Quote: Originally posted by douglasdao on 4/09/2010dmurphy104 - Yes I did and presented WiS with a number of boxscores that indicated actions 7-10 in the list. The response from WiS was that he didn't violate the three new rules therefore he was not tanking.

Quote: Originally posted by nfet on 4/09/2010
You might just have to bite the bullet and decide each booting situation based on that specific world.

Does the situation come up often enough that warrants a text-book rule?

On a related topic, I would suggest to have more ways that each world can individualize themselves. That would make judging these situations more clear-cut for you when they do come up.

Thanks.

Quote: Originally posted by tzentmeyer on 4/09/2010Lots of good comments so far.

And so you guys know, there are 150+ worlds. We receive 25+ tickets per week where one owner or another is asking us to ban another owner from a world. As it is, each ticket takes about 30 minutes to address by the time the back and forth has concluded.

Quote: Originally posted by hopkinsheel on 4/09/2010[With the "standards" WIS has set, tanking is perfectly acceptable in Public Worlds. Just another reason to abandon public worlds if you're serious about this game and keeping the integrity of the world intact.

Quote: Originally posted by douglasdao on 4/09/2010

Quote: Originally posted by hopkinsheel on 4/09/2010[With the "standards" WIS has set, tanking is perfectly acceptable in Public Worlds. Just another reason to abandon public worlds if you're serious about this game and keeping the integrity of the world intact.

Maybe so, but still, I want tzentmeyer to explain how he can say that ericwoody's actions do not violate the requirement to field a competitive team. Public league or not, when you commit multiple outrageous actions like that it cannot be allowed to stand without it harming everyone else in that world.

Quote: Originally Posted By akgsports on 4/09/2010
Wake up fellas. Tanking is good for admin. If a guy is willing to tank 4+ seasons and pay $25 each year with little back in credits, he's more than likely to stick around for 6+ seasons after tanking 4. Tankers are good for 10+ paying seasons per tanking team to admin. Why kill the golden goose?

Quote: Originally Posted By akgsports on 4/09/2010

The solution is to disincentivize tanking- if admin is even so inclined given the financial advantages to tanking. This always gets kicked around but tanking is eliminated if the advantages of tanking are mitigated.

1. Top 3 picks and super IFA's are sure fire HOFers. This game needs more busts.

I'm not sure how screwing everybody by making the draft a crapshoot helps the game. Owners who spent a good deal of time on carefully preparing for the draft would see their hard work go for naught with random busts.

2. Increase injuries so that organizational and ML depth matters.

Injuries are at an acceptable rate as is. Again, I'm not sure how screwing everybody by increasing injuries helps the game.

3. Create a player payroll floor (like prospect payroll floor) so tankers can't move as much money into IFA budget.

Very easily abused by offering $10m contracts to $1m guys. If the tanker decides to move on, the next owner inherits crippling contracts that were offered to meet the payroll floor.

4. Allow everyone to see all the prospects- HS, College, and IFA, no matter the budget. Top 25-50 prospects everyone sees equally without variation. Higher budgeted teams get a better read on prospects projected to go in rounds 2 or later and get many more DITR that eventually can blossom into ML stars.

Again, easily abused. If everybody can see everybody, with a little effort one can predict projected ratings from current ratings. This in turn negates the need for draft budgeting, allowing for even more money to be devoted to IFAs. This would actually exacerbate the problem.

Now tankers don't get the instant gratification of knowing they've assembled a dominant staff in 2-3 tanked seasons.

Of course whether these suggestions are good for admin bottom line is a different story.

Quote: Originally Posted By akgsports on 4/09/2010
It seems to me that admin isn't about to let commishes of private world run their business. Commishes can't just run a $25 paying customer.

Admin softened its initial policy of strict removal criteria for tanking to now allow commishes to block an owner from returning at rollover, but expect admin to arbitrate if there is a dispute.

Given admin's recent soft stance on tanking however, I don't see this as much of a concession from admin, as I don't see admin allowing removal of owners very easily.

Bottom line- BE VERY CAREFUL WHO YOU ALLOW IN.

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 4/09/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By akgsports on 4/09/2010

The solution is to disincentivize tanking- if admin is even so inclined given the financial advantages to tanking. This always gets kicked around but tanking is eliminated if the advantages of tanking are mitigated.

1. Top 3 picks and super IFA's are sure fire HOFers. This game needs more busts.

I'm not sure how screwing everybody by making the draft a crapshoot helps the game. Owners who spent a good deal of time on carefully preparing for the draft would see their hard work go for naught with random busts.

2. Increase injuries so that organizational and ML depth matters.

Injuries are at an acceptable rate as is. Again, I'm not sure how screwing everybody by increasing injuries helps the game.

3. Create a player payroll floor (like prospect payroll floor) so tankers can't move as much money into IFA budget.

Very easily abused by offering $10m contracts to $1m guys. If the tanker decides to move on, the next owner inherits crippling contracts that were offered to meet the payroll floor.

4. Allow everyone to see all the prospects- HS, College, and IFA, no matter the budget. Top 25-50 prospects everyone sees equally without variation. Higher budgeted teams get a better read on prospects projected to go in rounds 2 or later and get many more DITR that eventually can blossom into ML stars.

Again, easily abused. If everybody can see everybody, with a little effort one can predict projected ratings from current ratings. This in turn negates the need for draft budgeting, allowing for even more money to be devoted to IFAs. This would actually exacerbate the problem.

Now tankers don't get the instant gratification of knowing they've assembled a dominant staff in 2-3 tanked seasons.

Of course whether these suggestions are good for admin bottom line is a different story.

1. More draft busts is a fact of real life. I agree it makes the game less enjoyable but no busts is extreme fantasy.

2. I don't like injuries either. If injuries are occurring at a realistic rate then fine, but I don't think they are. A tanker assembling a 4-5 man dominant staff and then not having to worry about injuries for 10+ seasons is not realistic.

3. A payroll floor does not necessitate an owner signing a player to huge LONGTERM deal. Certainly some players may be signed to 10 mill/ 1 year deals to reach the floor, but safeguards could be put in place similar to those used when IFAs won't sign for a huge bonus at least initally (Player response of I don't know if I can handle the pressure or I can't live up to that bonus or something like that). Maybe tie a max dollar figure that a player will accept to his OVR if no one else has offered him a deal for X number of days.

4. An expansion of DITRs to highly budgeted teams could be a major boon and appropriately incentivize high draft and IFA budgeting, even if everyone can see all the top prospects. High HS budgeting equals more DITRs to former HS draftees; high IFA budgeting means DITRs to former IFA signees; etc.

Quote: Originally Posted By dmurphy104 on 4/09/2010Theyll run off a $25 paying customer if that means retaining 23 other $25 paying customers