Posted by nfet on 9/19/2010 11:27:00 PM (view original):

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.

WifS doesn't have to say it.    I've had owners removed for tanking.  It's not an easy process.  They don't want to do because, as I said about a week ago, it makes a customer mad.   You can go on about it but there is a simple fact that's outstanding:   Two owners broke your tanking rule.   One, supposedly a pain in the *** who spit on anyone who said he'd be removed for tanking, is being asked to leave or he'll be removed.  The other, generally regarded as a nice guy who tried to win, is being allowed to stay.    Yet both fell short of the win requirement.

It's painfully obvious that how other owner feel about the two is affecting the decision.  

Don't confuse the tanking rule with the win floor.

Also, you keep ignoring that there is a list of reasons that show how he tanked.  How the decision is affected is painfully obvious to you because you keep ignoring the list of valid reasons.  This wasn't decided on a general feeling.   I know, you can come up with valid reasons on both sides of the issue...but, as i've said, that's not a reason in itself to run away from deciding which reasons are more valid than others.

And, "tried to win" isn't a character judgement, it's a judgement of intent.  One that I would say is important.

Every tanker says "I did the best I could with what I had without hurting the future of my team."   Ask harthj14.    He's a reformed tanker.

Again, I agree that booger should be removed for tanking/failure to meet win requirements.   I'm saying that allowing another owner, who actually won less games, to return because "He was new and he really tried" kills your argument. 

Site Staff	n/a	9/20/2010 10:14 AM	After further review (and after seeing posts made dismissing private rules),
Site Staff	n/a	9/20/2010 10:14 AM	boogerlips has been removed from the world this season. We review situations individually and want to be fair to both user, commish, world members and HBD in general. Once these comments were seen, it changed how we perceived the situation. Thank you.

Good for Rickey!!!!

The moral of the story:

If you're going to tank, be friendly or keep your yap shut.

I think that's the distinction.  He tried,  the other guy didn't.

Number of games doesn't mean anything past the initial, just like if you're swerving all over the road you might get pulled for for suspicion of drunk driving.  Once you're pulled over, the swerving has nothing to do with if you're drunk or not.  It would be nice if we had a Tanking Breathalizer, but we don't yet.  We either gotta throw every swerver in jail for DWI or make judgement calls.

Did he try?   I could argue that he did not.   Assuming, of course, that we assume he knows 50 is better than 40.   He said "I didn't know any better but I tried." 

Staindman, has a tough road ahead of him.. He's in a brutal division and he has to go from 49 wins to 75 wins.. There's no appeal process for falling short the 2nd time.

Yeah, had boogerlips kept his mouth shut (well...I guess it'd be his fingers off the keyboard), the facts still would have built the case to show that he was tanking, but he'd probably also still be in the league.  It would have been interesting to see what the chain of events would have been if he played dumb and came out with, "I'm new, I don't know what a good player looks like yet.  Sorry."  Would he have been voted to stay?  

Most of us can empathize with perceived ignorance from those who may not know better, but openly spitting in the face of a set of rules that were set up to protect the world from becoming unbalanced gets under your skin if you're the one trying to protect it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/20/2010 10:56:00 AM (view original):
Did he try?   I could argue that he did not.   Assuming, of course, that we assume he knows 50 is better than 40.   He said "I didn't know any better but I tried." 

yep, you could argue that.  There are  points on both sides of the issue.  If we were doing this, you'd make your points, someone else would make theirs and then a group of people would make a judgement.  

Nice to see Rickey being able to govern itself though and WIS agreeing.

And, again, the point is "How will that group of people make their judgement?"    Will it be fair?  Will they add personalities into the equation?  Did one have a bad day?  Did any of them find a bag of money?  

Try as you might, once you have "judgements" being made by owners in the world, you blurr the lines between fair/unfair. 

Posted by nfet on 9/20/2010 10:20:00 AM (view original):
Don't confuse the tanking rule with the win floor.

Also, you keep ignoring that there is a list of reasons that show how he tanked.  How the decision is affected is painfully obvious to you because you keep ignoring the list of valid reasons.  This wasn't decided on a general feeling.   I know, you can come up with valid reasons on both sides of the issue...but, as i've said, that's not a reason in itself to run away from deciding which reasons are more valid than others.

And, "tried to win" isn't a character judgement, it's a judgement of intent.  One that I would say is important.

You nailed the issue. A minimum win rule in a league has nothing to do with tanking. If your league has a minimum win rule that you miss out on, that does make necessarily mean that you tanked, it could just mean that your team sucks or that you suck. My team this season in Moneyball is probablygoing to miss the win requirement and I would like anyone to take a look at the way I built the team in the offseason and find out how I lost games in purpose - the fact is that my team sucks and I did a lousy job as a GM in the league over the past few years and deserve to be fired. However, a certain forum loudass, whose name I wont mention but if you guessed MikeT23 you would be correct, doesnt know the difference between tanking and losing.

So says tankerwood.   Slashing payroll and making a 52 WIN TEAM WORSE can't be anything but tanking.   Would you like to know what he said when called on it?  Yep, you guessed it "I did the best I could with what I had without hurting the future of my team."  

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/20/2010 11:33:00 AM (view original):
So says tankerwood.   Slashing payroll and making a 52 WIN TEAM WORSE can't be anything but tanking.   Would you like to know what he said when called on it?  Yep, you guessed it "I did the best I could with what I had without hurting the future of my team."  

Show me the rule I voilated that season or STFU and go back to gaming the Advance Scouting rules...at least I am not using a defect in the game engine to win games.