If you brought in an owner with happy feet, in theory you've accepted him with the knowledge that they have happy feet.

To reject him post facto because of the potential that they would leave is bad form. If potential becomes reality, then ok (although, then he's already left, but you get the idea)

Rejecting him up front because he may leave, ok, that's due diligence.

I mean, hell, I've had that due diligence applied to me, and I'm cool with it.

That's the canuck version of what I was about to post.   I'm a pain in the *** about admitting owners but, once they're in, I judge them by their actions within the world. 

Make sure you capitalize Canuck, jackass.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/22/2010 11:53:00 AM (view original):
3 seasons was one of their early requirements.   Having been unable to enforce it, maybe it's been dropped.

In truth, I'm just yanking your chain.   Your job, as commish of KP, is to acquire and keep good owners.  Dumping them because they dumped shobob's world is a silly idea.    It's counterproductive to what YOU should do.   It's up to WifS, who is allowing new world creations, to ensure "old" worlds don't get damaged.

How could they not be able to enforce the 3-season rule? Just force people to purchase all 3 seasons before they join. Let's just see how many people drop out of a world prematurely when they're forced to plunk down $75 to join it.

How do you enforce that the $75 goes to that league only?

"hey Admin, I bought a 4 pack". Now what? Best you could do is make them commit to next season.

Posted by deathinahole on 6/22/2010 12:34:00 PM (view original):
How do you enforce that the $75 goes to that league only?

"hey Admin, I bought a 4 pack". Now what? Best you could do is make them commit to next season.

Make them buy 3 seasons' worth of credits that are only good in that league. If they bail, they're out of luck (and their money). WiS could either replace them with new owners and make them fork over additional dough (to increase WiS' revenue) or allow new owners to take over the team for free using the already-bought seasons (thus ensuring that the league stays filled but having the drawback of lots of potential one-and-done replacement owners using the free seasons). Either way, it would be easy to do, and if people didn't like it, they could join an existing league like everyone else.

That logic does not currently exist, and they cannot wave the magic wand to make it exist. Best they could do is make them commit to next season.

Is this all really a big deal? 

Near as I can tell, there are no public openings, 11 private openings, and only 3 worlds rolling in the next few days.

Seems like WIS might be actively managing their supply and demand.

I also think that when an owner leaves a world it is easy to blame the creation of new worlds, especially when the person departing has joined a new one. However many other issues come into play such as the quality of the current world, the owners in the world, and the history of the person who is leaving.

Posted by deathinahole on 6/22/2010 12:11:00 PM (view original):
If you brought in an owner with happy feet, in theory you've accepted him with the knowledge that they have happy feet.

To reject him post facto because of the potential that they would leave is bad form. If potential becomes reality, then ok (although, then he's already left, but you get the idea)

Rejecting him up front because he may leave, ok, that's due diligence.

Im not saying Im going to attempt to have him removed.

But, if the user didnt have happry feet prior to joining Kenny Powers--(he is leaving Yaz with a couple of weeks to go in our regular season), what kind of due diligence would you expect?

And how would it be bad form rejecting an owner that broke a condition that was clearly stated? Might not be the absolute best move for the world--thats debatable. But it would be a good precedent to set in regards to new worlds..if WIS follows through on the requirement.

"To reject him post facto because of the potential that they would leave is bad form. If potential becomes reality, then ok"

I believe we are on the same page. + it was more directed at anton.

Posted by prezuiwf on 6/22/2010 12:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/22/2010 11:53:00 AM (view original):
3 seasons was one of their early requirements.   Having been unable to enforce it, maybe it's been dropped.

In truth, I'm just yanking your chain.   Your job, as commish of KP, is to acquire and keep good owners.  Dumping them because they dumped shobob's world is a silly idea.    It's counterproductive to what YOU should do.   It's up to WifS, who is allowing new world creations, to ensure "old" worlds don't get damaged.

How could they not be able to enforce the 3-season rule? Just force people to purchase all 3 seasons before they join. Let's just see how many people drop out of a world prematurely when they're forced to plunk down $75 to join it.

Let's assume first that WifS is willing to do that(which, at this point, they have not).     What's worse?  A)  An owner half-assing his way thru 2 1/2 seasons because he paid for them?   No way will WifS remove an owner with that much time left unless he does something destructive  B) Owners dropping old worlds to join new ones?

He re-upped

Posted by prezuiwf on 6/22/2010 12:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/22/2010 11:53:00 AM (view original):
3 seasons was one of their early requirements.   Having been unable to enforce it, maybe it's been dropped.

In truth, I'm just yanking your chain.   Your job, as commish of KP, is to acquire and keep good owners.  Dumping them because they dumped shobob's world is a silly idea.    It's counterproductive to what YOU should do.   It's up to WifS, who is allowing new world creations, to ensure "old" worlds don't get damaged.

How could they not be able to enforce the 3-season rule? Just force people to purchase all 3 seasons before they join. Let's just see how many people drop out of a world prematurely when they're forced to plunk down $75 to join it.

I know the issue from the original post has been dropped, but to this point, do you want and owner in your world who is simply sticking it out because he doesn't want to "waste" his $75 commitment?

It is easy to require a bunch of up-front money, but MUCH harder to enforce.  If the guy tanks, does he get his money back for un-played seasons?  How about if he just barely maintains Fair Play standards at the MLB level, but trashed his minors so he leave the franchise a wreck after Season 3?  How about it he stays in WiS Fair Play standards, but violates a world rule that makes the world want to kick him out, does he get his money for the 2 unplayed seasons?

Point being, just because you've got 3 seasons of a guy's money doesn't mean you have 3 seasons of quality owner play