that we voted this guy out because he annoyed everyone, it would be similar to your example.  Your example leaves out valid reasons and considers the character judgement only.  If there's valid reasons, then any character judgement/hidden agenda is beside the point.  In fact, there is a list of valid reasons why he was voted out and the other was not.

The reason for the review process is to add subjectivity into the process of asking people to leave.  Adding in the subjectivity & the ability to consider intent benefits the world.   
Subjectivity is the problem.  If, as in Mike's example, two owners with similar/identical results are up for review, and one is asked to leave while the other is invited to stay, then you don't really have an enforcable "rule".  It's a popularity contest.  It's NOT going to be in ADMIN's best interests to get involved in popularity contests among it's paying members.

The rules need to be black and white.  You either hit the minimums and stay, or you miss the minimums and you go.  Review boards are not going to cut it.
9/18/2010 9:48 AM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
huh?  why?  I just said in the previous post that it wasn't a popularity contest.  There's a list of valid reasons.  Something makes you ignore that.

Why do the rules need to be black and white?  Why don't review boards cut it? 

Anytime the size of a group allows for subjectivity, it's good.  We don't live in vacuums.
9/18/2010 9:55 AM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
It's not meant to be an enforceable "rule".

Not making the win floor gets your appeal to stay reviewed, not auto-booted.


9/18/2010 10:02 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Because I bet I can find reason to boot anyone under .500.   Valid reasons.   So, I can look for valid reasons or I can accept their "reasons".   And, conversely, I can accept their appeal without looking for valid reasons.   That's the problem.with subjectivity.
9/18/2010 10:10 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
And, yes, it's unfortunate for WifS that they say "There's nothing we can or will do" and then do it a few hours later.   It really makes them look incompetent.  I've told them this several times.    If you can't answer a question, bump it upstairs.   Don't say "We can't" and let someone upstairs say "Sure, we can do that."
9/18/2010 10:11 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
And, for the record, roster decisions are subjective.   I used this guy at SS last season when I was winning 87 games and making the playoffs:
http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=2487564

I could deal with the low AVG/OBP because he played good D and hit homers.  

This year, I'm playing .424 ball.  Using him as a regular SS with his .130 average and .460 OPS would look an awful lot like tanking.  The bottom line is W/L not how you get there or what your intentions are.  And that's where subjectivity fails.
9/18/2010 10:26 AM
RisingStar1
Posts: 76 (0)
Hall of Famer
169 9 3 10 12 68 52
Prospect

Because the next season of a HBD world is partially dependent on variables of the previous season may be a slightly bigger challenge for admin to reboot. My guess is that it is doable but things like FA and arb demands will change again. In thinking back to when HBD was first introduced I vaguely remember a league restart. Could of been year 1 however.  Been in at least 4 SLB worlds that restarted but again the stats pools are independent. I was monitoring the spots open last night and both spots were open and it seemed we were just in limbo then 2 site staff were inserted at basically the same time and the schedule it seems was accelerated. I think the move was done to try to get a handle on things more than anything, but with that decision it certainly put the opinions and wishes of many to the curb and the lack of communication was ridiculous.

9/18/2010 10:30 AM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
Mike, I don't want to get too deep into it really, but subjectivity fails, as i see it, when people dodge the responsibility to make value judgements.  If someone thinks the valid reasons for whatever decisions aren't valid, then say so.  Show that they aren't.  Don't just make hard rules because there's the potential for misplaced values. That's a cop out & protects any misplaced values that already exist.

And, in your example wouldn't objectivity be failing you there, suggesting that you're tanking when you're not.  You have a valid reason for playing the low/strange ratings guy: because he performed well in the past.  Subjectivity would see that.  Objectivity wouldn't.
9/18/2010 10:36 AM
RisingStar1
Posts: 76 (0)
Hall of Famer
169 9 3 10 12 68 52
Prospect
Site Staff n/a 9/18/2010 10:06 AM Now -- to touch on the boogerlips situation. Private worlds can have their own rules. And we enforce them. We have booted or removed dozens of users over the past year.
Site Staff n/a 9/18/2010 10:06 AM We always review the situation on and individual basis. Some are easy, some are not. In this case, the 55 win floor appeared to be the biggest reason for the removal. His team lost 36 1-run games.
Site Staff n/a 9/18/2010 10:06 AM A few breaks, and he'd reached the min. With it being the first season of a world and him being a historically good user, we believe it's best (in the interest of HBD) to allow him in the world for a second season on probation.
Site Staff n/a 9/18/2010 10:06 AM No leeway moving forward. Now, if there were other issues (disputes, accusations, claims, etc.) that took place and we are not aware of, please have the commish communicate with us.
Site Staff n/a 9/18/2010 10:06 AM As far as timing goes, we have dropped the ball a bit on handling this situation. We admit that. We have been incredibly busy the last few weeks with the start of the football season and did not handle this situation as promptly as we should have.
Site Staff n/a 9/18/2010 10:06 AM We apologize for that. All of this said, if any user still wishes to depart the world because boogerlips remains, you can submit a ticket and we will issue a refund. We hope it doesn't come to that, but the option is there. Thank you
9/18/2010 10:42 AM
RisingStar1
Posts: 76 (0)
Hall of Famer
169 9 3 10 12 68 52
Prospect
Site Staff n/a 9/18/2010 9:47 AM We have cleared the schedule for the world and removed the two site staff franchises. The world is once again private with a deadline of 9/24. There are still two openings to be filled. As a reminder,
Site Staff n/a 9/18/2010 9:47 AM the commish is responsible for extending the privacy deadline or else the world will go public. We apologize for the false start - it was tied to removing the two owners who entered the world after it had gone public due to reaching its deadline
9/18/2010 10:47 AM
RisingStar1
Posts: 76 (0)
Hall of Famer
169 9 3 10 12 68 52
Prospect
Well we at least have some answers.
9/18/2010 10:48 AM
usfbully
Posts: 905 (0)
Hall of Famer
10 30 41
Prospect
A good user in the past? His career % is under .400 isnt it?
9/18/2010 11:07 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by nfet on 9/18/2010 10:36:00 AM (view original):
Mike, I don't want to get too deep into it really, but subjectivity fails, as i see it, when people dodge the responsibility to make value judgements.  If someone thinks the valid reasons for whatever decisions aren't valid, then say so.  Show that they aren't.  Don't just make hard rules because there's the potential for misplaced values. That's a cop out & protects any misplaced values that already exist.

And, in your example wouldn't objectivity be failing you there, suggesting that you're tanking when you're not.  You have a valid reason for playing the low/strange ratings guy: because he performed well in the past.  Subjectivity would see that.  Objectivity wouldn't.
Again, "value judgements" are individual opinions.   You know what I see?  Two owners who fell short of the required 55 wins.    Do I think I could look at both teams and find reasons to remove them?  Absolutely.    Do I think I could listen to both appeals and find reasons to keep them?  Absolutely.    So now it comes down to what I deem to be my "responsibility".   From the chat, I gather that the world would lke booger gone and are, at worst, indifferent to staind staying.   Now, as a member of the 5 man panel, what is my "responsibility"?   I think it's to do what the world would prefer.    booger=gone, staind=gone/stay, doesn't really matter.  Subjectivity fails.

As for my example, whether he's played well before is subjective.   I think he has.  I've was also mocked for playing him.   As you know, there are hundreds of ways to win games.  And that is the point of anti-tanking rules.  Win X-number of games.   
9/18/2010 11:08 AM
kcden
Posts: 1635 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 58 368 177
Prospect
Man, it really looks like WifS is in favor of subjectivity for these situations, which is a little disheartening.  If their decision to let boogerlips stay had been based on staind being allowed to stay, that seems reasonable.  But what they describe above makes it seem like min. win rules will never actually be enforceable.
9/18/2010 11:27 AM
mchalesarmy
Posts: 1123 (0)
Veteran
20
Prospect
The problem I have is the blatant refusal to make improvements to his BL squad. 36 1 run losses is unfortunate, but it isn't an excuse when you plainly state you're not promoting anyone ahead of schedule, and if you DO miss the win requiremnt you will send a ticket and cry to cs (which apparently carries more weight than the actual rules do)

As to MikeT23 - THIS is exactly the difference to me. It is cut and dry. One guy had many injuries and seemed to be making an effort to reach the floor, while the other owner blatantly stated he would not be. If that isn't cut and dry I don't know what is.
9/18/2010 11:40 AM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7|8...16 Next ▸
ANTI-TANKING RULES Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.