4/11/2013 3:36 PM
Well intended suggestion.  Would cause more and bigger problems than it would solve.  You really can't force anyone to play a game they don't want to play.
4/11/2013 4:25 PM
Posted by KPMcClave on 4/11/2013 1:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/10/2013 8:43:00 AM (view original):
KPM, you don't think an owner could sour on waiting a month to play?  
I think I'd prefer if you actually read my posts before asking questions.
Well, it's your contention that worlds will magically fill in a very short time.    I find this to be funny.   Owners, knowing that they can't get out, will be reluctant to jump into a world with 5-6 openings.
4/12/2013 11:43 AM
Posted by KPMcClave on 4/11/2013 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ratfink99 on 4/10/2013 8:08:00 PM (view original):
Or how about this situation that would sour an owner and make them leave. You sign up for a public world only to have the commish TC you that you need to change cities and what to name your team because when will fill we will revert back to private world rules. I left the world upon getting that TC. When joining a private world I always ask what the world rules are upfront and then decide if I am going to join. When your public world goes private you lose your ability to screen and inform prospective owners of your league rules.  

ratfink, I'm in that world and while I didn't see your sitemail or TC message, I know we all realize, the commish included, that it is only a request that you do what you describe to match the theme. It would be completely in your right to say no.

That world is actually pretty unusual in my experiences, as I haven't been in any other worlds that have an actual theme. Private World Rules are different.

KPMcClave,  I know the world you're talking about as well.  And while the change the name/city is a request, its been stated by your Commish that after this season, the private rules woudl apply again.  This implies that even if someone joined this season and named their team/picked their city, at the end season, they would have to comply or find a new league.  Why should someone be forced to stay in a league if they find these things out after joining? 

Your Commish is not shy about telling folks how he "runs a tight ship".  BTW, I'm one of the people that left that league when you Commish took over so I know.
4/13/2013 5:48 PM

Mike, if your concern is that you don't think my suggestion would do what i intend, why haven't you talked about that rather than contiuning to ask me why i think owners want to wait around...as if that isn't the very reason I made the original suggestion. Clearly the whole point of my original suggestion is that it will fill worlds more quickly and that owners will have to wait less not more. So, why do you keep asking me why an owner would want to wait longer? You know I don't think they will. 

memphisdave, thanks for the feedback. Sorry it wasn't a positive experience. I don't want the appearance to be, however, that the world in question is the reason for my original suggestion. The problem I'm trying to address has happned across a number of worlds (worlds without any sort of theme), and I assume as I watch the totals for other open worlds that I'm not in, the issue is not uncommon.

4/13/2013 10:16 PM
"The world in question..." does appear to be a central reason for your original suggestion.  "The world in question..." rolled over on Feb 22nd and still has 7 openings due to people joining and then leaving.  It's pretty easy to interpret the frustration on the world chat.  These things are not coincidental.
4/13/2013 10:33 PM
KPM, not so much not positive. Spent 24 seasons there. Re-upped early every time. Not a great owner but loyal. Got shoved out when the new commish came in with a stupid theme and big promises of guaranteed owners and fast turnovers. He got the ok and lost 8 long term owners. Took him 2 weeks to get his 8 guaranteed new owners and that included 4 or 5 family members? To say I'm still a little ****** is an understatement. Not taking it out on you, just still feel your commish stole a good league with bullshit promises.

The fact that other public worlds fill while the hockey league remains open is FUNNY! And your posts above seem to suggest your frustration is with this league.

As a side note, I'd love a league where an owner has to buy multiple seasons at a time to re-up. I would commit 5 seasons at a time.
4/15/2013 12:53 PM (edited)
Posted by gomiami1972 on 4/13/2013 10:16:00 PM (view original):
"The world in question..." does appear to be a central reason for your original suggestion.  "The world in question..." rolled over on Feb 22nd and still has 7 openings due to people joining and then leaving.  It's pretty easy to interpret the frustration on the world chat.  These things are not coincidental.
Yes, I'm lying and it's never, ever happned in any world I've ever been in before. I've never ever posted the issue to other World Chats in the past couple of years. I lie all the time about a made up game with made up players that I play against aliases and people trying to lose on purpose.

You caught me.

These Suggestion threads result in such productive discourse.

 


4/14/2013 11:33 AM
Posted by KPMcClave on 4/13/2013 5:48:00 PM (view original):

Mike, if your concern is that you don't think my suggestion would do what i intend, why haven't you talked about that rather than contiuning to ask me why i think owners want to wait around...as if that isn't the very reason I made the original suggestion. Clearly the whole point of my original suggestion is that it will fill worlds more quickly and that owners will have to wait less not more. So, why do you keep asking me why an owner would want to wait longer? You know I don't think they will. 

memphisdave, thanks for the feedback. Sorry it wasn't a positive experience. I don't want the appearance to be, however, that the world in question is the reason for my original suggestion. The problem I'm trying to address has happned across a number of worlds (worlds without any sort of theme), and I assume as I watch the totals for other open worlds that I'm not in, the issue is not uncommon.

Sure.  I thought I said this before but maybe not. 

Because they know they'll be locked in, owners will not join worlds with multiple openings until they know the world has committments to actually fill.

Example:  World X has 7 openings.   I want to play HBD.   Should I join World X and hope it fills soon?  Or should I wait and see how many openings Worlds A, B, K, M and Z have when they roll in 3 days?  The answer is obvious.

What you'll be hoping for is n00b A joins without realizing he's stuck there.    n00b A is unlikely to be very happy if he has to watch other worlds start while he waits.
4/14/2013 11:34 AM
Posted by memphisdave3 on 4/13/2013 10:33:00 PM (view original):
KPM, not so much not positive. Spent 24 seasons there. Re-upped early every time. Not a great owner but loyal. Got shoved out when the new commish came in with a stupid theme and big promises of guaranteed owners and fast turnovers. He got the ok and lost 8 long term owners. Took him 2 weeks to get his 8 guaranteed new owners and that included 4 or 5 family members? To say I'm still a little ****** is an understatement. Not taking it out on you, just still feel your commish stole a good league with bullshit promises.

The fact that other public worlds fill while the hockey league remains open is FUNNY! And your posts above seem to suggest your frustration is with this league.

As a side note, I'd love a league where an owner has to buy multiple seasons at a time to re-up. I would commit 5 seasons at a time.

There's no question I was including that world in my history of experiences, but it is far from the only time this has happened, and as I said the other day, I see numbers going up and down on other worlds in which I'm not an owner, too. My concern would exist if I'd never played in that world.

I understand your frustration. I've had my own issues with that world.

Now I'll wait for some d-bag to come along and tell me I'm lying again.

4/14/2013 11:47 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/14/2013 11:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by KPMcClave on 4/13/2013 5:48:00 PM (view original):

Mike, if your concern is that you don't think my suggestion would do what i intend, why haven't you talked about that rather than contiuning to ask me why i think owners want to wait around...as if that isn't the very reason I made the original suggestion. Clearly the whole point of my original suggestion is that it will fill worlds more quickly and that owners will have to wait less not more. So, why do you keep asking me why an owner would want to wait longer? You know I don't think they will. 

memphisdave, thanks for the feedback. Sorry it wasn't a positive experience. I don't want the appearance to be, however, that the world in question is the reason for my original suggestion. The problem I'm trying to address has happned across a number of worlds (worlds without any sort of theme), and I assume as I watch the totals for other open worlds that I'm not in, the issue is not uncommon.

Sure.  I thought I said this before but maybe not. 

Because they know they'll be locked in, owners will not join worlds with multiple openings until they know the world has committments to actually fill.

Example:  World X has 7 openings.   I want to play HBD.   Should I join World X and hope it fills soon?  Or should I wait and see how many openings Worlds A, B, K, M and Z have when they roll in 3 days?  The answer is obvious.

What you'll be hoping for is n00b A joins without realizing he's stuck there.    n00b A is unlikely to be very happy if he has to watch other worlds start while he waits.

Thanks.

While I see a lot of "new" owners nowadays, the owenrs who join and leave have been all sorts in my experiences in various worlds. I wouldn't disagree that perhaps the most common is "new" guys, but this issue is certanly not limited to them by any means.

Owners will always tend to join a world closer to filling. We agree on that much. If open worlds have 3, 7, 8 and 10 openings, of course I expect someone to join the world with 3 openings. That happens now, though. What I think the suggested rule change alters is the bolting from worlds when other worlds roll. Those worlds in my example with 7, 8, 10 openings would be much closer to filling by the time other worlds rolled if the suggested rule works. More than anything else, and this is the part I'm most certain about, owners want to play NOW. The suggestion is made weith that clearly in mind.

World consolidation may be a better solution to the length of time it takes some worlds to fill, but if that isn't going to happen locking in owners addresses the issue. as stated previously, if a 24 hour window for buyer remorse or disliking the world is needed, fine.

The bottom line is that we disagree on whether the suggestion would actually fill worlds more quickly, and that's fine.

4/14/2013 12:01 PM (edited)

tufft, I neglected to thank you for the response the other day.

I get what you mean and agree in the broadest sense, but it becomes a bit bizarre when we're talking about "forc(ing) anyone to play a game they don't want to play," when that game is one they've paid money to play and the team is one they selected themselves.

There are all sorts of restrictions in the marketplace that prevent consumers from just doing whatever they want, whenever they want. There are "limit one per customer," "30 day return policy," "all sales are final," "(product X) may not be returned if opened," etc.

The main concern in all those examples and in my suggestion is setting the expectation. You can't sell someone something and then tell them they can't return it. I agree with that. You can tell owners as they purchase a team they will have 24 hours to switch if they choose (if that window is part of the rule), or that their purchase is final (if they are locked in right away).

4/14/2013 7:05 PM
Posted by KPMcClave on 4/14/2013 11:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by memphisdave3 on 4/13/2013 10:33:00 PM (view original):
KPM, not so much not positive. Spent 24 seasons there. Re-upped early every time. Not a great owner but loyal. Got shoved out when the new commish came in with a stupid theme and big promises of guaranteed owners and fast turnovers. He got the ok and lost 8 long term owners. Took him 2 weeks to get his 8 guaranteed new owners and that included 4 or 5 family members? To say I'm still a little ****** is an understatement. Not taking it out on you, just still feel your commish stole a good league with bullshit promises.

The fact that other public worlds fill while the hockey league remains open is FUNNY! And your posts above seem to suggest your frustration is with this league.

As a side note, I'd love a league where an owner has to buy multiple seasons at a time to re-up. I would commit 5 seasons at a time.

There's no question I was including that world in my history of experiences, but it is far from the only time this has happened, and as I said the other day, I see numbers going up and down on other worlds in which I'm not an owner, too. My concern would exist if I'd never played in that world.

I understand your frustration. I've had my own issues with that world.

Now I'll wait for some d-bag to come along and tell me I'm lying again.

Thanks KPM. Best of luck. You seem like a reasonable guy
4/14/2013 11:46 PM
Trying to find ways to get worlds to fill is good, but as noted above this creates more issues than it solves. New owner decides HBD looks like fun, plunks down his money, finds a world/team and signs up. A week later, he's tired of reading through the useful forum posts one more time and really wants to play a game. Or set a budget. Or hire a coach. But he can't leave. Support says sorry, those are the rules. If the new owner is me, my next step is to call my credit card company to dispute the charge based on not getting what I paid for. What do you think the odds are that I ever try again?

Someone new to HBD isn't going to know to check out the world chat, look for absurd win-loss extremes, franchise hoppers, collusion problems, etc., before signing up. We want people who try out HBD to have the best experience they can, and if that means changing their mind about a world, good for them. Better they end up in a world they like. If you lose an owner who does not want to be in the world, you have lost nothing.

A basic truth remains: Good worlds fill.
4/15/2013 1:10 PM
Posted by joshkvt on 4/14/2013 11:46:00 PM (view original):
Trying to find ways to get worlds to fill is good, but as noted above this creates more issues than it solves. New owner decides HBD looks like fun, plunks down his money, finds a world/team and signs up. A week later, he's tired of reading through the useful forum posts one more time and really wants to play a game. Or set a budget. Or hire a coach. But he can't leave. Support says sorry, those are the rules. If the new owner is me, my next step is to call my credit card company to dispute the charge based on not getting what I paid for. What do you think the odds are that I ever try again?

Someone new to HBD isn't going to know to check out the world chat, look for absurd win-loss extremes, franchise hoppers, collusion problems, etc., before signing up. We want people who try out HBD to have the best experience they can, and if that means changing their mind about a world, good for them. Better they end up in a world they like. If you lose an owner who does not want to be in the world, you have lost nothing.

A basic truth remains: Good worlds fill.

Absolutely. Good worlds fill. No argument from me there.

However, the assumption that all worlds currently good always were, or that all worlds that aren't good now couldn't be, is short sighted and downright arrogant (I'm not suggesting you think those things, josh). I've said before, if you play in a strong world or worlds that's great, but it does you no good if WiS falls down around you.

You, as Mike was, are acting under the assumption that the worlds won't fill more quickly (your suggestion that someone will get bored and want to leave and contest the CC charge, etc.). The *only* reason I made the original suggestion is to fill worlds more quickly. I've yet to see an argument that counters that effectively. Everything I've experienced says owners want to play, yes, and ***because of that*** with worlds getting closer with each new owner, rather than yo-yoing up and down, they will fill more quickly across the baord

I stated in the post that started this thread that owners who are going to be hyper-selective about the teams they choose already are. The issue I'm trying to address is that of fickle/impatient owners bolting. If they can't, it only follows that the worlds will fill more quickly. I see no reason to accept blindly that they woulod just stop joining worlds (Mike's suggestion) until the right one comes along. They as a group have demonstrated great impatience. That's the issue. Thus the suggestion.

4/15/2013 1:26 PM

it seems that, while we agree that there are other reasons for the issue I raised, the primary one is likely that owners want to play and not sit and wait. That's why they play musical chairs with teams. If everyone hasn't agreed with that, it seems there is consensus at least.

Some owners may not like a world, but in my experience virtually nothing offensive happens in the window of time we're discussing. The saber rattling starts with the first questioned trade or the "calling out" of the guy using a High A caliber player as his #1 SP. In other words, once the season gets under way.

So, if owner impatience is the problem I'm addressing, why would the suggestion *not* have a psoitive effect? You can't just say "owners won't join, they'll wait" as if there's reason to believe that. Maybe *you* would, but it is 180 degrees from the behavior that the group of owners in question has been displaying up to now. 

of 5

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.