The Death of World Foxx Topic

gjello10
Posts: 164 (0)
All Star
6 26
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
2/24/2010 5:20 PM
tropicana
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
184 13 588 202 293
Prospect
Damn gjello, you're even smarter than I thought you were...maybe I will trade you those prospects in Greenberg!
2/24/2010 5:23 PM
The__Kid
Posts: 66 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 1 1 308 61 80 3
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by gjello10 on 2/24/2010Kid,Do you understand the difference between "being in agreement" and "being in an agreement"?  Do you understand that one does not equal the other?  Do you get that the in the first phrase "agreement" does not mean "deal" and in the second phrase it does?

Those aren't the only two options. It was a collective agreement. A consensus implicit on maintaining an ongoing intention to cause frapercraper a disadvantage.
2/24/2010 5:24 PM
The__Kid
Posts: 66 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 1 1 308 61 80 3
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
2/24/2010 5:26 PM
Braziman
Posts: 551 (0)
Hall of Famer
298 9 7 9 50 5 40
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tropicana on 2/24/2010
Quote: Originally posted by gjello10 on 2/24/2010
"I will do X." "I also will do X" does not equal collusion.

"I will do X if and only if you do X as well." "I will agree to do X under those terms." equals collusion.

Do you not get the difference?

Well, Mike is coming over later...only to service my wife though


Does that mean you'll have to focuself?
2/24/2010 5:28 PM
tropicana
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
184 13 588 202 293
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
2/24/2010 5:30 PM
The__Kid
Posts: 66 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 1 1 308 61 80 3
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 2/24/2010There is no collusion.  Have WifS check my sitemails and trade chats.   You'll find that no agreement has been made.You're just worried that frapercraper won't be given a fair chance to improve his team.   I'm telling you that I will not give him a fair chance.  He forfeited that right when he created an alias and attempted to trade with himself.   I don't care if I hurt his feelings.   I don't care if WifS thinks I'm wrong.  I don't want to play with cheaters. I will do everything possible to make them regret cheating.  Plain and simple.

A group of owners agreed that they would not trade with frapercraper under any circumstances. If a fair trade did occur, this same group of owners stated that they will use their right to veto to prevent the trade from being approved. Therefore, frapercraper is not given the same opportunities as every other team to better his team, whether its warranted or not. That's not fair play.

I don't like frapercraper. He cheated, lied, got caught, lied some more. He should have been booted. I've never said anything to the contrary.
2/24/2010 5:36 PM
soxfan121
Posts: 82 (0)
Hall of Famer
61
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by The__Kid on 2/24/2010
Quote: Originally posted by tropicana on 2/24/2010Kid, soxfan is right...you should look up the first thing I said about the trade after I looked at it: It was that the trade deserved to be vetoed on its own merits not taking into account who was involved...
I don't disagree with your right to veto any trade. It's not about the trade, though. If the trade was completely fair to both sides, we would still be having this discussion.

No, if the trade was completely fair to both sides you'd have a point. Because then, and ONLY THEN, could you prove "collusion" on the part of the vetoing parties.

This trade got 18 vetoes. Clearly it was not collusion.

Your hypothetical discussion is a neat intellectual exercise - does a group of owners have the right to "freeze out" a known cheater?

But don't lose FOCUS on the point: the trade was vetoed by 2/3rds of the world. It would have been vetoed in any of my 4 current or 4 past worlds. That's a decent sample size, all telling us one FOCUSED thing: the trade was ******

Your "point" here is spurious and your moralizing isn't gonna win you many converts. Aside from the ****** trade, one of the parties involved is a known cheater. Quit while you are behind.
2/24/2010 5:36 PM
gjello10
Posts: 164 (0)
All Star
6 26
Prospect
[snip]


"I will do X to cause an owner to have an unfair disadvantage" "I also will do X to cause harm to cause an owner to have an unfair disadvantage" You forget intention.

I'm not forgetting anything. I almost never do. Intention is immaterial to this discussion. Deal-making is. "Collusion" requires a deal. Quid pro quo. I do this, then you do that. Announcing that I'm doing this irrespective of what you do (though I think it would be great if you also did it) is NOT collusion. It's merely announcing what I'm doing. And it doesn't preclude others from announcing that they are doing the same thing. As soon as one person's behavior becomes conditional on another person's behavior, collusion becomes possible.

Intent to cause harm is very much material to collusion. You are mistaking conspiracy and collusion
Intent is, indeed, material to collusion in general. However, FOCUS, it is not material to this particular discussion because collusion requires deal-making as well as negative intent. Since there is self-evidently no deal-making, and since everyone who has expressed the general sentiment that they will veto every trade involving fRAPERcaper (or any other confirmed cheater) has done so in such a way as to indicate (or at least imply) that they would veto even if they were the only veto, then the discussion stops there. Intent becomes immaterial because there is no deal around which a collusion charge could be based.
2/24/2010 5:39 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By The__Kid on 2/24/2010
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 2/24/2010
There is no collusion. Have WifS check my sitemails and trade chats. You'll find that no agreement has been made.

You're just worried that frapercraper won't be given a fair chance to improve his team. I'm telling you that I will not give him a fair chance. He forfeited that right when he created an alias and attempted to trade with himself. I don't care if I hurt his feelings. I don't care if WifS thinks I'm wrong. I don't want to play with cheaters. I will do everything possible to make them regret cheating. Plain and simple.

A group of owners agreed that they would not trade with frapercraper under any circumstances. If a fair trade did occur, this same group of owners stated that they will use their right to veto to prevent the trade from being approved. Therefore, frapercraper is not given the same opportunities as every other team to better his team, whether its warranted or not. That's not fair play.

I don't like frapercraper. He cheated, lied, got caught, lied some more. He should have been booted. I've never said anything to the contrary


See? This is where your problem lies. No one agreed to anything. We stated our opinions and thoughts on how to deal with a cheater. There is no agreement. We simply share a viewpoint.
2/24/2010 5:40 PM
The__Kid
Posts: 66 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 1 1 308 61 80 3
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
2/24/2010 5:43 PM
Braziman
Posts: 551 (0)
Hall of Famer
298 9 7 9 50 5 40
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 2/24/2010
We simply share a viewpoint.


Precisely, just like real life MLB owners.

(Here's where the game falls short of real life -- no WIFS federal court for the inevitable lawsuit.)
2/24/2010 5:44 PM
gjello10
Posts: 164 (0)
All Star
6 26
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 2/24/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By The__Kid on 2/24/2010

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 2/24/2010

There is no collusion. Have WifS check my sitemails and trade chats. You'll find that no agreement has been made.

You're just worried that frapercraper won't be given a fair chance to improve his team. I'm telling you that I will not give him a fair chance. He forfeited that right when he created an alias and attempted to trade with himself. I don't care if I hurt his feelings. I don't care if WifS thinks I'm wrong. I don't want to play with cheaters. I will do everything possible to make them regret cheating. Plain and simple.

A group of owners agreed that they would not trade with frapercraper under any circumstances. If a fair trade did occur, this same group of owners stated that they will use their right to veto to prevent the trade from being approved. Therefore, frapercraper is not given the same opportunities as every other team to better his team, whether its warranted or not. That's not fair play.

I don't like frapercraper. He cheated, lied, got caught, lied some more. He should have been booted. I've never said anything to the contrary.



See? This is where your problem lies. No one agreed to anything. We stated our opinions and thoughts on how to deal with a cheater. There is no agreement. We simply share a viewpoint.
+1. Mike wins the prize for hitting the nail on the head. Or nailing Trop's wife. Or something.
2/24/2010 5:45 PM
tropicana
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
184 13 588 202 293
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
2/24/2010 5:45 PM
tropicana
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
184 13 588 202 293
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
2/24/2010 5:46 PM
◂ Prev 1...34|35|36|37|38...58 Next ▸
The Death of World Foxx 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.