The Death of World Foxx Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
This "discussion" has carried on for almost 5 hours. You've yet to make a valid point. I'm tired. You're dumb.

2/24/2010 6:58 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 6:58 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Take this test. Let us know the result.

http://www.am-i-dumb.com/
2/24/2010 7:01 PM
gjello10
Posts: 164 (0)
All Star
6 26
Prospect

Mutually-agreed-upon doesn't mean conditional on one another. It means exactly as it reads.[no. mutually agreed upon does not mean "in agreement" or "we agree". It means "I agree to this under the condition that you agree to this."]

They are "independently" ****** off together, as a group. [They may be ****** off as a group, but being ****** off isn't collcusion. They decided to veto all of his trades as individuals. Again, if no one else went along, do you really think Mike wouldn't veto by himself? Or Trop?]

It's not just the veto part. It's the "not do any business" part, also. [This is by far the weakest part of your argument. There is not even a whisper of "I won't trade with him if you guys don't." It's "I won't trade with him, period, regardless of what you guys do, and I'll veto any trades with him, regardless of what you guys do."]

It's one thing to have an opinion on whether or not to trade with an owner, but what is the intention of stating publicly that you will not trade and veto any trade involving the owner? [the intention is clearly to convince others that your opinion is right, and get them, on their own and not through any inducement by deal-making on your part, to accept your opinion as there own. That may or may not be a right or decent thing to do, but it is not collusive or against the rules or spirit of the rules of fair play in HBD.]
2/24/2010 7:29 PM
The__Kid
Posts: 66 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 1 1 308 61 80 3
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by gjello10 on 2/24/2010

Mutually-agreed-upon doesn't mean conditional on one another. It means exactly as it reads. [no.  mutually agreed upon does not mean "in agreement" or "we agree".  It means "I agree to this under the condition that you agree to this."] 

They are "independently" ****** off together, as a group. [They may be ****** off as a group, but being ****** off isn't collcusion.  They decided to veto all of his trades as individuals.  Again, if no one else went along, do you really think Mike wouldn't veto by himself?  Or Trop?]

It's not just the veto part. It's the "not do any business" part, also. [This is by far the weakest part of your argument.  There is not even a whisper of "I won't trade with him if you guys don't."  It's "I won't trade with him, period, regardless of what you guys do, and I'll veto any trades with him, regardless of what you guys do."]

It's one thing to have an opinion on whether or not to trade with an owner, but what is the intention of stating publicly that you will not trade and veto any trade involving the owner? [the intention is clearly to convince others that your opinion is right, and get them, on their own and not through any inducement by deal-making on your part, to accept your opinion as there own.  That may or may not be a right or decent thing to do, but it is not collusive or against the rules or spirit of the rules of fair play in HBD.] 


I disagree, but we're in a circular argument here.
2/24/2010 7:41 PM
gjello10
Posts: 164 (0)
All Star
6 26
Prospect

I disagree, but we're in a circular argument here.
I'm more than willing to agree to disagree, but I would ask you to answer this: Do you believe that any of the people who have said they will veto all of fRAPER's trades would not do so, on principle, even if they knew no one else was going to veto?
2/24/2010 7:44 PM
soxfan121
Posts: 82 (0)
Hall of Famer
61
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by The__Kid on 2/24/2010Let do this: Do you think that having a group of owners say that they will not trade with an owner or veto any fair deal with that owner is fair play?

No, if there was no rational reason underlying a (minimum) group of 10 owners vetoing "fair trades", I'd leave the world.

My turn:
Do you think an owner caught cheating should be allowed to stay in a world?

2/24/2010 8:08 PM
Feamster
Posts: 687 (0)
Hall of Famer
49 1 1 21 714
Prospect
Anybody reading through the history of Foxx and through the world chat had to have understood that cheating was a problem in the past and that cheating would no longer be tolerated. The guy amazingly tried cheating in front of us all and got caught. He should have been booted immediately.

I spent my money to help put this world back together- and this guy flies in the face of what should be happening in Foxx. I will not approve of anything he does except leave. This is an independent voice and I have no allegiance with anybody in Foxx.
2/24/2010 8:19 PM
The__Kid
Posts: 66 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 1 1 308 61 80 3
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by gjello10 on 2/24/2010
 

I disagree, but we're in a circular argument here.
I'm more than willing to agree to disagree, but I would ask you to answer this: Do you believe that any of the people who have said they will veto all of fRAPER's trades would not do so, on principle, even if they knew no one else was going to veto?

I don't know that, yet. New world for me, new owners. I'll let time answer that for me.
2/24/2010 8:26 PM
The__Kid
Posts: 66 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 1 1 308 61 80 3
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by soxfan121 on 2/24/2010
Quote: Originally posted by The__Kid on 2/24/2010Let do this: Do you think that having a group of owners say that they will not trade with an owner or veto any fair deal with that owner is fair play?
No, if there was no rational reason underlying a (minimum) group of 10 owners vetoing "fair trades", I'd leave the world.

My turn:
Do you think an owner caught cheating should be allowed to stay in a world?



It more of the group against one mentality than it is about a veto. I can't only state my opinion that isn't in fair nor is it in the best interests of the league. Not going to cut bait and leave, though.

To answer your question, absolutely. I even suggested to CS that both be expelled. WIS ruled and the world is stuck with that ruling.
2/24/2010 8:31 PM
iain
Posts: 1864 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 1 18 1 279
Prospect
Well, nice to see that as long as you stonewall with stupidity, even the most ardent fighters of rational thought will give up.

Well done, The__Kid ... amazingly, you've managed to prove one of Einstein's most famous theories correct, sadly (for you), it's:

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
2/24/2010 10:25 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Having to deal with this annoys me even more when I think about it.

Recently WifS offered a discount for HBD teams with a promo code. When you signed up, there was a warning. Essentially it warned that the promo code was intended for users on a one-time basis. If you used an alias or whatever to sign up a second time, they claimed to be within their rights to strip you of all your teams, credits, whatever and leave you with nothing. So, essentially, they said "DO NOT STEAL $5 FROM US OR WE'LL BE ****** AND YOU'LL BE GONE!!"

However, in this case, frapercraper attempted to steal $25 and 3 months from 30 owners by cheating the world. WifS response: Replace one of the teams but let frapercraper remain in the world.

This isn't worth me arguing with WifS about, my team was from a previous promo code and I'm only there for one season, but something seems wrong with the entire handling of the situation considering how violating the $5 promo code would be handled.
2/25/2010 8:36 AM
crickett13
Posts: 2396 (0)
Hall of Famer
398 74 25 145
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By iain on 2/24/2010
Damn... as much as I think you all have your hearts in the right place, I'm kinda glad I backed out on this quixotic quest.

What an effing trainwreck...........



No way man. It's like being in a cross between real live soap opera and an Abbot and Costello routine. I'm not sure I could bring myself to leave at this point.
2/25/2010 9:05 AM
iain
Posts: 1864 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 1 18 1 279
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
2/25/2010 9:07 AM
soxfan121
Posts: 82 (0)
Hall of Famer
61
Prospect
The only option is to vote with your feet.

When WifS looks at new customer retention numbers in a year, and realizes that the cesspool of worlds like Foxx are costing them money - then their policies will change.

Best case scenario, given the way WifS has proven to deal with problems, is to let Foxx wither on the vine during the next rollover. I've a got an available credit and would gladly join for a few hours every day to post "ATTENTION NEW USERS: Go somewhere else. This world is populated with cheaters. Vets enter at own risk" Eventually, there will be another Foxx (if one doesn't already exist) and when those two worlds wither and stay open for a month...WifS can merge them.

The way to deal with bornlosers and frapercaper and their ilk is to just segregate them - make them play each other. Keep their ROT out of worlds where cheating is not allowed. Ultimately, who cares if the cheating jerkoffs play in their own feces? Just so long as I don't have to smell it.
2/25/2010 9:13 AM
◂ Prev 1...37|38|39|40|41...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.