I don't see it that way.   

You do something.   It doesn't work like you'd hoped.  You ask ADMIN for help.  They say "No".   You take it to the forums.

Seems very similar, at this point, to me.     I'm in no way suggesting that shobob will proceed to attempt to wreck the team.   Just poining out the thought process is pretty similar.

You can understand why one might take it that way though, right MIke? From what I know of shobob he wouldn't ever do that. He seems to be a quality owner in the short time that i've played in a world with him.

Not if they followed the other thread(and, if they didn't, they'd have no idea what I'm talking about).    He certainly didn't side with his brother.    I just think their line of thinking is very similar.    Not that it's far off from how most HBD owners feel.    Most people think ADMIN should fix their mistakes.    All intentions aside, shobob was attempting to fix an earlier error he made and he made it worse.   Had he been a little more observant, he would have done nothing.   98% of this is on him. 

I admit it's on me, and I was dumb.  The fact remains that I accidentally discovered a glitch.  How I discovered it is beside the point.  Why should I get punished for it?

I haven't said I'm surprised that nobody agrees with me.  What I want is the opinions of some more people to increase the sample size.  The opinions of 6 people does not a consensus make.

Because of this:  "I admit it's on me, and I was dumb."

Do you think that sort of thing should be rewarded?

Heres a hypothetical situation:

If a player has options and is signed for more than 1 year, you can designate him without waivers, send him to AAA before ST, remove him from the 40 and protect someone else.   He won't be eligible to be drafted and he won't take a ratings hit.   Essentially, the enterprising owner can protect 45 players.   It's a glitch and WifS has been notified.   But an enterprising owner might still do it until they fix it.

However, if the enterprising owner screws up and designates with waivers, he can be claimed.    And the enterprising owner might lose his best pitcher.

OK, it's not hypothetical.   I did it.   And I lost my pitcher.   Should I blame WifS for not repairing that glitch and ask for my pitcher back?  After all, without a known glitch in the program, I'm not waiving my best pitcher.  WifS' fault, right?  Why should I be punished?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/6/2012 1:51:00 PM (view original):
Because of this:  "I admit it's on me, and I was dumb."

Do you think that sort of thing should be rewarded?

Again:  I tried to do something that the game never should have allowed me to do.  The outcome should have been a red message at the top of my screen telling me that it was impossible for me to do it.  Instead, it happened.  That's a glitch.  I admit that I didn't know that I shouldn't have been able to do it, and if I did, I wouldn't have tried.  I guarantee that there are probably many more rules in the CBA that I'm not aware of.  My hope is that this game won't allow me to do things that aren't allowed if I try to do them.  I'm not asking for a reward.  I'm asking for the opinion of what people would expect from the site if this were to happen to them.  Not once have I said that I deserve anything.  Reread all of my posts if you like.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/6/2012 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Heres a hypothetical situation:

If a player has options and is signed for more than 1 year, you can designate him without waivers, send him to AAA before ST, remove him from the 40 and protect someone else.   He won't be eligible to be drafted and he won't take a ratings hit.   Essentially, the enterprising owner can protect 45 players.   It's a glitch and WifS has been notified.   But an enterprising owner might still do it until they fix it.

However, if the enterprising owner screws up and designates with waivers, he can be claimed.    And the enterprising owner might lose his best pitcher.

OK, it's not hypothetical.   I did it.   And I lost my pitcher.   Should I blame WifS for not repairing that glitch and ask for my pitcher back?  After all, without a known glitch in the program, I'm not waiving my best pitcher.  WifS' fault, right?  Why should I be punished?

That looks like you were knowingly trying to take advantage of a known glitch.  Different situation.

So you're saying "I didn't know.  I shouldn't have to take responsibility"?

Do you have any idea how many people lie on a daily basis?    Have you ever heard a cop say "Ignorance of the law is no excuse?"    It's because people who screw up ALWAYS say "I didn't know."

I'm not asking for a reward, I'm asking for opinions.  Yours has been duly noted ad nauseum

That's why these threads are created.    To get public opinion in your favor, return to WifS and say "See?  This is what your customer base thinks."

I've done it when trying to get WifS to enforce their rules on removing owners.

Shobob, I'm of two minds.  On one hand, it seems to me like WIS should be scurrying to clean up its mess when a program misfunctions and the game-code is at odds with the game rules.  I feel like I could sustain an argument for the spirit of the law (the rules) being more important than the letter of the law (the code).  (That phraseology sounds backward to me, but I -think- it actually fits in this circumstance.)  You suffered a negative effect that was contrary to any experienced player's expectations because there was a malfunction of the game code.  I think there's a winnable argument that you should be compensated.

At the same time, it seems to me that there's an argument that although there is a programming mess here, the game has managed to simulate a real-life situation that the current simulation engine overlooks, namely that sometimes there are kooky, inexplicable injuries that don't respond in any predictable way to rehab and from which players never return (your case, I assume, is a little better than that).  Though issue is to be taken with the process (and this should prompt internal action on behalf of WIS programmers) the result is a reasonable one.  Also a decent argument.

Aside from those two sides of the coin, I think there's also an outside factor that determines which argument WIS will always side with.  I can't imagine WIS ever amending player attributes.  Among the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of players scattered across thousands of teams in hundreds of worlds, setting a precedent by doing such a thing once would result in lots of extra work for them down the line.  So out of two (somewhat) reasonable ways to approach the problem, they inevitably choose the second.  "Completely understable" when it happens to someone else; "BS!" when it happens to oneself.

Yes I'm trying to get some public opinion on this, but the sample size is a bit small as of yet.

edit:  this was meant to be a response to Mike's post.