Posted by bad_luck on 5/6/2016 12:25:00 PM (view original):
I don't know, I clearly don't see things the same way you guys do. In my opinion, you pay your fees for the season, it's your team. You want to try to sell players, go for it. You want to stockpile IFAs and high draft picks to try to build a super team 4 seasons from now, be my guest.

What's the point of the game if you can't employ your own personal strategy?

If other owners don't like it, they are free to not trade with you. Other than taking advantage of inexperienced owners with rape trades, I think anything goes.

If gaming the system and tanking is acceptable to you why not noob rape?

Everyone has a line.

Because "gaming" the system isn't actually gaming the system. Teams are working within the rules. WIFS allows cash in trades. It allows budget transfers. It gives teams with the worst records high draft picks.

Trade rape is taking advantage of someone else's inexperience. You're harming their franchise and probably pushing them out the door. It's the reason there is a trade veto option.

There's no rule against noob rape. If ur philosophy is to 'go for what you know' if it's within the rules then why not noob rape? If someone plops their money down its up to them to learn the game right?

Yep. You wanna live in the Wild West, you gotta put some greenhorns in the ground.

IIRC, a number of years ago, an admitted n00b raper tried defending himself in these forums by claiming that by raping the n00bs, they would learn a lesson about the game, albeit the hard way. Something like that.

IIRC, his explanation was not well received.

Thing is, if it is so frowned upon, it wouldn't exist. A majority isn't even required to stop it. Yet it happens.

I'm just saying that if - for whatever reason - you can accept tanking, then I don't know how you can object to noob rape. Both are within the rules (if you hit the MWR) and both tip the playing field against those that don't employ those practices. If you defend one, I don't see how you can not defend both.

beachboy71 tanks. cloud13 rapes noobs. Both have two of the best teams in HBD. But one is in the right and one is in the wrong? I think you either think both are" doing all they can to win within the rules" or both are - essentially - gaming the system.

Posted by sjpoker on 5/6/2016 3:35:00 PM (view original):
I'm just saying that if - for whatever reason - you can accept tanking, then I don't know how you can object to noob rape. Both are within the rules (if you hit the MWR) and both tip the playing field against those that don't employ those practices. If you defend one, I don't see how you can not defend both.

beachboy71 tanks. cloud13 rapes noobs. Both have two of the best teams in HBD. But one is in the right and one is in the wrong? I think you either think both are" doing all they can to win within the rules" or both are - essentially - gaming the system.

Because tanking doesn't tip the playing field against anyone else. You're losing. That's making it easier for other teams to win.

Trade rape makes it harder for other teams to win.

"tanking doesn't tip the playing field against anyone else." Maybe not in year 1-3 but by year's 4-11 it makes it much harder to win. I don't understand the logic. There's obviously no skill involved. So while other owners are working to find the right balance between budgeting, FA signings, and prospect development, the tanker simply strips his team down, plows cash into IFA, and drafts elite amateurs. In three seasons the team is winning 80-90 games. By the next season you have a bunch of 24 yr olds with 80+ ovr and a $17 million payroll. But the balance is not tipped at that point?

Ok.

Posted by sjpoker on 5/6/2016 4:12:00 PM (view original):
"tanking doesn't tip the playing field against anyone else." Maybe not in year 1-3 but by year's 4-11 it makes it much harder to win. I don't understand the logic. There's obviously no skill involved. So while other owners are working to find the right balance between budgeting, FA signings, and prospect development, the tanker simply strips his team down, plows cash into IFA, and drafts elite amateurs. In three seasons the team is winning 80-90 games. By the next season you have a bunch of 24 yr olds with 80+ ovr and a $17 million payroll. But the balance is not tipped at that point?

Ok.

So let's say he does it your way, balances development and competitiveness at the ML level. He happens to draft very well and makes a few smart trades/IFA signings and ends up with a dominant team that wins 105 games a season. Has he gamed the system?

Because your argument is that a dominant team wrecks the world. Does it matter how it became dominant?

For every win, there is a loss. If you tank all the way thru, it's not nearly as bad as tanking your way to the finish once eliminated.

Nonetheless, either way is bad.

To sjp's argument, anyone looking to join a world should look for parity. If one team is winning 120 games every year and the WS every other year, they should find out why.

It really doesn't matter anyway. These arguments have been done a thousand times. If someone thinks they should be allowed to sell players, they're not changing their mind. If they think "every man for himself", you're not convincing him that stealing from n00bs is wrong. And, if they believe losing 120 for 4 straight seasons is "strategy", that's what they believe.

Everyone just needs to find a world that accepts their beliefs.

Posted by sjpoker on 5/4/2016 9:52:00 PM (view original):
I look at a guy like beachboy71 in Piazza who tanked his way to 245 wins in the last two seasons (with a $50 million payroll). Was it worth the 4-5 seasons of sucking to get to that point? Who knows. He hasn't won any titles. Yet I see other owners win a lot more without tanking. So idk.

my cousin, lol