The sky is falling!!! Topic

unclevic
Posts: 12 (0)
All Star
1 13 3 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 9/03/2009I'm not saying people wouldn't be upset. They would be. They'd raise holy hell. But, at some point, the demand would outweigh the supply. At that point, you'd have healthy worlds all around. No delays.
You are defining "healthy worlds" as little to no wait to roll over?

I would think of "healthy worlds" as no clowns. You can't legislate the clowns out of the game, they're ubiquitous, like ants at a picnic. It seems to me you would force some good owners out, though. Just my 2c.
9/4/2009 11:22 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Clowns or no, people are paying to PLAY a game. Waiting for weeks on end for 2 owners to join is not PLAYING. You can legislate clowns out of your league by screening owners. It's possible. I do it. Of course, the definition of "clown" is different for everyone.
9/4/2009 11:45 AM
tiskingmoon
Posts: 193 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 7 4 111 11
Prospect
Definition of clown:

1.
a. A buffoon or jester who entertains by jokes, antics, and tricks in a circus, play, or other presentation.
b. One who jokes and plays tricks.
2. A coarse, rude, vulgar person; a boor.
9/4/2009 4:54 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 9/04/2009
I'd also add any public world that was once private into the mix regardless of age. And never let another private world go public.

And, in the interest of creating "better" worlds, I'd let public worlds go private with the understanding that they will never be allowed to go public again.

I would welcome this in a heartbeat.

I've been lobbying CS very hard for the right to be able to take my public world (Mantle) private. I know other public worlds have attempted to do so as well, all to no avail. I've got them to agree that it's a reasonable request and (I think) that I've made a pretty good case for it. But they seem to be hung up on setting a precedent, i.e. if they allow one public world to go private, then they would need to allow ANY public world that requests it to also go private.

I think what is needed is some sort of criteria or guidelines for (a) a private world to maintain its private status, or (b) for a public world to be able to go private. It seems to me that we, as a community, should be able to come up with such a set of guidelines or criteria that can satisfy both of these things that is fair and reasonable. I'm thinking that it would need to be based on some combination of number of seasons current owners have been in the world, and turnover rates from season to season.

Any input that anybody has to contribute would be appreciated.
9/4/2009 10:12 PM
blackmamba22
Posts: 11 (0)
Rookie
7
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tiskingmoon on 9/04/2009Definition of clown:

1.
a. A buffoon or jester who entertains by jokes, antics, and tricks in a circus, play, or other presentation.
b. One who jokes and plays tricks.
2. A coarse, rude, vulgar person; a boor
9/4/2009 10:28 PM
blackmamba22
Posts: 11 (0)
Rookie
7
Prospect
sorry, but i just had too...anyway, I am in total agreeance with any type of condensation/retiring etc. of worlds that don't meet a set of fair and logistic criteria...for what it's worth...
9/4/2009 10:30 PM
tomhighway
Posts: 477 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 7 9 118 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by kneeneighbor on 9/04/2009As someone in one of the worlds listed it doesnt bother me if we take that approach to contraction because I know the world we are in will fill.I think that there are a lot of openings out there that scare people off. The guy with one or two teams in his history doesnt want to take on the huge reclimation project, he would rather take a team with just a few tweeks needed.I took over an abandon team in Doubleday for the season and I wish luck to whomever ends up taking it over because that team was a dumpster fire, no prospects, no BL players. I did everything I could to shed contracts for the upcomming season but thats a lot of time for someone to put in before the team is decent.(EDIT: In summary, if you let teams get so bad that you have trouble finding owners for them your world gets what it gets)



Appreciate the heads up..
9/5/2009 12:43 AM
raucous
Posts: 8605 (0)
Hall of Famer
16 8 133 151 120
Prospect
61 openings now...
9/12/2009 8:48 AM
raucous
Posts: 8605 (0)
Hall of Famer
16 8 133 151 120
Prospect
with 15 to be completed within a week.
9/12/2009 8:50 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 9/04/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 9/04/2009

I'd also add any public world that was once private into the mix regardless of age. And never let another private world go public.

And, in the interest of creating "better" worlds, I'd let public worlds go private with the understanding that they will never be allowed to go public again.

I would welcome this in a heartbeat.

I've been lobbying CS very hard for the right to be able to take my public world (Mantle) private. I know other public worlds have attempted to do so as well, all to no avail. I've got them to agree that it's a reasonable request and (I think) that I've made a pretty good case for it. But they seem to be hung up on setting a precedent, i.e. if they allow one public world to go private, then they would need to allow ANY public world that requests it to also go private.

I think what is needed is some sort of criteria or guidelines for (a) a private world to maintain its private status, or (b) for a public world to be able to go private. It seems to me that we, as a community, should be able to come up with such a set of guidelines or criteria that can satisfy both of these things that is fair and reasonable. I'm thinking that it would need to be based on some combination of number of seasons current owners have been in the world, and turnover rates from season to season.

Any input that anybody has to contribute would be appreciated.



It seems to me that any idea that would strengthen a particular world, and HBD in general, should be considered.

This isn't brain surgery. The economy is down. And, when that happens, people tighten their belts a bit. Disposable income is less and people use it a little more judiciously. HBD is hardly a necessity. If you have a group of 20-25(it sounds like you've got 30) who want to do something to enhance their HBD experience, and it doesn't change the premise of the game, I think it would make good business sense to at least weigh the pros and cons of their request. So let's do that!

Pros
30+ happy customers
Another strong world

Cons
???
9/12/2009 8:56 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
The frustrating thing to me about ADMIN's reluctance to allow a public world to go private is their apparent refusal to even consider it.

Based on a couple of different "reasons" in their responses to my most recent ticket, their reservations are two-fold:

1) They always want to have true public worlds available.

2) Setting a precedent: if they allow one world to go private, they have to allow all worlds to go private.

It seems to me that both of these reservations can be easily addressed:

1) If, after allowing one or more public worlds to go private, they feel that the tide of supply and demand has reversed to the point where there are not enough "public" openings on a regular basis, they have the simplest of solutions already available in their back pocket . . . create one or more new public worlds. Based on the current econony and the current glut of available teams, I don't think that supply and demand will be a problem anytime soon. If anything, supply will continue to outpace demand for the foreseeable future.

2) Set very strict criteria that needs to be met by a public world before it will be allowed to go private. I would propose, just for starters, the following as criteria:

a) A world has to have at least 10 completed seasons before it will be eligible to go private.

b) Over 50% of all previously completed seasons in total for the world must be from current owners. For example, a world currently in season 13 has had 384 total completed seasons (12 seasons x 32 teams). At least 192 of those seasons (50%) should be from current owners. This helps define committed ownership in the world.

c) The average number of openings at rollover for the most recent five rollovers should be no more than five. Low turnover rates help define stability of ownership.

These seem like a reasonable starting point. The first criteria means that a public world has to stay public for at least 10 seasons. This gives it an opportunity to attract and retain committed owners. The other two criteria help define stability of ownership and low turnover rates, both of which are generally regarded as signs of very strong worlds.

Thoughts?
9/12/2009 9:09 PM
indiansrck27
Posts: 818 (0)
Hall of Famer
221 53 238
All Star
I agree big time.

Mantle has one of the quickest rollovers I have seen.

I mean we didnt have any openings this time around...
9/12/2009 9:23 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
9/14/2009 12:55 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
And the rest of the list:

WorldSeasonCurrent Owner SeasonsAvg SeasonsLast 5 TurnoverAvg Turnover
Dimaggio911143.36469.2
Boggs910942.58489.6
Greenberg1316242.19306.0
Cochrane1316041.67357.0
Berra1315740.89397.8
Clarkson1315339.845410.8
Aaron1416038.46367.2
Spahn1314738.28418.2
Foxx1312332.035310.6
Williams1411527.645210.4
9/14/2009 12:55 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Based on the criteria I proposed on 9/12, only 8 worlds (out of 28) on the list would meet all three qualifications for eligibility for going private.

If ADMIN wanted to raise the bar a little higher, you could change the second qualification (percentage of completed world seasons by current owners) to 60%. That brings the number of eligible worlds down to 3, with a 4th on the bubble.

I cannot see any downside in this. If anything, this would recognize and reward a world full of committed owners by allowing them the opportunity to have the same rights as the rest of the private worlds out there in HBD-land, many (if not most) of which might not even meet the qualifications that I proposed.
9/14/2009 12:59 PM
◂ Prev 1...29|30|31|32|33...35 Next ▸
The sky is falling!!! Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.