Personally, I don't think there is any problem with the league decision here.  Both owners were warned that they were in danger of missing the win minimum.  One owner attempted to make things better, the other did not....in fact, he stated that he wasn't going to callup his players (which were far better in aaa than in the majors).  He outright refused to play by the stated rules, the other owner did not through his attempts.  Let's also not forget that although there is a one year win minimum, there is also a 2 year minimum.  Although staindman was voted to continue, he is still on probation as he is required to make the two year total.  If he does not, he will also be removed.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 9/18/2010 11:40:00 AM (view original):
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.

Maybe one guy lied about his intentions and the other guy was straightforward.

There's no way that any amount of injuries should knock you down to 49 wins if you're halfway trying.  Some people are good at faking that they're trying to get everyone else to STFU.

SiteStaff's post cited losing 36 1-ruin games as a prime reason for allowing boogerlips to return. Had he not traded away a SP who went 20-3 and a middle-of-the-order hitter for a 100+ win team (getting very little in return), perhaps he'd have won 6 of those 36 games? Instead, he dumped contracts to clear enough salary to allow him to make the most-expensive FA signing in the world, while other owners with marginal teams promoted players and signed FA to make sure they hit the wins floor.

If the reason for allowing him back in was because there is an appeals process that allowed one owner back and not the other, they should state that and we could decide that both have to go. Instead, they specifically said they consider such removals case-by-case, which indicates to me that it is boogerlips' whining, not the appeals process, that is the problem. It's going to cost them hundreds of dollars to keep one owner happy. Hope boogerlips spends a lot of money on the site in the future, because I sure won't if tanking rules cannot be enforced.

In looking over the teams involved, It is clear that stainedman is not innocent. All of you are saying one owner tried and the other didn't.  That is simply not true. Sure boogerlips transgression is more clearly evident, But staindman didn't "try" like everyone is making out.

Here are two pitchers who started at the BL lvl for staindman:

Johnny O'Brien started 32 games
Carlos Rodriguez was traded for and started 9 games

While these guys were never used in the BL:

 

AJ Bowen started 24 games with ATL and then was acquired in a trade. Staindman assigned him to AAA, instead of using him to "try to hit the floor"

Dario Yearwood has only a 59/19 STA/DUR combo, So he could have spot started or at the very least been @ long A and picked up wins in that capacity.
 
If you are starting two guys with splits in the 30s, when you have a guy in AAA who has splits in the 70s, that certainly can't be defined as trying.

I've never finished under .500, yet I've traded quality pros for not very much in return to clear salary to sign a stud IFA.

And the bottom line is that booger won more games than staind, had a better exp win% than staind, yet he is the one that got voted out because people seem to not like his style.  The validity of your reasons are debatable, but in spite of everything you elected to keep somebody with a worse bottom line.  So basically you're sending the message that if you're a friendly tanker, you can stay, and I'm not sure that friendliness is a valid place to draw the line between booting somebody and not.  But at the very least it doesn't seem to be working for you now, so maybe you guys should re-consider your criteria in a way that can actually be enacted.

Posted by gregsimon on 9/18/2010 12:35:00 PM (view original):
In looking over the teams involved, It is clear that stainedman is not innocent. All of you are saying one owner tried and the other didn't.  That is simply not true. Sure boogerlips transgression is more clearly evident, But staindman didn't "try" like everyone is making out.

Here are two pitchers who started at the BL lvl for staindman:

Johnny O'Brien started 32 games
Carlos Rodriguez was traded for and started 9 games

While these guys were never used in the BL:

 

AJ Bowen started 24 games with ATL and then was acquired in a trade. Staindman assigned him to AAA, instead of using him to "try to hit the floor"

Dario Yearwood has only a 59/19 STA/DUR combo, So he could have spot started or at the very least been long a and pick up wins in that capacity. If you are starting two guys with splits in the 30s, when you have a guy in AAA who has splits in the 70s, that certainly can't be defined as trying.

Yeah, but staindman was real friendly and **** to everyone!

staindman = brand new HBD owner, learning, willing to give a little flexibility, but if he doesn't meet the 2 year win min. he will be removed (likely will happen)
boogerlips = according to support a "historically good user", knew what he was doing (promoted that fact), no flexibility should be given

Rule was that if you don't meet the 55 win rule, you were subject to a review and possible removal.  staindman given another year with his first season a consideration; boogerlips wasn't as he blantantly tried to circumvent the league rules.

This decision will cost WIS several users and $$ because an owner who didn't care what the rules were is held above a league that voted his removal.   staindman has offered to step down, so may as well remove them both and let us move on.

Posted by gregsimon on 9/18/2010 12:37:00 PM (view original):
In looking over the teams involved, It is clear that stainedman is not innocent. All of you are saying one owner tried and the other didn't.  That is simply not true. Sure boogerlips transgression is more clearly evident, But staindman didn't "try" like everyone is making out.

Here are two pitchers who started at the BL lvl for staindman:

Johnny O'Brien started 32 games
Carlos Rodriguez was traded for and started 9 games

While these guys were never used in the BL:

 

AJ Bowen started 24 games with ATL and then was acquired in a trade. Staindman assigned him to AAA, instead of using him to "try to hit the floor"

Dario Yearwood has only a 59/19 STA/DUR combo, So he could have spot started or at the very least been @ long A and picked up wins in that capacity.
 
If you are starting two guys with splits in the 30s, when you have a guy in AAA who has splits in the 70s, that certainly can't be defined as trying.

But, subjectively speaking, he SAID he was trying and booger said he wasn't promoting minor leaguers this season.
It's obvious that one was trying and the other wasn't.    They said so.

Posted by habsfan1 on 9/18/2010 1:12:00 PM (view original):
staindman = brand new HBD owner, learning, willing to give a little flexibility, but if he doesn't meet the 2 year win min. he will be removed (likely will happen)
boogerlips = according to support a "historically good user", knew what he was doing (promoted that fact), no flexibility should be given

Rule was that if you don't meet the 55 win rule, you were subject to a review and possible removal.  staindman given another year with his first season a consideration; boogerlips wasn't as he blantantly tried to circumvent the league rules.

This decision will cost WIS several users and $$ because an owner who didn't care what the rules were is held above a league that voted his removal.   staindman has offered to step down, so may as well remove them both and let us move on.

Oh, c'mon.    Someone who doesn't know what HBD is knows 70 is better than 35.   No question about it.

And thanks to gsimon for doing the legwork.   As I said earlier, I was sure I could find legit reasons to deny staind appeal.   I didn't have to.  He was starting a pitcher with a 9.49 ERA.   Did he think that was good?

I think the basic problem here is that it is very difficult for players to make rules if the company runs the game. Most sports sims are owned by the player(s), who can create and enforce whatever rules they want for their leagues. Not so with HBD, which IMO is a big problem for an otherwise good game.

It is unrealistic to expect the company to enforce and interpret your rules The business model is you pay your money you play the game. Is this the way to go for online leagues - of course not - the way to go is to let the players run the leagues.  But that is not the WIS way.  I am not very experienced, but most of the problems I have seen with the game arise because owners have different conceptions of how they want to play the game, but the bottom line is that the company owns the game and owners can play however they want .if they pay the fee.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/17/2010 3:09:00 PM (view original):
Yes.   ea162 in MGraham.   It's a very difficult process.   You have to document everything along the way.   In short, send a sitemail before the season detailing the rules, a sitemail at the A/S break to anyone who might fall short and one as the season ends to confirm they did.   Send WifS a copy, in a ticket, each time and they'll reluctantly remove the offending owner.    As expected, they don't want to do it.   Either way, someone is unhappy.  And they have to make that person unhappy. 

This is how you enforce your league rules.  Document them.

Posted by punkzip on 9/18/2010 1:31:00 PM (view original):
I think the basic problem here is that it is very difficult for players to make rules if the company runs the game. Most sports sims are owned by the player(s), who can create and enforce whatever rules they want for their leagues. Not so with HBD, which IMO is a big problem for an otherwise good game.

It is unrealistic to expect the company to enforce and interpret your rules The business model is you pay your money you play the game. Is this the way to go for online leagues - of course not - the way to go is to let the players run the leagues.  But that is not the WIS way.  I am not very experienced, but most of the problems I have seen with the game arise because owners have different conceptions of how they want to play the game, but the bottom line is that the company owns the game and owners can play however they want .if they pay the fee.

This is a good point, as WifS customer service does kinda blow.  And they often overstep their bounds telling worlds what should be in their best interests as opposed to what actually is.

I would think removing both users would bolster the argument to enforce our own infrastructure rules. Removing both owners ends the favortism, friendly personality debate and makes strict adhearance to rules a cut and dry matter. Staind is a very friendly likable guy who I enjoy playing live SLB with and it certainly is not an attack on him. I do not know Boogerlips well but he did nothing to me personally so I will hold no grudges regardless of the final outcome. Yes, if you followed along our entire season it did seem Boogerlips was not concerned about the tanking rules and that is not good for any league. Initially, I was under the impression that reasons for an appeal were unforseen life circumstances that did not allow you to manage your team daily like divorce, illness or death in the family. I realized later that other things factored in the appeal like experience but that could of been the argument of several had they not made the cut and excuse are like arseholes as everybody has one.The floor was very low and in all my SLB leagues and handfull of HBD leagues I have always managed to win 55 games. Bottom line they both should go and we move on or they both should stay and we adhere to strict enforcement in the future. At this point not everyone is going to be happy. Kudos for Staind agreeing to step down. Lets take that and go with it and make a diplomatic and unified final appeal to WIS and ask they both be removed. At least only a few people will feel alienated vs several. I dont even think trying to hold it up could be an option. If they were willing to fill with site staff; my guess it goes public next week with no further extensions and gets filled and goes forward with any remaining players.