Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 9/18/2009
I have an ongoing open ticket with ADMIN where I've offered a proposal for criteria which must be met for a public world to be allowed to go private. Under that critieria, three public worlds (out of 28) would qualifiy. No response yet to my latest update to the ticket from Monday morning which either means (a) they are considering it, or (b) they're all on vacation this week.

At least it hasn't been rejected (yet).

what were the 3 worlds that qualified?

Quote: Originally Posted By bighead34 on 9/18/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 9/18/2009

I have an ongoing open ticket with ADMIN where I've offered a proposal for criteria which must be met for a public world to be allowed to go private. Under that critieria, three public worlds (out of 28) would qualifiy. No response yet to my latest update to the ticket from Monday morning which either means (a) they are considering it, or (b) they're all on vacation this week.

At least it hasn't been rejected (yet).

what were the 3 worlds that qualified

See page 24 of The Sky is Falling thread, where I outlined the criteria and presented data on all public worlds.

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

I like how an owner sets criteria, tables data, so that HIS world is at the top.

thanks tec....just saw the criteria originally...good work on the data

Too bad my world contraction idea isn't getting any support.

There would be no criteria to go private. But you're taking a chance by staying public.

It's not a bad idea. Just counter to WIS thought process.

Wasn't there something awhile back about WIS saying they were thinking of setting it up for SIM to be able to run teams? Or was that just abandoned teams?

Quote: Originally Posted By steelerstime on 9/18/2009I like how an owner sets criteria, tables data, so that HIS world is at the top

Except that I proposed the criteria before I even knew for sure if MY world met it.

Quote: Originally Posted By double-a on 9/18/2009
What really makes me mad is WIS is allowing this user to stay in the world. He at worst cheated outright by using an alias and at best was really shady with his "roommate" trades and transactions. WIS has only banned him from chat a couple times for TOS violations but still allows him to stay in the world despite most of the long time owners asking for his removal.

Funny how the interest in uncovering obvious cheaters disappears from this thread as soon as someone drags in the red herring of public vs. private worlds. It makes one wonder why those few individuals were so fast to divert the conversation, doesn't it? Watch these few guys completely avoid the topic for the rest of the thread.

If the description of the cheating and subsequent events is even close to accurate, WIS stands accused of abetting/condoning cheating and punishing the whistle-blower. That is extremely serious. It has appeared for a long time that this is the way the site is administered, but rarely is it so in-your-face as this example. I'll be looking for a response from WIS to all of us.

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 9/18/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By steelerstime on 9/18/2009
I like how an owner sets criteria, tables data, so that HIS world is at the top.

Except that I proposed the criteria before I even knew for sure if MY world met it

That may be true, but I don't believe it. I like the phrase-"before I knew for sure". I guess that means you had a pretty good idea based on an initial look/comparison of worlds.

I knew my world had many longterm owners and low turnover so yes, I had a gut feeling that we would be close to meeting the criteria. But I didn't know the exact numbers.

I had no clue about the other 27 worlds.

Whether you choose to believe that or not is of no concern to me.

Thanks for confirming my position.

steelerstime, do you have a different set of criteria that would work better?

Quote: Originally Posted By steelerstime on 9/18/2009
Thanks for confirming my position.

Do you disagree with the proposed criteria, that conversion of public worlds to private worlds should be based on stability of ownership within a particular world?

If you do, please let us know why and what you would propose as an alternative?

Hadn't thought about it. But since you asked.

Calculate avg turnover for the league history (not a select period). Bottom quarter remains public, regardless.

Top 3/4 get the option of going private-if all owners agree and agree on a commish. The one rule-that world can never go public again-no matter how many openings it may have.