Not if a "Must win 60+ games rule" is a hard, fast rule. "BUT I WON 61!!! I SHOULDN'T BE REMOVED!!!!"

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 4/09/2010Not if a "Must win 60+ games rule" is a hard, fast rule. "BUT I WON 61!!! I SHOULDN'T BE REMOVED!!!!

But if the rule is "must win 60" wouldn't it make more sense to build a 65-win team to begin with, and then if you're under performing at the All-Star break go and get someone, as opposed to working to build a playoff contender and then working to tear it apart?

I'm not saying it can't happen. It just doesn't seem like it would be common.

Circumstances. You're trying to win. But, sadly, you're .500 and 10 games out of a playoff spot with 42 when you best hitter goes down for the rest of the season.

The Fairplay Guidelines have been updated based on the discussion in this forum thread.

Thanks to everyone for helping with this. We hope it makes things better for all.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 4/09/2010Not if a "Must win 60+ games rule" is a hard, fast rule.   "BUT I WON 61!!!  I SHOULDN'T BE REMOVED!!!!"

You have to have empirical guidelines, set that and a consecutive days guideline and you wouldn't have a problem.

Use your own judgement too... there is a fine line between sucking, getting unlucky and tanking. When I was in coop I straddled the line myself, I never tanked... I got unlucky, but I ultimately found ways to win some games.

If you have evidence of tanking and you present it in a reasonable manner to admin, I am sure you will find them willing to boot someone.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 4/09/2010
Circumstances. You're trying to win. But, sadly, you're .500 and 10 games out of a playoff spot with 42 when you best hitter goes down for the rest of the season.

Point taken.

Quote: Originally posted by tzentmeyer on 4/09/2010The Fairplay Guidelines have been updated based on the discussion in this forum thread.

Thanks to everyone for helping with this. We hope it makes things better for all.

MUCH better. I'm sure everyone could find some place to nitpick these new guidelines as well, but i can certainly live with them. Kudos to you TZ and your staff for working on this all day and kudos to all owners who spoke up and spent much of their day speaking out and speaking for people like me who just weren't able to get on here and speak for themselves today.

the amendment to the guidelines makes it a much better fit for most private worlds.

Hilarious. Watching this interaction where these people end up applauding WIS is like watching an interaction with my kids.

"You're grounded for a month."

"No, please, no."

"Okay, maybe that's too much. You're grounded for a week."

"THANKS, DAD!"

News flash - in the end, you're still worse off than you were before.

that's true, however you're still better off then just letting it go.
they were going to change it regardless of it everyone who cared complained.
in this way we can have a partial say in the decision.

In much the same way my kids have a partial say in household decisions. They can bring their opinions to my attention, but the decision is still made by me.

And I still fail to see how this warrants a slobjob for C.S. Are we thanking them for taking away our power to decide who plays in our private worlds? Or are we thanking them for doing it in a slightly less intrusive way than they originally planned? Because, regardless of whether it was their first idea or this one, it seems it's still our night in the barrel.

Quote: Originally Posted By tzentmeyer on 4/09/2010The Fairplay Guidelines have been updated based on the discussion in this forum thread.

Thanks to everyone for helping with this. We hope it makes things better for all

Thanks tz, for listening to your customers and doing the right thing.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Have you asked him to be removed since they re-did the guidelines? And are you in-season or between seasons?