ANTI-TANKING RULES Topic

 And yes, I realize that quote is not exactly "I'm tanking." But it leans in that direction, and combined with dealing away the Cy Young winner for a back-end starter and a minor-league mop-up guy and other similar trades before the season started, makes the intent clear.

There is also this on the written record, from a Q&A during the appeals process:
"Oh, BTW, I had a championship caliber team right off the bat."
9/19/2010 3:17 PM
You could say staind confessed to tanking if you want to be that liberal with the definition.  
9/19/2010 3:22 PM
Yes, you could. How much of an admission of tanking that is or even whether it is would be debatable. In a league with no wins floor or other broken rule, that clearly wouldn't be evidence of tanking to the point of removing an owner. In a league that does have a wins floor, which boogerlips was aware of from the start, with an owner who stated that he dismantled a "championship caliber team," it's another piece of evidence that he felt the rule could be ignored. In my opinion the statements are minor considerations compared to the actions taken from day one.

Mike, I've often seen you post that teams should make every effort to get into the playoffs and completely agree. In a world without rules one could argue that owners can run teams however they want. But if a world starts out with anti-tanking rules, someone whose philosophy is to trash the team for a few seasons to build a powerhouse down the road should just move on to the next opening in a tarted-up world.
9/19/2010 4:03 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/19/2010 9:07:00 AM (view original):
I think you're missing the point.   Removing someone against their will should require a broken "rule".   WifS changed their guidelines from "Commish can ask for removal of owners for any reason" to "Commish must document rules and document warnings to those who are in danger of breaking said rules."   And they still reserve the right to overrule these documented rules.    

They did this because owners were removing paying customers because of popularity contests.  
"Removing someone against their will should require a broken "rule"."

Seriously? YOU are playing this card? HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA THAT MIGHT WELL BE THE FUNNIEST F*CKING THING I HAVE EVER READ.
9/19/2010 4:52 PM
The way WifS handles removing tankers changed from the time you started tanking and the end of the season.  In fact, you may be the reason they changed it when you started sending tickets telling them I was going to have you removed.

How did your protest work out? HAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA  
9/19/2010 6:02 PM
Posted by joshkvt on 9/19/2010 4:03:00 PM (view original):
Yes, you could. How much of an admission of tanking that is or even whether it is would be debatable. In a league with no wins floor or other broken rule, that clearly wouldn't be evidence of tanking to the point of removing an owner. In a league that does have a wins floor, which boogerlips was aware of from the start, with an owner who stated that he dismantled a "championship caliber team," it's another piece of evidence that he felt the rule could be ignored. In my opinion the statements are minor considerations compared to the actions taken from day one.

Mike, I've often seen you post that teams should make every effort to get into the playoffs and completely agree. In a world without rules one could argue that owners can run teams however they want. But if a world starts out with anti-tanking rules, someone whose philosophy is to trash the team for a few seasons to build a powerhouse down the road should just move on to the next opening in a tarted-up world.

I'm sure, after this reading this post, that you've missed my point completely.    booger should be removed.  He won 51 games.  But, if you're going to let the guy who won 49 games stay, you weaken your case.  Substantially.    And that's why RIckey has a problem.

9/19/2010 6:04 PM
If it had forced WIS' hands to make a black-or-white rule to clearly define what is a "removable offense" is, then I could be satisfied with the outcome.

However, nothing has changed, its still WIS' arbitrary decision, and I'm sure that if a world (such as willsuave's) all threatened to pick up their toys and go home, WIS would cave to their whims too.
9/19/2010 6:44 PM
It was a black and white rule until about 130 games into the season of your departure.   Commish asks someone to be removed, he was removed.  They changed the guidelines with about a week left in the season.   Or about two weeks after I told you that you'd played your last season in Coop due to your inability, or lack of desire, to win BL games. 
9/19/2010 6:50 PM
Sour grapes much, there?
9/19/2010 8:44 PM
Posted by smoelheim on 9/19/2010 6:44:00 PM (view original):
If it had forced WIS' hands to make a black-or-white rule to clearly define what is a "removable offense" is, then I could be satisfied with the outcome.

However, nothing has changed, its still WIS' arbitrary decision, and I'm sure that if a world (such as willsuave's) all threatened to pick up their toys and go home, WIS would cave to their whims too.
Are you a Boogerlips alias?
9/19/2010 9:57 PM
Posted by willsauve on 9/19/2010 9:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by smoelheim on 9/19/2010 6:44:00 PM (view original):
If it had forced WIS' hands to make a black-or-white rule to clearly define what is a "removable offense" is, then I could be satisfied with the outcome.

However, nothing has changed, its still WIS' arbitrary decision, and I'm sure that if a world (such as willsuave's) all threatened to pick up their toys and go home, WIS would cave to their whims too.
Are you a Boogerlips alias?
2/3 of your teams are Rochester.. Boogerlips team is Rochester... Hmmm...
9/19/2010 10:00 PM
CRAP. You caught me. Please contact admin and have my alias shut down. Great detective work!
9/19/2010 10:17 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/19/2010 9:07:00 AM (view original):
I think you're missing the point.   Removing someone against their will should require a broken "rule".   WifS changed their guidelines from "Commish can ask for removal of owners for any reason" to "Commish must document rules and document warnings to those who are in danger of breaking said rules."   And they still reserve the right to overrule these documented rules.    

They did this because owners were removing paying customers because of popularity contests.  
If WIS came out and said that they were not going to remove him because this is just a case of being a popularity contest, I'd have no problem with their decision.  I wouldn't agree with it & choose to not be in the world....but, that's their call.  I think it's been clearly shown that that isn't the case, so I doubt that they will say that here.

It was decided that he was tanking.  Tanking is the rule that he broke.
9/19/2010 11:27 PM
Maybe you should test to see if boogerlips weighs the same as a duck and then forward your findings to sitestaff.
9/20/2010 12:46 AM
No, that would be governing by a set rule and nothing else.  I think that's an inferior way to go.

9/20/2010 1:09 AM
◂ Prev 1...8|9|10|11|12...16 Next ▸
ANTI-TANKING RULES Topic

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.