I'll list three scenarios, no rules were broken, and am looking for opinions.

Owner takes over a team mid-season.   Since the MWR doesn't apply, he tanks it up near the end to secure the 3rd pick.   Only reason he got caught was because of a L10.   He'd signed a 70ish D across the board FA after roster expansion to play SS.   Ran a respectable payroll(60-80m) but stayed in bottom two, just above MWR number, while collecting high picks.   Only signed one high dollar IFA but got a few mid-level ones during his "rebuild".   Built a pretty good team but had to leave HBD for personal reasons.   Not that I cared because I held a grudge for tanking in that first season.

Owner joins a world because he wants to step up in competition.   Runs a respectable team(65-81 wins) while only getting two top 3 picks(one from the previous owner's ineptitude, one he "earned").   Collects some decent IFA along the way.   The MWR was never a real threat.   The problem I, and others had with this owner, is that he held his best players back for the big "unveil".   This is in a world where 84-85 wins routinely gets in the playoffs.   One or two of those players who needed more "seasoning" might have put him in the playoffs.  But that wasn't part of his plan.

Owner complains about the quality of worlds.   I recommend one that's due to roll in a couple of weeks.  He joins.   The season is winding down and he has the worst record(after taking over a team with the worst record).   Ran a 39m payroll and spent about the same on an IFA.   I check his team and, yeah, there was more than one questionable decision(won't bother to detail them).  Naturally, I point them out and accuse him of tanking.   His response was "No, I was not.  I just neglected the team when I realized I couldn't win my division."   I don't think that's "better" but whatever.



So my question is:  Why do owners, seeking a good world, join good worlds and do the exact thing that drags worlds down?

And, in cases like these, should the commish have any recourse?

And, for the haters, am I just a jerk for even pointing out "questionable" tactics that don't break rules?

A timely question, because I'm struggling with this exact issue today.

I've played ten seasons in a world with no rules.  The only thing to keep Tard tactics in check is that the ownership is very stable, everyone "knows" each other and gets along, so the world stays generally free of drama, which is a selling point. 

This environment also allows everyone to get real close to the edge of questionable manipulation, without comment or objection.  It's all nudge-nudge, wink-wink.  Then, when someone does something which steps over what I consider "my line", no one can object because it's either not far from what the last guy did, nor far from something that was done before anyway.

At least once every season, something happens - some owner manipulates a transaction - in a way that ****** me off completely.  That's not an experience I'm paying money to have.

So to answer your questions:

Everyone can do something "just once, just this time" in service of self-interest.  It takes discipline to realize that your actions only make it easier for the next guy to do more, or worse.

The commish has whatever recourse he decides when he establishes and runs the world.  It must be written, stated up front, and he must be unfailing in his judgment.

As for questionable tactics that don't break rules, Mike, you've said it many times, and it's taken me ten seasons to learn the game and understand it - if you don't like the world you're playing in, it's not worth it to stay.  Leave, and find a world that lives up to what you want your experience of the game to be.

Well, I'm the commish of the first two worlds.   I did change the way replacement owners are handled.  Anyone caught using questionable tactics because the MWR doesn't apply won't be allowed back.  Basically, if they take over a .400 team, they need to be in that ballpark when the season finishes.

I'm not even sure how one would address the 2nd scenario.   I'm not comfortable telling another owner, who isn't breaking the rules, that he should promote Players A and B because they're better than Players C and D on the big league club.   "Better" is subjective and owners plan the way owners plan.   You could probably find a minor leaguer on all my teams that could be in the bigs(except Coop, I mismanaged my future horribly).   There has been some public shaming but it didn't deter him.   In what I admit is a dick move, he asked to swap cities, I said "sure" but had little intention of giving him the password.   But I pussed out because that seemed as bad, if not worse, than what he is doing.  So he's "stuck" in that city.

The 3rd scenario isn't really my problem as I'm just another owner.  But I damn sure don't like it nor does anyone else in the world(at least those that have chimed in). 

There could be a number of reasons owners want to join a good world.  Faster rollovers, because demand is higher for more competitive worlds thinking they can tear it down and build it back up and not have to wait agonizingly long in between each season of non-competitiveness.  Maybe thinking you are ready to take on tougher competition only to realize your formula to success doesn't work with more savvy owners and you aren't able to adapt, so you do exactly what you see works for owners in your other, worse worlds even if it means stretching the rules in a world where owners care a lot more about rules (written and unwritten).   

I tend to think it comes down to setting rules in place.  You don't necessarily want the commissioner of your world to become a Roger Goodell: judge, jury, and executioner, but there should be a system in place, in good worlds especially, to prevent owners from these kinds of behaviors.  Democracy doesn't work for everyone but maybe a panel of owners (though we are getting into collusion potential territory with this).  

Options such as Intl spending caps, budget transfer caps, win requirements (so common, yet not all that useful outside of weeding out the absolute trash in leagues), creating position by position minimum defense expectancy ratings (this is tough because I like the whole Dh type in RF if the bat justifies it), setting a maximum number of years you can keep a top prospect (fairly subjective but framework for "top prospect" could be identified and agreed upon) in the minors based off age at the time of draft or signing (definitely becomes murkier territory with the rules change).

I think it will take at least a few seasons in every world before anyone has a strong understanding of the new game functionality and begins to exploit inherent weaknesses (or I'm just naive as to how smart/ how many resources people invest in this game).  It'll be good to monitor how the tear it down and rebuild model works and how effective tanking is after the updates.  Personally, I don't know that it necessarily penalizes that behavior all that much outside of a few mil in budget that will now have to go into a tanking team's scouting (but that's an entirely different conversation).  The above short list of ideas is majorly flawed as are most corrective rules in place in worlds that I am familiar with.

Pointing it out doesn't make you a jerk, how you actually communicate with the owners in question would determine that.  I think there are a number of unwritten rules in this game that good owners, who respect fair competition share.  I also can't speak from experience about playing in a super competitive world as I would not say any of my worlds are exceptionally competitive, but there are a number of worlds with strong continuity of owners who this same conversation is relevant to. 

I've explored most of the restrictions you listed and discarded the ideas.

Caps - If you can win 93 games with a 40m payroll, good for you.  I'm not interested in making you spend another 20m.
Min D - No.   If you want to play a LF at 3B but he has a RC27 of 7+, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong.
Top prospect - No.  A guy could be blocked by a LT guy making 16m for several seasons.   Forcing you to call him up and sit him on the bench doesn't work.

I don't want to tell owners how to run their teams but, if you're doing what I listed, you're hurting the world.   And I don't want you doing that.

As for how I communicate the issue I see, yeah, I qualify as a jerk using your definition.    Jackhammer on concrete would be the best description.   I don't really care if I hurt your feelings.

Yea my main point was there is no fix that isn't overly intrusive on an owner's freedom, hence the "majorly flawed."  And I see the "I don't care if I hurt your feelings" attitude since who wants those owners in the league anyways right?  Some people need that push, some don't, sometimes it effects other owners in the world in ways you don't see but that's just your style and the owners in your worlds understand that at this point I would think.  

It's a difficult conundrum since you may want to take action against owners who may be utilizing shady practices but you don't want to tell owners how to run their team.  If you truly want to be non-intrusive then I think you pretty much answered your own question in terms of should the commish have any recourse.  But I don't think that quite satisfies any of us considering the integrity of the world can be damaged.  

Going back to damag's point, I think it really comes down to having a world with a large amount of continuity of like-minded owners.  Not the easiest thing to achieve, but to be truly non-intrusive it would be easier to ride out a bad owner when a large number of other owners are annoyed by that individual's behavior.  Someone, outside of the commissioner, is bound to say something to that owner. While peer pressuring an owner into changing his behavior or face more harassment may not be the most mature response, it's a fairly natural and common response in the workplace, in schools, in any environments where "cliques" are formed.  HBD is not all that different.
Not saying this is the best fix or really even a fix at all, but adding in new owners to mature worlds is similar to "testing out" the new guy at work or that friend of the friend who wants in on your beer league softball team. 

Yeah, when I'm nice, someone is bound to ask if I feel OK.    So they get it.

Back in the old days, a commish could deny an owner the ability to return for any number of reasons.   Naturally, this was abused.    Seems like there should be a happy medium where an owner could be removed, at season's end, even if they didn't violate any rules.   I'd be happy to plead my case to some HBD committee who rules on such matters.   In the end, I'm just concerned with the health of my worlds.  Bringing in undesirable practices is bad.  Even worse if they work because someone else will mimic them. 

FWIW, the "peer pressure" aspect was mentioned in the 3rd scenario.   An exchange in the WC when an owner suggested a tougher win threshold for 1 season:

MikeT23	Warriors in Grass Skirts	5/21/2015 1:56 PM	Coop has a tougher MWR but the bottom, single season is 55. I'm a little more harsh on owners tanking it up in my worlds, so there might be more "peer pressure"(if that's possible on the internet) than there is here but the low water mark is still 55.
spudpicker	Rabbits	5/21/2015 1:16 PM	I just figure good owners will flock to more competitive leagues. Making it difficult to stay in the league may lure more good owners than it loses in attrition. Isn't that how Coop works?

But, hell, I'll exert some "peer pressure" by naming names.  In order:

stevelippo - Cooperstown(departed)
shobob - Moonlight Graham(6th season)
willsauve - Mantle(1st season)

Isn't one of the realities of HBD that, as soon as you're out of the playoff race, all the incentives are to lose as many games as possible?

Since WIS pays money for coming in last place, it's clear they want this to be part of the game.  Almost everybody follows the incentives almost all the time.  If WIS didn't want tanking, they'd stop paying people to do it.

So there's that. Which trumps any idea you and I have about how the game should be. It's WIS sandbox. They make the rules.

A MWR seems to prevent those who do nothing but try to lose for a few seasons from reaping the benefits.  I don't think I'd ever join another world without one.

Unless you or a panel of "experts" is going to run every team with a losing record, what besides a MWR can be done?

In your first example, I've never played a guy with 70s across at SS for an extended period.  I don't really know how that compares to 85s across.  If I'm ever out of the playoff race with 30 games to go, I might try that.  I wouldn't put a C at SS, but I might test the pros/cons of a bigger stick vs. bigger D, even if that 70s guy wasn't a big stick.

You and some others might say I'm trying to lose.  I'd say I'm testing the game to learn more about how ratings impact performance.

As long as don't fall below the MWR, do you think you or your panel should be able to take that team away from me?

If your stated intention is to lose, which is what you're implying in that entire post, sure.

A MWR gives everyone a goal.  At least a limit on how much you can lose.   But a 60-60 team that drops the last 42 is a detriment to the league.    Detriments to a league should be removed.

And, FWIW, you sign up 1 season at a time.   You're not ensuring you have a team for the next 7 real-life years.    So no one is "taking" anything from you.  You're just not being allowed to continue in a world that doesn't tolerate your "experiments".

The SS example is a very weak example if you ask me.  The differences in SS defensive ratings and performance is pretty well documented and all you have to do is ask a veteran owner and they should be able to point to specific examples, MikeT provides examples all the time.  Or just check out your league leader board in errors at the end of any season, one owner is bound to have been running out a scrub at SS in most leagues, no need to stir the "am I tanking pot" by attempting to defend your choice by saying you were testing a guy out.  
I understand trying out that borderline SS/3B at SS or the poor glove/ all bat 2B and things of that sort (low splits pitcher with strong other ratings and things of that ilk) But blatantly playing a no bat/ 70's across the board SS as a test has been done by many, many owners who receive deserved criticism for it.  
It's the whole "is there actually some legitimacy to me playing this guy at this position (whether for his bat or glove) and can I find some examples of other owners who have tried this in the past?"  In the amount of time it takes you to get a large enough in game sample size of a player's work to make a judgement off of you could have gotten your answer several times over by simply asking around or taking a look at some stats.

WIS pays money for coming in last, but assuming you are actually attempting to be competitive, it pays a lot more to do well.  If the difference in money you get between 3rd and 4th place is really that significant to your financial well-being then I guess you may as well tank it up, but it likely is not enough incentive for any veteran owners in a strong world.  People tank to get a higher draft pick, not the negligible amount of cash for a 4th place finish.

A lot of issues come down to communication in this game.  Rules and expectations should be well documented so owner's can't hide behind the "I'm naive" response we see so often.  So maybe no one is going to run your team for you, but you're definitely going to hear about it if you aren't meeting other owner expectations. 

Also I was thinking about the automatic eligibility for renewal factor.  I think HBD has a tough time reconciling the difference in making the majority happy versus the loss of revenue from that one disgruntled owner throwing a fit then leaving for good.  Be informed of the expectations, meet them, and if you don't find a different league that will put up with your chosen strategy/