Fair Play Guidelines? - Page 26 - Hardball Dynasty

joshkvt

Posts: 6200 (0)

Hall of Famer

664 99

All Star

Quote: Originally posted by brewsbrother on 4/09/2010Great job today TZ.

4/10/2010 12:56 AM

tecwrg

Posts: 18997 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 166 32 129

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By akgsports on 4/10/2010I'm still skeptical. Isn't complaining about CS but then applauding the newly enacted rule "change" akin to complaining about the public schools but hailing a government take over of healthcare

So what are you saying? We should all throw a big "F.U." at tz?

OK. You start.

4/10/2010 6:28 AM

akgsports

Posts: 128 (0)

Hall of Famer

10 135

Prospect

I'm saying I'm skeptical. Not FU tz.

A wait and see attitude is certainly reasonable.

Personally I am very wary of admin being of the arbitrator of who stays or goes.

A better solution is to disincentivize tanking.

4/10/2010 7:50 AM

grivfmd1

Posts: 946 (0)

Hall of Famer

159 174

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By greeny9 on 4/09/2010I agree with what some people here have said. I dont think that there has been nearly enough concessions to commissioners. (A)Private worlds should be able to self police more. (B)Public worlds need more policing from WIS because there is no commissioner to help keep the peace or keep people in line

Unfortunately I agree with both of these positions: What I think would be preferable:

(A) TZ you are making this harder for WIS than it needs to be. WIS should make it known they will exercise one of 2 options (both precovered by disclaimers), and only those 2 options will be considered when a challenge to a Commish decision at rollover occurs (1) 98% of the time they will support the commish and remove the owner in question and (2) 2% of the time, and only after special investigation, they will remove the commish. Knowledge that these are the only 2 options WIS will entertain will stop most of the Challenges. (WIS should NEVER again do what was done in Cooperstown - keep the owner in the league and keep the commish -- needs to be one or the other. It should rarely, and only with compelling evidence, be the Commish that is removed).

(B) End Public worlds. Make them "WIS supervised worlds". Recruit Commishes in all the public worlds and establish stricter antitanking rules for the commish to enforce (start with NO fatigue at the ML level, No players out of position, and a .333 winnning %). The first 3 years a new Commish has the job their team should be $20 discounted BUT LIKE ALL COMMISHES make it clear that the Commish serves at the pleasure of WIS and may be removed.

As a side note ALL worlds ("WIS supervised" or private) with empty slots should be listed in the "join a team" area - with the Commish listed as the contact. "WIS supervised" would take any WIS approved applicant (WIS should maintain a list of "Undesirables" that would be avoided in WIS supervised leagues). Any private world not filled in 7 days MUST accept 1 owner per week until filled or become "WIS supervised". All leagues will have the "commish may remove you if you do not meet league guidelines or for other reasons if necessary" disclaimer.

4/10/2010 8:02 AM

tecwrg

Posts: 18997 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 166 32 129

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By grivfmd1 on 4/10/2010
(B) End Public worlds. Make them "WIS supervised worlds". Recruit Commishes in all the public worlds and establish stricter antitanking rules for the commish to enforce (start with NO fatigue at the ML level, No players out of position, and a .333 winnning %). The first 3 years a new Commish has the job their team should be $20 discounted BUT LIKE ALL COMMISHES make it clear that the Commish serves at the pleasure of WIS and may be removed.

I don't see this ever happening. WIS has made it very clear to me in my ticket lobbying for the right to take a public world private they will always want some public worlds available.

What they need to do (and what I hope they do) is redefine public worlds versus private worlds, and set conditions which will allow a public world to be taken private, and a private world to be downgraded to public.

There are a number of high quality public worlds that have earned the right to be afforded the same "protection" that private worlds currently have (the right to police themselves, which was reaffirmed by yesterday's actions). Likewise, there are some private worlds that are so f'd up by bad commissioners, rampant tanking, etc., that they no longer deserve their private status. By letting them go public, they will have to work hard to police themselves to earn back private status.

This would be a significant but long overdue change that's needed in the public vs. private world debate.

4/10/2010 9:06 AM

mlhutch

Posts: 528 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 360

Prospect

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

4/10/2010 9:27 AM

hopkinsheel

Posts: 2057 (0)

Hall of Famer

2 19 242

Prospect

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

4/10/2010 9:34 AM

crickett13

Posts: 2396 (0)

Hall of Famer

398 74 25 145

Prospect

I do not think Private worlds right to protect themselves has been reaffirmed. They have said that they get the final say in whether a private world can protect themselves. Nothing I have seen in admins past behavior leads me to believe that they will not just take the same action they usually have taken which goes something like this.

A) Offending owner is asked by comish to leave the league for violating league rules

B) Offending owner refuses saying he has too much invested in the team and thinks the rule he broke is stupid anyway.

C) Comish sends angry response reminding said owner that when he joined a private league he agreed to abide by the rules and that he should quit being such a butthead and get the heck out of the league.

D) Owner responds in the thread by calling the comish's family parentage into question and claims he really did not understand the rule and it won't happen again and how unfair the comish is for wanting to enforce the rules of the league on a poor inner city orphan like him.

E) Owners who voted for the rule remind said owner he lives in a suburb with his wife and 3 kids and works as a financial consultant and claim the last part just proves he is a weasel that can not be trusted. Owners who voted against the rule side with the weasel and say this just proves they were right to vote against the rule because the offending owner is such a nice guy even if he is not an inner city orphan.

Finally admin is contacted and this is where things get sticky. Admin now has the right to decide if the worlds rules that have been put in place by the owners are fair. They can decide that the rule is overly restrictive after all 11 people in the league besides the offending owner have contacted them saying they never liked the rule, Never mind the fact that 20 people support the rule. Admin didn't get sitemails from them saying they would stop playing if they enforced the league rules.

Of course if admin does decide to strip the offending owner of the team we all have seen cases where an owner complained enough and got a few friends to say what a nice guy he is and that the comish is a direct decendant of the Wicked Witch of the West and the owner promises to not break the rule again so the owner is reinstated.

We are better off than we were yesterday but worse off than we were last week. While I appreciate the fact that Admin and TZ backed off from a disaterous decision it is a far cry from reaffirming a private leagues right to police themselves.

4/10/2010 9:38 AM

crickett13

Posts: 2396 (0)

Hall of Famer

398 74 25 145

Prospect

If it's a returning owner, the commish must request the removal via customer support ticket and it must include the rationale for removal and the rationale must be acceptable(we evaluate).

This means they decide if your private leagues rules are acceptable to them.

4/10/2010 9:47 AM

hopkinsheel

Posts: 2057 (0)

Hall of Famer

2 19 242

Prospect

Quote: Originally posted by crickett13 on 4/10/2010If it's a returning owner, the commish must request the removal via customer support ticket and it must include the rationale for removal and the rationale must be acceptable(we evaluate). This means they decide if your private leagues rules are acceptable to them.

Here is what I'm going to do as commish of NCAA....at the start of every season, I'm going to post on the world chat reminding everyone of the rules of the world which are easily accessible on the blog. I am also going to send a quick trade chat to each owner as well. I'm also going to do continuous check ups throughout the season and if a team is not following a rule then it will be documented and there will be warnings.

Obviously I hope to never get to a point to have to ask an owner to leave for not following the rules we have set up, but if I do then I'm going to have all of the evidence documented and show the multiple chances that owner received.

4/10/2010 9:53 AM

tecwrg

Posts: 18997 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 166 32 129

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By crickett13 on 4/10/2010
If it's a returning owner, the commish must request the removal via customer support ticket and it must include the rationale for removal and the rationale must be acceptable(we evaluate).

This means they decide if your private leagues rules are acceptable to them.

I don't think that's what it means at all.

I'm interpreting it as they just need a valid reason to remove the owner. If it's a clear violation of a stated league rule, then it should be a no-brainer. If it's something fuzzy like "we don't like the way he runs his minor leagues", and there are no stated rules about minors in that world, etc., that's when ADMIN will have to make a yea or nay ruling.

4/10/2010 10:05 AM

WiredTiger

Posts: 503 (0)

Hall of Famer

10 43 18 209 11

Prospect

I think we should vote on the commish at the end of every year (maybe tie it in to renewing for the following season). And then they get power to remove people after rollover. that way no commish can keep power if they abuse it. but then they also have the power to control the league.

4/10/2010 10:24 AM

crickett13

Posts: 2396 (0)

Hall of Famer

398 74 25 145

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 4/10/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By crickett13 on 4/10/2010

If it's a returning owner, the commish must request the removal via customer support ticket and it must include the rationale for removal and the rationale must be acceptable(we evaluate).

This means they decide if your private leagues rules are acceptable to them.

I don't think that's what it means at all.

I'm interpreting it as they just need a valid reason to remove the owner. If it's a clear violation of a stated league rule, then it should be a no-brainer. If it's something fuzzy like "we don't like the way he runs his minor leagues", and there are no stated rules about minors in that world, etc., that's when ADMIN will have to make a yea or nay ruling.

Tec I hope you are right but if that is true than I would be a lot more comfortable, as would many other owners, if it was clearly stated somewhere in that guideline that WIS supports the right of a private league to have their own set of rules and that violation of those rules is a valid reason for support to strip a person of their franchise.

The problem is that right now it is open to interpretation which means if a guy who spends enough money decides to ***** and whine enough support can interpret it to mean that WIS can strike down a leagues rules.

They did not have a problem clearly stating that they were willing to remove a comish, which I think will be far to easy to do, so I do not think it should be a problem to clearly state in the policy that league rules are valid.

4/10/2010 11:26 AM

steelerstime

Posts: 38 (0)

Hall of Famer

72 14 7 34 52

Prospect

You're right cricket.

And WIS proved their position in the original miket-smoelheim issue. And how did WIS side in that one? For the owner, against the commish and the league. Only after 28 owners dropped from the world did WIS cave.

If you expect anything different from WIS, you're living in a fantasy world. They've now shown they will keep poor owners, at the expense of any league (unless you have 28 quit-then you might get WIS to reverse itself).

REMEMBER-WIS says "we evaluate". The commish and private worlds have still been neutered.

4/10/2010 12:03 PM

grivfmd1

Posts: 946 (0)

Hall of Famer

159 174

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 4/10/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By grivfmd1 on 4/10/2010

(B) End Public worlds. Make them "WIS supervised worlds". Recruit Commishes in all the public worlds and establish stricter antitanking rules for the commish to enforce (start with NO fatigue at the ML level, No players out of position, and a .333 winnning %). The first 3 years a new Commish has the job their team should be $20 discounted BUT LIKE ALL COMMISHES make it clear that the Commish serves at the pleasure of WIS and may be removed.

As a side note ALL worlds ("WIS supervised" or private) with empty slots should be listed in the "join a team" area - with the Commish listed as the contact. "WIS supervised" would take any WIS approved applicant (WIS should maintain a list of "Undesirables" that would be avoided in WIS supervised leagues). Any private world not filled in 7 days MUST accept 1 owner per week until filled or become "WIS supervised". All leagues will have the "commish may remove you if you do not meet league guidelines or for other reasons if necessary" disclaimer.

I don't see this ever happening.

This would be a significant but long overdue change that's needed in the public vs. private world debate.

I admit to having erased most of Tecwrg post since most of it did not reflect what I actually proposed. I also added the rest of what was proposed, clearly indicating that "WIS supervised" and "Private" were different. The tactic of misrepresenting what someone else has stated or proposed does NOT add to civilized debate.

Please note I did NOT suggest that "public" worlds be Eliminated by turning them "private". I suggested that WIS take more responsibility for these worlds by "hiring" a commish (that they can also fire) to direct the league into a competitive posture with clearly defined end points for individual owners if they expect to be able to "re-up" (.333% winning, NO major league fatigue, and no major leaguers playing out of position - different from the intra-year guidelines). Essential a way for "public" leagues to be directed by WIS, through a WIS hired experienced Commish, into a more competitive landscape. Thereby making the Public/WIS directed leagues more viable and newbie freindly.

I would agree that it would be reasonable after a 3 year probationary period (perhaps with certain stability guidelines (?87.5% return rate - 28/32 average)) for a "WIS supervised" world to request transfer to "private" status.

Other than someone from WIS directly imposing standards on a public world (which I think is impractical) I do not believe there are any other proposals on the table to deal with the Public world quality issue. (yes, there are proposals for "individual" leagues). If there are I would like to hear them and have a debate on the merits.

4/10/2010 12:16 PM

Forums

Fair Play Guidelines? Topic

Search Criteria