just another Topic

mmt0315
Posts: 450 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 323 4 7
Prospect
Based on previous offenses, you went beyond what is considered collusion.
12/14/2009 1:42 PM
johnner26
Posts: 12 (0)
Hall of Famer
67 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By tracyr on 12/14/2009
and this is the first time i have ever lost a battle when a coach sent me an e-mail about a player basically wanting me off said recruit so they didnt have to spend more money

funny that this turd didnt chime in until he actually GOT the recruit

I've got better things to do than hope you post some thread on the forums. Next time take it up with me directly, so I know who I'm talking to. Very dissapointing Schwarts...Tracyr or whoever else I am talking to.
12/14/2009 1:43 PM
tmacfan12
Posts: 336 (0)
Hall of Famer
232 4 2
Prospect

Collusive transactions

Collusion includes any act that supports bad, deceitful or illegal behavior agreed upon by two or more users. Here are a few examples:

  • Trades that clearly benefit one side.
  • Dropping/waiving a player so that another team may pick him up.
  • Using 1 team to scout for another team.
  • Making agreements with other users to go or not go after specific players with the intent of avoiding recruiting/negotiation battles.
  • Coaching 2 or more teams in the same world using multiple user IDs within the same conference or regional area of the country is not allowed as it presents opportunities for collusive behavior. All such situations brought to our attention will be investigated and violations of this policy will result in the removal or relocation of one or all of the IDs.
  • Intentionally throwing a game to ensure another team improves it's chances for a post-season bid.
  • Intentionally signing questionable players that benefit the former club (i.e. Type-A free-agents in Hardball Dynasty.)
  • Arranging a trade with another franchise so the other franchise can sign a free-agent resulting in the other franchise receiving compensation picks.
Any owner caught colluding for the first time will receive a sitemail and email from us regarding the action. Future violations will result in appropriate consequences. This may include the stripping of all offending teams controlled by the owner(s).

Directly from the fair play guidelines, which can be found here:

http://www.whatifsports.com/locker/fairplay.shtm
12/14/2009 1:44 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
204 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By tracyr on 12/14/2009had i done anything but put more money into that recruit - it would be collusion 100 pct, plain and simpl
Really can't argue with that, granted your side of it would have been non-verbal and I am not sure where that lies in the rule book. Without his second sitemail (telling you who you should recruit) I am not sure it is collusion the way that WIS means to stop collusion tho.
12/14/2009 1:51 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
204 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By kannc6 on 12/14/2009this is not the first and probably wont be the last time this type situation has come up.
I think admins past and present have been pretty clear... Ya cant collude.. Telling someone to back off is collusion. END OF STORY...
Nothing personal to the parties involved and Ive had my share of scrapes with Tracy in the past, but he is pure as driven snow in this one!
Johnner's action crosses the line
1. When he warns someone off (as many have said if nothing else it creates an advantage for both)
2. When he gives advice about other options on the board that belong to teams that could in theory affect both of them. (so many possible ways this could hurt opponents help both of them.
3. When he SPENDS FSS money to help out?? Surprised no one as mentioned this... Not a big deal.. but DAMN..


Exactly.
12/14/2009 1:53 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
204 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By johnner26 on 12/14/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By tracyr on 12/14/2009

for me to have responded in any way to those unsolicited sitemails - would have been collusion - just the mere acknowledgement of the sitemails could be seen as such

you are the douchebag who put me in the bad position by your sheer arrogance

Maybe it was your sheer arrogance that caused the downward spiral at Oregon. Who sounds arrogant if you read the last couple of posts. Clearly my feedback was arrogant which means you were obviously above it. No problem--next time let me know you think I'm arrogant before I go out and spend a few grand on FFS for you to try and help you out. It's costing me way too much to be arrogant here...help out a brother! Oh, that's right, I'm not your brother
That right there is 100% completely collusion.
12/14/2009 1:54 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
204 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By johnner26 on 12/14/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/14/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By johnner26 on 12/14/2009

You know I happen to have been on the short end of the stick in recruiting and I thought I was helping the guy out. Clearly Schwartz has problems with how that went down. There was no collusion--just some feedback from what I would do if I were him. I don't control any of the teams I made comments on and if I had to do it all over again (and if Schwartz wasn't such a DB)--I would.

Honestly if anyone has a problem with what I did--they can man up and we can talk about it. Or they can throw it up on the board like Oregon did and wait for a lynch mob to come and help out.

Regardless, check the rules--I didn't do anything that I wouldn't be comfortable doing again. When I start to actually collude with other coaches then feel free to pull out your pichforks.

In the end--Oregon loses big time, screws up his season and then tries to throw me under the bus for attempting to help him out...whatever. Lesson learned. Enjoy your season Schwartz!

Ok, so we can get those out now, since you did break the rules?
Sure--as soon as Seble or admin gets with me and tells me that I broke the rules. Since you don't qualify...let's put that thought on hold
I am sure he will agree with us once he is in the know.
12/14/2009 1:55 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
204 66 38
Pro
There is nothing wrong with helping out a new coach and pointing out recruits that you think are good recruit choices for him, before recruiting if you are in the same world (although even there there can be gray areas) but to do it during recruiting and to do it to help yourself out is not only against the rules but very selfish.

I have recieved these sitemails numerous times and always delete them, you aren't going to scare me away from my recruit or make me break the rules, nice try tho.
12/14/2009 1:59 PM
kelby_03
Posts: 74 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 242 1
Prospect
I don't have a problem with the 1st sitemail. They used to happen all the time (and still do from time to time) and I personally always enjoyed them and thought they made the game more interesting. They sure as hell made recruiting more fun. Usually nothing gets settled in these sitemails but they start some fun banter and create rivalries. Suggesting other recruits he should go after instead wasn't a great idea even if his intentions were good.

12/14/2009 2:03 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
204 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By kelby_03 on 12/14/2009
I don't have a problem with the 1st sitemail. They used to happen all the time (and still do from time to time) and I personally always enjoyed them and thought they made the game more interesting. They sure as hell made recruiting more fun. Usually nothing gets settled in these sitemails but they start some fun banter and create rivalries. Suggesting other recruits he should go after instead wasn't a great idea even if his intentions were good.





I agree with you Kelby, but they are against the rules and those rules aren't really ours to make...
12/14/2009 2:05 PM
koorr
Posts: 0 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by kelby_03 on 12/14/2009I don't have a problem with the 1st sitemail. They used to happen all the time (and still do from time to time) and I personally always enjoyed them and thought they made the game more interesting. They sure as hell made recruiting more fun. Usually nothing gets settled in these sitemails but they start some fun banter and create rivalries. Suggesting other recruits he should go after instead wasn't a great idea even if his intentions were good.  


agree 100 percent on all points
12/14/2009 2:08 PM
kelby_03
Posts: 74 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 242 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/14/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By kelby_03 on 12/14/2009

I don't have a problem with the 1st sitemail. They used to happen all the time (and still do from time to time) and I personally always enjoyed them and thought they made the game more interesting. They sure as hell made recruiting more fun. Usually nothing gets settled in these sitemails but they start some fun banter and create rivalries. Suggesting other recruits he should go after instead wasn't a great idea even if his intentions were good.






I agree with you Kelby, but they are against the rules and those rules aren't really ours to make...
i don't think the 1st sitemail was against any rules. Some coaches refuse to talk during recruiting but that's up to them. Unless you're actually dividing up recruits or making plans to attack another coaches recruits together or something actually shady then i don't have a problem with it. If you can send a sitemail to a coach and actually talk him into backing off a recruit (without giving him a recruit in return) then more power to you.
12/14/2009 2:13 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
204 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By kelby_03 on 12/14/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/14/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By kelby_03 on 12/14/2009

I don't have a problem with the 1st sitemail. They used to happen all the time (and still do from time to time) and I personally always enjoyed them and thought they made the game more interesting. They sure as hell made recruiting more fun. Usually nothing gets settled in these sitemails but they start some fun banter and create rivalries. Suggesting other recruits he should go after instead wasn't a great idea even if his intentions were good.






I agree with you Kelby, but they are against the rules and those rules aren't really ours to make...
i don't think the 1st sitemail was against any rules. Some coaches refuse to talk during recruiting but that's up to them. Unless you're actually dividing up recruits or making plans to attack another coaches recruits together or something actually shady then i don't have a problem with it. If you can send a sitemail to a coach and actually talk him into backing off a recruit (without giving him a recruit in return) then more power to you.
I can agree with you there - but then if tracyr decided to drop off the kid how is that not... something? Both parties saved themselves money via a private sitemail. So they aren't directly saying who else's recruits they are going to target with that money but they are saying who it won't be (each other).
12/14/2009 2:20 PM
oldave
Posts: 1162 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 302 12
Pro
hmmm, kel, not sure how that first email doesnt break this rule:

# Making agreements with other users to go or not go after specific players with the intent of avoiding recruiting/negotiation battles.

12/14/2009 2:21 PM
oldave
Posts: 1162 (0)
Hall of Famer
3 302 12
Pro
i thought things were pretty clear after t12 posted the collusion rules (which are WAAAAY too hard to find by theway)

but if there is still disagreement, I hope the seble can weigh in a make things clear.

if the first sitemail was not a violation, then i think i will start doing that in some form. i just asssumed it was collusion. and the rules seem to me to back that up.
12/14/2009 2:24 PM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7...14 Next ▸
just another Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.