New Admin/Customer Support Topic

csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
YES! Another witch-hunt thread! WE WANT NAMES!! ADDRESES!!! MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME!!! BURN BURN BURN!!!
9/18/2009 12:00 PM
cmthieme
Posts: 28 (0)
Hall of Famer
37 61
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 9/18/2009Or, let public worlds go private so that they can protect themselves from this kind of crap
Bingo. I always love the "don't join a public world" advice. Nearly everybody starts this game by joining a public world. And some of those worlds are very strong with very low turnover and fun to play in. If you get attached to your team, there should be a better alternative than quitting and starting over in another world.

For what it's worth, we were told last season that converting a public world with low turnover rates to a private world might soon be possible, but I'm not holding my breath since it's been 4 months since any type of upgrade has been made. It would be great if they would allow this though.
9/18/2009 12:26 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
The reason WIS made public worlds was so everyone would have a chance to join a world. You won't be seeing public worlds go private. If you wish to avoid the above scenario don't join public worlds, if you choose to join a WIS created public world then you will be living with the baggage that comes with it.
9/18/2009 12:32 PM
chadw09
Posts: 0 (0)
All Star
6 4 2 33
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By smanfredo on 9/18/2009
Thats false double-a, although I did call someone a d-bag.

Here is my concern: Some of the story is the same since its the same owner.

In a public world there was an alias, here is how bad it was:

The Alias was in the same division as the cheating owner, traded him his best players and prospects over the course of a season. The trades were called out as bogus but not enough owners wanted to use the veto to stop them so the first few trades went through. Eventually it was so clear that team A was an alias to team B that no more trades went through. Team B put his new young talent but sent it to the minors and proceeded to lose every game possible until he had was in dead last with top waiver priority. Towards the end of the season Team A(the alias) places on waivers his top two remaining players. Team B claims them. This sends outrage through the league Team A puts up a post saying it was a mistake and he didn't mean to do it but he's a first year owner and didn't know any better. Team B laughs to the bank.



An owner in the world, who is not me, sends in a help ticket to admin and says hey these guys are obviously the same person can you look into this? The whole season Team A and Team B have maintained that they are not an alias and have made no mention of being pals or anything.

Admin comes back that they have the same IP address and that they asked the two teams what the deal is and they said "roomates"

Team A in one season traded several top players to team B, then when trades were questioned accidently waived his remaining top players and Team B was in last to claim them. Team A decides he doesn't like whatifsports and never comes back again.

Team B now ripe with all this stolen talent competes for the playoffs the following season, comes in sixth and makes the playoffs. Wins his first series and goes on a tirad about how great he is, wins another series and continues rubbing it in everyones face. Owners start reminding him that he is a cheater and had an alias he doesn't care.

I post saying he is a cheater, had an alias, and should not be allowed to play in whatifsports period... and my posting rights are revoked as a terms of service violation, admin says I can not accuse anyone of cheating or being an alias.



Oh yeah, and Team B just won the world series.

This is very disappointing and damning, and I'd love to hear admin's side of it.
9/18/2009 12:38 PM
cmthieme
Posts: 28 (0)
Hall of Famer
37 61
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By plague on 9/18/2009The reason WIS made public worlds was so everyone would have a chance to join a world. You won't be seeing public worlds go private. If you wish to avoid the above scenario don't join public worlds, if you choose to join a WIS created public world then you will be living with the baggage that comes with it
Like I said, that contradicts what WIS has said, though who knows if they will follow through with what they said and allow some select worlds to go private. There are still plenty of public worlds with higher turnover that can be filled by those not able to join private worlds. And it's not like they couldn't start a new public world if the problem of "have a chance to join a world" ever becomes a problem. We both know they are a long ways off from that being a problem right now.

There is basically no downside to allowing public worlds with low turnover to go private, other than the development effort to allow it to happen.
9/18/2009 12:45 PM
erffdogg
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
57 1 114
Prospect
i like how he went from 4 straight over 100 loss seasons to winning the WS.
9/18/2009 12:48 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
I have an ongoing open ticket with ADMIN where I've offered a proposal for criteria which must be met for a public world to be allowed to go private. Under that critieria, three public worlds (out of 28) would qualifiy. No response yet to my latest update to the ticket from Monday morning which either means (a) they are considering it, or (b) they're all on vacation this week.

At least it hasn't been rejected (yet).
9/18/2009 12:58 PM
cmthieme
Posts: 28 (0)
Hall of Famer
37 61
Prospect
what criteria did you present? I would think turnover rate is one, but interested in what else you might have presented. I think they gave us some potential criteria back when we asked in a ticket if it was possible, but can't remember what they were.
9/18/2009 1:01 PM
98greenc5
Posts: 188 (0)
Hall of Famer
142 4 27 2 55
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By cmthieme on 9/18/2009There is basically no downside to allowing public worlds with low turnover to go private, other than the development effort to allow it to happen
one possible downside is that a private world has one owner as commish ... and said commish (and a group of like-minded owners in the world) could define guidelines that are not accepted by 100% of the owners

maybe some owners joined the world BECAUSE is was a public world, and they prefer WiS to be commissioner (not that WiS "does" anything)

and while that may be a somewhat silly thought to you, it would be unfair to force someone into a private world that didn't want to
9/18/2009 1:03 PM
cmthieme
Posts: 28 (0)
Hall of Famer
37 61
Prospect
I agree with that. I think they said that everyone would have to agree before they would do it, and I think that's a fair criterion. I think in most of the worlds strong enough to consider going private, this wouldn't be an issue though.
9/18/2009 1:04 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By cmthieme on 9/18/2009what criteria did you present? I would think turnover rate is one, but interested in what else you might have presented. I think they gave us some potential criteria back when we asked in a ticket if it was possible, but can't remember what they were.
See page 24 of The Sky is Falling thread, where I outlined the criteria and presented data on all public worlds.
9/18/2009 1:05 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 9/18/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By cmthieme on 9/18/2009
There is basically no downside to allowing public worlds with low turnover to go private, other than the development effort to allow it to happen.
one possible downside is that a private world has one owner as commish ... and said commish (and a group of like-minded owners in the world) could define guidelines that are not accepted by 100% of the owners

maybe some owners joined the world BECAUSE is was a public world, and they prefer WiS to be commissioner (not that WiS "does" anything)

and while that may be a somewhat silly thought to you, it would be unfair to force someone into a private world that didn't want to

I polled all the owners in my public world (Mantle) about going private and not a single one dissented.
9/18/2009 1:08 PM
cmthieme
Posts: 28 (0)
Hall of Famer
37 61
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 9/18/2009See page 24 of The Sky is Falling thread, where I outlined the criteria and presented data on all public worlds
Seems like a good set of criteria.
9/18/2009 1:10 PM
double-a
Posts: 219 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 5 3 43 62
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
9/18/2009 1:14 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 9/18/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 9/18/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By cmthieme on 9/18/2009
There is basically no downside to allowing public worlds with low turnover to go private, other than the development effort to allow it to happen.
one possible downside is that a private world has one owner as commish ... and said commish (and a group of like-minded owners in the world) could define guidelines that are not accepted by 100% of the owners

maybe some owners joined the world BECAUSE is was a public world, and they prefer WiS to be commissioner (not that WiS "does" anything)

and while that may be a somewhat silly thought to you, it would be unfair to force someone into a private world that didn't want to

I polled all the owners in my public world (Mantle) about going private and not a single one dissented


This hardly means all agreed.
9/18/2009 2:01 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4...10 Next ▸
New Admin/Customer Support Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.