how can boosters be immoral? It is immoral in real life for kids to get tvs and cars and whatnot, but these are not real kids. Boosters use was converted into recruiting points just like HVs and CVs and informs of redshirt and everything else that has a value. It also carried its own inherent risks. There is nothing immoral about it.

Posted by dacj501 on 8/1/2012 6:02:00 PM (view original):
how can boosters be immoral? It is immoral in real life for kids to get tvs and cars and whatnot, but these are not real kids. Boosters use was converted into recruiting points just like HVs and CVs and informs of redshirt and everything else that has a value. It also carried its own inherent risks. There is nothing immoral about it.

I didn't say it was, but it's certainly a more nebulous standard as none of us can truly regulate another's moral code.  I would disagree, and think it's a terrible basis for the argument, but at least it's a semi-viabe, disprovable argument, unlike the "cheating" one.

Here's what seble had to say about it:

The decision was made because it really didn't benefit the game at all.  Either the team using the gifts ended up getting busted, which ruins that school and coach for quite a while, or another team lost out on a recruit because of "cheating".  So either way someone was going to get shafted in the deal.  It's just one of those things that doesn't really translate from real life to the game.

So that's pretty fuzzy, huh?  It didn't really "ruin that school and coach for quite a while".  Another team "lost out on a recruit because of "cheating"."  "Cheating" in quotes.

"So either way someone was going to get shafted in the deal."  I get that... maybe put "shafted" in quotes.

So I posit:

     1. The penalty wasn't working as intended

     2. "Cheating", in quotes, is a WCAA violation - it's against the rules in the fake world.
          2a. The punishment is doled out in the fake world - postseason bans, wins vacated, etc.

     3. Violating the TOS is a WIS violation - it's against the rules in the real world.
          3a. The punishment is doled out in the real world - warnings, bannings, etc.

llama, that's actually a great distinction.  Nicely, concisely put.

Posted by isack24 on 8/1/2012 10:21:00 PM (view original):
llama, that's actually a great distinction.  Nicely, concisely put.

+1 

Verbalized what I couldn't.

Sour grapes.

Within the history of HD there have been some truly dispicable events. A coach's password was hacked and his account was accessed for the purpose of manipulating his team's settings.  Coaches have intentionally lost CT championship games in order to gain an additional team for their conference in the NT. A coach's home address and phone number were publicly listed on the forums as a result of a personal dispute. A coach who had no intention of signing designated recruits used multiple teams to attact another coach to inact revenge on that coach for percieved poaching in a previous season. In all of these cases the violators had their accounts terminated by WIS. There have also been various lesser penalties placed on coaches for numerous types of collusion. The use of booster gifts in this game comes nowhere close to those violations.

I agree with umpikes in spirit. I myself have suspected more than a few times that I have lost players due to another coach using booster gifts in recruiting against me. In some cases it could be the only logical explanation for my losing the player. I also believe that because booster gifts are illegal in real life that the use of of them in this game constitutes "cheating" in the same manner. However, if I were on a jury I would have to vote not guilty for anyone accused of actual cheating for using booster gifts. As others have said, they were part of the game and as such were fair game for all to use. Any coach in HD should have been aware of that potential and the ramifications. I personally am very glad they have been removed so they will no longer be an issue of contention.

umpikes post is ridiculous. 

"This all started as Corn called out someone else for a rather minor (in comparison) folly on a conference message board that shouldn't have happened and will be dealt with no doubt. Corn's position is completely hypocritical and I responded as such."

I think, umpikes, that even if you fail to understand the fact that your argument is totally illogical it should carry some weight that literally everyone else who has commented on here disagrees with you.  Most significantly, while different coaches may have different perspectives on whether it qualifies as "shafting" you to use booster gifts (most, I think, would say this is not an appropriate phrasing for this action, but you wouldn't be totally on an island), I think you may be literally the only person in HD who would consider using booster gifts to be a bigger infraction than the activity corn denounced.  You called that minor in comparison.  What corn objected to was an abject and blatant violation of the Fair Play Guidelines published by WIS and agreed to by all users each time they purchase teams.  You cannot deny the truth of this fact.  What corn did was utilize a function built intentionally into the game.  If you honestly believe that utilization of game features is a larger infraction than violating the Fair Play Guidelines your personal moral code is severely skewed.

Posted by llamanunts on 8/1/2012 8:00:00 PM (view original):
Here's what seble had to say about it:

The decision was made because it really didn't benefit the game at all.  Either the team using the gifts ended up getting busted, which ruins that school and coach for quite a while, or another team lost out on a recruit because of "cheating".  So either way someone was going to get shafted in the deal.  It's just one of those things that doesn't really translate from real life to the game.

So that's pretty fuzzy, huh?  It didn't really "ruin that school and coach for quite a while".  Another team "lost out on a recruit because of "cheating"."  "Cheating" in quotes.

"So either way someone was going to get shafted in the deal."  I get that... maybe put "shafted" in quotes.

So I posit:

     1. The penalty wasn't working as intended

     2. "Cheating", in quotes, is a WCAA violation - it's against the rules in the fake world.
          2a. The punishment is doled out in the fake world - postseason bans, wins vacated, etc.

     3. Violating the TOC is a WIS violation - it's against the rules in the real world.
          3a. The punishment is doled out in the real world - warnings, bannings, etc.

 

 

except that seble left out the other possible result - that the function is used to full advantage on the right player and the coach using the tool doesn't get investigated or punished - or did that just not happen? (In which case I'm even more glad they are removed...)

Oh, sure, that's when the other guy, the guy who didn't use boosters, gets "shafted".

Umpikes...wow, just wow.