"1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes"

Nothing is secret.
Nothing is for a 'treacherous' or 'fraudulent' purpose.

The only 'harm' put upon Mr. Cheater is that he cannot trade with owners who enough mental capacity and/or scruples to not deal with him.

Still flabbergasted that WIS allowed him to keep his team. Disgraceful.

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

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

Quote: Originally posted by hypnotoad on 2/24/2010"1. a secret agreement, esp. for fraudulent or treacherous purposes"

Nothing is secret.
Nothing is for a 'treacherous' or 'fraudulent' purpose.

The only 'harm' put upon Mr. Cheater is that he cannot trade with owners who enough mental capacity and/or scruples to not deal with him.

Still flabbergasted that WIS allowed him to keep his team. Disgraceful.

Out of dozens of definitions that you Googled, you picked the one that best fit your argument.

Good work, F. Lee Bailey!

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

They all - including the one posted by trop - include those same words: Secret, treacherous, etc.

I'm still waiting for you to come close to making a point.
You hand-waved away trop's definition in the chat.
Can you support your point besides berating people in ALL CAPS to FOCUS on your faulty reasoning?

Fair enough. Collusion involves 2 or more owners acting in a mutually-agreed-upon manner to violate the rules or spirit of the rules of fair play by making decissions or engaging in behaviors for the betterment of one or both parties that they would not otherwise have made or engaged in without the reciprocal agreement of the other party.

Thus, sharing projections (draft, IFA, or Adv) that the other owner has not paid for in his budget would be collusion. 2 owners who are in multiple worlds together making a pair of lopsided trades in two different worlds which "even out" net-net would be collusion. Cross-signing Type A or B FAs that you would otherwise not have signed is collusion. Dividing up IFAs on the side to avoid bidding wars is collusion (in RL, this type of collusion is often called "market allocation" and can land you in jail).

Quote: Originally posted by hypnotoad on 2/24/2010They all - including the one posted by trop - include those same words: Secret, treacherous, etc.

I'm still waiting for you to come close to making a point.
You hand-waved away trop's definition in the chat.
Can you support your point besides berating people in ALL CAPS to FOCUS on your faulty reasoning?

Like I said, you just can't pick and choose definitions of a word to fit your argument. I've made my point. Do some work, Columbo.

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

Quote: Originally posted by hypnotoad on 2/24/2010They all - including the one posted by trop - include those same words: Secret, treacherous, etc.
I'm still waiting for you to come close to making a point.
You hand-waved away trop's definition in the chat.
Can you support your point besides berating people in ALL CAPS to FOCUS on your faulty reasoning?

Like I said, you just can't pick and choose definitions of a word to fit your argument. I've made my point. Do some work, Columbo.

I think to make your point you need to provide a definition that is contrary to what everyone else is providing.

Quote: Originally posted by gjello10 on 2/24/2010Fair enough.  Collusion involves 2 or more owners acting in a mutually-agreed-upon manner to violate the rules or spirit of the rules of fair play by making decissions or engaging in behaviors for the betterment of one or both parties that they would not otherwise have made or engaged in without the reciprocal agreement of the other party.Thus, sharing projections (draft, IFA, or Adv) that the other owner has not paid for in his budget would be collusion.  2 owners who are in multiple worlds together making a pair of lopsided trades in two different worlds which "even out" net-net would be collusion.  Cross-signing Type A or B FAs that you would otherwise not have signed is collusion.  Dividing up IFAs on the side to avoid bidding wars is collusion (in RL, this type of collusion is often called "market allocation" and can land you in jail).

Agreed. And a group of owners who do not trade with an owner, or hinder any trade involving that owner, with the intent to harm the owner is collusion.

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

You're just dumb. Really dumb. There can be no other reason for you to continue to stick with your POV.

Quote: Originally Posted By The__Kid on 2/24/2010

Quote: Originally posted by gjello10 on 2/24/2010
Fair enough. Collusion involves 2 or more owners acting in a mutually-agreed-upon manner to violate the rules or spirit of the rules of fair play by making decissions or engaging in behaviors for the betterment of one or both parties that they would not otherwise have made or engaged in without the reciprocal agreement of the other party.

Thus, sharing projections (draft, IFA, or Adv) that the other owner has not paid for in his budget would be collusion. 2 owners who are in multiple worlds together making a pair of lopsided trades in two different worlds which "even out" net-net would be collusion. Cross-signing Type A or B FAs that you would otherwise not have signed is collusion. Dividing up IFAs on the side to avoid bidding wars is collusion (in RL, this type of collusion is often called "market allocation" and can land you in jail).

Agreed. And a group of owners who do not trade with an owner, or hinder any trade involving that owner, with the intent to harm the owner is collusion.

Again, if and only if it is mutually-agreed-upon (which means each owner's behavior is conditional upon another's). Which is clearly not the case here. Yes, if they all got together in Trade Chat and said "hey, I don't like that X won the WS. I'll agree not to trade with him and to veto all of his trades if you do." then that would be collusion. But clearly, these guys are just independently ****** off at fRAPERcaper and making the same decission as each other. Do you really, honestly, doubt that Trop or Mike would veto any trade fRAPER made, even if they knew for a fact that they would be the only veto vote? If you do, then you've never read any of Mike's 8.7 Million posts.

Obtuse for Obtuse's sake.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 2/24/2010You're just dumb.  Really dumb.   There can be no other reason for you to continue to stick with your POV. 

There you go, Mike. Taking the "If I don't agree, just name call" tactic.