From the "Fair Play" thread since I know ADMIN is reading this one:

The entire problem with written "rules" for entrance into a world is that owners will "work" them. Neither owner I asked to not return would have violated any win rule in place. However, not one owner in Cooperstown came to their defense in the week of public back and forth between us. Because everyone knew the two owners were "failing to compete" despite their win totals. As I mentioned earlier, a team can be 41-59 at game 100. They are not playoff teams. Now they can go 0-62 to close out the season and, as long as they check in and start Training Camp pitchers at 51% once every 10 games, they cannot be removed. No exceptions.



To sum it up, owners find loopholes. Commishes, like drug testers, have to evolve as they go to keep up with the loophole finders. I started both of my worlds with 55 win minimums. As we moved on, more and more owners began to lower their win totals to get better draft picks. So we ended up with extensive losing streaks to end seasons in order to secure draft order after getting 55+ wins. I changed the rule in MG before the season began. In S15 we had 13 teams competing for 12 playoff spots at game 100. This season we have 20 who are a 5 game win streak away from a playoff spot with 20 games . Good owners will find a way. Good commishes need the means to keep up.

Our goal is to have some set guidelines so there's less subjectivity when deciding whether an owner should be replaced or not. On the other hand, we have to be careful because it's not good business practice for us to boot an owner from a world in which he's been playing for several seasons (private or public).

#1 - How are established private world rules "subjective?" If the rules are published and everyone knows them then there should be no interpretation needed. Something should be able to be sent to WIS citing what rules are not being abided by and then handled according to the recommendations of the commish.

#2 - They basically just admitted that a paying customer is more important than their fairplay guidelines and/or any "anti-tanking" measures which really just confirms what we already knew...they have no interest in combating tanking...unless it affects profits. (boycotts achieve that)

Quote: Originally posted by tzentmeyer on 4/09/2010And to be clear, we are far more interested in protecting and helping our veteran, loyal users than the small percentage that either choose to tank their ML team or quit playing.

The long-running issues with KorruptKings and owners of his ilk say otherwise.

I love the suggestion of allowing commissioners to set the rules for their league (with league approval, of course) for things like minimum wins, minimum payroll, maximum prospect budgets, etc.

This whole thing has been botched about as badly as you can botch something like this. Unless there is a 180 degree reversal with the "ASAP" implementation of some kind of league-specific guidelines, I'm going to be dumping at least two of my teams and it seems like I am far from alone in that.

Start by removing the owner in Cooperstown. When the entire league is bailing, its obvious that it's the right move.

As long as a commish can provide documentation that an owner violated the league rules (Maybe have a home for all private league rules that cant be easily modified), removal, whether at rollover or in-season should be allowed if requested by the commish.

The bottom line is you can't force owners to player with other owners who cause problems in the world. No need to redesign the wheel, keep the rollover the way it was and the Private Worlds can police themselves. It's really not that hard to stay out of the cross hairs.

I'm guessing that tz wants some concrete definition that can be put in the fair play guidelines that will cover the rights of the commishes to enforce the will of the world in expelling an unwanted owner at rollover.

Here's what I suggest:

1) A place where the commish of the world can define the rules that all owners are expected to follow. Whether it's a minimum win rule over one or multiple seasons, prospect budget caps, stadium restrictions, cash in trade restrictions, etc. The rules would need to be clearly defined and published.

Whether this is a new page within the world itself that a commish can update and maintain, or it's in the Classifieds Forum, or it's a new pinned and locked thread in the HBD Forum, wherever. It just needs to be in a public place for all to see, and where it can be referenced easily and at any time.

2) As grivfmd1 has proposed, a disclaimer in which each owner who joins a private world agrees to abide by the published rules and acknowledges that the commish has the right to remove them for violation of said rules. Rather than just a one-time agreement, I'd even be open to having every member have to "renew" their agreement upon every rollover.

This also means that a little more work would need to be done on the part of the commish to clearly document any violation of such rules by any owner. Maybe through a ticket at the time of the violation if that's appropriate. Something that can be easily referenced after rollover as justification for having the violating owner removed by ADMIN.

Thoughts?

Quote: Originally posted by brewsbrother on 4/09/2010The bottom line is you can't force owners to player with other owners who cause problems in the world. No need to redesign the wheel, keep the rollover the way it was and the Private Worlds can police themselves.

^^^^^

this is a game with fake players. come one guys lets all act like adults. well lets all of us who are adults act like adults and let the 14yr olds continue to act 14.

Quote: Originally Posted By Fregoe on 4/09/2010this is a game with fake players. come one guys lets all act like adults. well lets all of us who are adults act like adults and let the 14yr olds continue to act 14.

huh? Who isnt acting like an adult? Wis made a poor policy change, owners complained, TZ asked for ideas, people are providing ideas.

I'll point out again that there is no way a commish can document every detail for expulsion. There is no way on earth I would have asked trop not to return for dropping 17 straight against good teams. It was his use of fatigued relievers that did it. I wouldn't have thought to add "No owner can go on an extended losing streak between games 130 and 150 while using fatigued relief pitchers." He won 65 games despite that.

Nor would I have thought to put "No owner can paint themselves in a corner with bad decisions and bad signings leaving themselves with no options if their team is underperforming, in their mind, at mid-season."

Wouldn't the easiest solution be for admin to create a forum for worlds with unique rules? Every world has one lcoked thread where only the commish of that world can post and change rules but everyone wishing to join that world is able to view the rules. After reviewing the rules (or not) if you join that particular world you are agreeing to abide by those rules and failure to do so will result in dismissal at the commish's discretion.

This would give the power back to the commish and take the onus off of CS to have the final say. Of course CS would have to approve the dismissal but the commish can easily point to the rule/guideline that was violated. A simple no-tanking rule should not need much explanation as the commish would be able to explain to CS how the offending owner tanked.

Public, Private, Theme.

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 4/09/2010I'll point out again that there is no way a commish can document every detail for expulsion.   There is no way on earth I would have asked trop not to return for dropping 17 straight against good teams.   It was his use of fatigued relievers that did it. I wouldn't have thought to add "No owner can go on an extended losing streak between games 130 and 150 while using fatigued relief pitchers."  He won 65 games despite that.Nor would I have thought to put "No owner can paint themselves in a corner with bad decisions and bad signings leaving themselves with no options if their team is underperforming, in their mind, at mid-season."

I'll point out again that there is no way a commish can document every detail for expulsion.

Quoted for emphasis. Written rules create loopholes. At best Worlds can put out some general rules which really just outline the intentions of the World - competetive, theme, etc.

The best idea presented so far was the disclaimer that "you are joining a private world and are subject to dismissal..."

Let private world be just that, private. As a private world we have a right to make our own decisions on what is fair play and what is not and WIS should not interfere with that.

When the crybaby cheaters come to you with a sob story remind them that they could have joined a public world but they chose to join a private world. Since they chose to join a private world they agreed to abide by that worlds rules.

As far as having to register the league rules frankly I think that is a pretty bad idea once you really start to examine it. No one can come up with a set of rules that cover everything. Private worlds should simply be able to remove any owner at will. If a comish goes nuts it would be pretty easy for WIS to contact all of the owners in the world and ask has this guy been abusing his power or do we just have 2 guys who broke the rules and now want to cry about it.



I agree 100%. Leave the private worlds alone. If we don't like the rules or the commissioner we can leave the world. If the commisssioner doesn't like an owner then he can do what he will.

Quote: Originally Posted By crickett13 on 4/09/2010
Let private world be just that, private. As a private world we have a right to make our own decisions on what is fair play and what is not and WIS should not interfere with that.

When the crybaby cheaters come to you with a sob story remind them that they could have joined a public world but they chose to join a private world. Since they chose to join a private world they agreed to abide by that worlds rules.

As far as having to register the league rules frankly I think that is a pretty bad idea once you really start to examine it. No one can come up with a set of rules that cover everything. Private worlds should simply be able to remove any owner at will. If a comish goes nuts it would be pretty easy for WIS to contact all of the owners in the world and ask has this guy been abusing his power or do we just have 2 guys who broke the rules and now want to cry about it.

Sorry crickett, my above post was supposed to be a quote from you.