Posted by rednu on 7/10/2018 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 7/10/2018 12:11:00 PM (view original):
Hey guys, catching up on this situation. This is certainly a gray area when applying fair play rules. In the end, the only advantage for the DIII team was having already scouted the player, but that advantage exists any time a coach changes jobs. I understand that the perception of a DI team pursuing a recruit might scare off other DIII teams.

It's tricky to apply a hard and fast rule to this type of scenario, because there are valid cases where a coach changes jobs and then recruits players he had recruited at the previous school. That's true of the game and in real life.

LOL...you "understand" the perception of a D1 team pursuing a recruit might scare off other D3 teams" but then claim the only advantage for the D3 team was having already scouted the player. I'm not sure you understand what the word "understand" means.

Had the beta been used for something more than serving as a rubber stamping of whatever changes you wanted to make, maybe the area wouldn't be so gray or so broad. You had fair warning in beta that things like this were possible. You chose not to address it then in the rush to get the product out. "Faster" was a higher priority for you than "better," so any "tricky" position you find yourself in is the product of your own inattention to details in both product and policy wording.

Not sure where this is coming from. The split recruiting sessions came directly from the beta testing, as that wasn't in the initial design. I think everyone understood it wasn't ideal, but there was general agreement that it was needed due to early entries and job changes. In fact, there were quite a few changes made during the beta period, directly based on feedback from testers.

Posted by seble on 7/10/2018 12:11:00 PM (view original):
Hey guys, catching up on this situation. This is certainly a gray area when applying fair play rules. In the end, the only advantage for the DIII team was having already scouted the player, but that advantage exists any time a coach changes jobs. I understand that the perception of a DI team pursuing a recruit might scare off other DIII teams.

It's tricky to apply a hard and fast rule to this type of scenario, because there are valid cases where a coach changes jobs and then recruits players he had recruited at the previous school. That's true of the game and in real life.

It should be fairly straightforward to determine if this is a valid case of a coach recruiting normally, and then changing jobs, or if the intent here was collusion - a clear and unambiguous violation of fair play guidelines. Did the coach actively pursue those recruits as if to sign them to the D1 program? If so, no foul. If that is the case, I think it would do some good here to say that - you looked into the recruiting actions, and determined no foul, no intent to foul.

If you leave it at “gray” and “tricky”, you’re encouraging collusion, and inviting fair - and unfair - criticism of the product.

Posted by seble on 7/10/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 7/10/2018 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 7/10/2018 12:11:00 PM (view original):
Hey guys, catching up on this situation. This is certainly a gray area when applying fair play rules. In the end, the only advantage for the DIII team was having already scouted the player, but that advantage exists any time a coach changes jobs. I understand that the perception of a DI team pursuing a recruit might scare off other DIII teams.

It's tricky to apply a hard and fast rule to this type of scenario, because there are valid cases where a coach changes jobs and then recruits players he had recruited at the previous school. That's true of the game and in real life.

LOL...you "understand" the perception of a D1 team pursuing a recruit might scare off other D3 teams" but then claim the only advantage for the D3 team was having already scouted the player. I'm not sure you understand what the word "understand" means.

Had the beta been used for something more than serving as a rubber stamping of whatever changes you wanted to make, maybe the area wouldn't be so gray or so broad. You had fair warning in beta that things like this were possible. You chose not to address it then in the rush to get the product out. "Faster" was a higher priority for you than "better," so any "tricky" position you find yourself in is the product of your own inattention to details in both product and policy wording.

Not sure where this is coming from. The split recruiting sessions came directly from the beta testing, as that wasn't in the initial design. I think everyone understood it wasn't ideal, but there was general agreement that it was needed due to early entries and job changes. In fact, there were quite a few changes made during the beta period, directly based on feedback from testers.

"The split recruiting sessions came directly from the beta testing, as that wasn't in the initial design."

?!?! This isn't true. The two recruiting session structure was shared by you when you first started creating threads about the new recruiting. It was nearly a full year before Beta started when there were multiple pinned threads on the forums where ideas were shared by you and everyone could ask questions and comment on it. The two recruiting sessions setup was already cooked before Beta was ever started.

Exhibit A.

Posted by seble on 7/10/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 7/10/2018 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 7/10/2018 12:11:00 PM (view original):
Hey guys, catching up on this situation. This is certainly a gray area when applying fair play rules. In the end, the only advantage for the DIII team was having already scouted the player, but that advantage exists any time a coach changes jobs. I understand that the perception of a DI team pursuing a recruit might scare off other DIII teams.

It's tricky to apply a hard and fast rule to this type of scenario, because there are valid cases where a coach changes jobs and then recruits players he had recruited at the previous school. That's true of the game and in real life.

LOL...you "understand" the perception of a D1 team pursuing a recruit might scare off other D3 teams" but then claim the only advantage for the D3 team was having already scouted the player. I'm not sure you understand what the word "understand" means.

Had the beta been used for something more than serving as a rubber stamping of whatever changes you wanted to make, maybe the area wouldn't be so gray or so broad. You had fair warning in beta that things like this were possible. You chose not to address it then in the rush to get the product out. "Faster" was a higher priority for you than "better," so any "tricky" position you find yourself in is the product of your own inattention to details in both product and policy wording.

Not sure where this is coming from. The split recruiting sessions came directly from the beta testing, as that wasn't in the initial design. I think everyone understood it wasn't ideal, but there was general agreement that it was needed due to early entries and job changes. In fact, there were quite a few changes made during the beta period, directly based on feedback from testers.

huh?

Two sessions CREATED problems with EEs and job changes...…
I don't remember any reason for having it at all except for some people who said they were bored during the season and wanted something to do. MANY of the 3.0 PROBLEMS would be eliminated IF we went back to one session.

Seble is correct, two sessions was an answer to the EE issue. Without the late session, there would have been no way for early entry vacancies to be filled. 2 Sessions was set before beta started, but it was not part of the original plan, when the broad strokes were rolled out to us.

Posted by Benis on 7/10/2018 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 7/10/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 7/10/2018 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 7/10/2018 12:11:00 PM (view original):
Hey guys, catching up on this situation. This is certainly a gray area when applying fair play rules. In the end, the only advantage for the DIII team was having already scouted the player, but that advantage exists any time a coach changes jobs. I understand that the perception of a DI team pursuing a recruit might scare off other DIII teams.

It's tricky to apply a hard and fast rule to this type of scenario, because there are valid cases where a coach changes jobs and then recruits players he had recruited at the previous school. That's true of the game and in real life.

LOL...you "understand" the perception of a D1 team pursuing a recruit might scare off other D3 teams" but then claim the only advantage for the D3 team was having already scouted the player. I'm not sure you understand what the word "understand" means.

Had the beta been used for something more than serving as a rubber stamping of whatever changes you wanted to make, maybe the area wouldn't be so gray or so broad. You had fair warning in beta that things like this were possible. You chose not to address it then in the rush to get the product out. "Faster" was a higher priority for you than "better," so any "tricky" position you find yourself in is the product of your own inattention to details in both product and policy wording.

Not sure where this is coming from. The split recruiting sessions came directly from the beta testing, as that wasn't in the initial design. I think everyone understood it wasn't ideal, but there was general agreement that it was needed due to early entries and job changes. In fact, there were quite a few changes made during the beta period, directly based on feedback from testers.

"The split recruiting sessions came directly from the beta testing, as that wasn't in the initial design."

?!?! This isn't true. The two recruiting session structure was shared by you when you first started creating threads about the new recruiting. It was nearly a full year before Beta started when there were multiple pinned threads on the forums where ideas were shared by you and everyone could ask questions and comment on it. The two recruiting sessions setup was already cooked before Beta was ever started.

Exhibit A.

In fairness, these pre-testing feedback threads could be considered part of the beta process.

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/10/2018 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 7/10/2018 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 7/10/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 7/10/2018 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 7/10/2018 12:11:00 PM (view original):
Hey guys, catching up on this situation. This is certainly a gray area when applying fair play rules. In the end, the only advantage for the DIII team was having already scouted the player, but that advantage exists any time a coach changes jobs. I understand that the perception of a DI team pursuing a recruit might scare off other DIII teams.

It's tricky to apply a hard and fast rule to this type of scenario, because there are valid cases where a coach changes jobs and then recruits players he had recruited at the previous school. That's true of the game and in real life.

LOL...you "understand" the perception of a D1 team pursuing a recruit might scare off other D3 teams" but then claim the only advantage for the D3 team was having already scouted the player. I'm not sure you understand what the word "understand" means.

Had the beta been used for something more than serving as a rubber stamping of whatever changes you wanted to make, maybe the area wouldn't be so gray or so broad. You had fair warning in beta that things like this were possible. You chose not to address it then in the rush to get the product out. "Faster" was a higher priority for you than "better," so any "tricky" position you find yourself in is the product of your own inattention to details in both product and policy wording.

Not sure where this is coming from. The split recruiting sessions came directly from the beta testing, as that wasn't in the initial design. I think everyone understood it wasn't ideal, but there was general agreement that it was needed due to early entries and job changes. In fact, there were quite a few changes made during the beta period, directly based on feedback from testers.

"The split recruiting sessions came directly from the beta testing, as that wasn't in the initial design."

?!?! This isn't true. The two recruiting session structure was shared by you when you first started creating threads about the new recruiting. It was nearly a full year before Beta started when there were multiple pinned threads on the forums where ideas were shared by you and everyone could ask questions and comment on it. The two recruiting sessions setup was already cooked before Beta was ever started.

Exhibit A.

In fairness, these pre-testing feedback threads could be considered part of the beta process.

Maybe. But it was already presented from the get go to split the recruiting into two sessions. It didn't result from someone saying "hey, we should split it into two sessions" and everyone else said "yeah that's a great idea!" so it was then implemented. That's not what happened.

I'll add that when Seble says "it wasn't in the initial design", this is not true. It WAS in in the initial design.

Posted by Benis on 7/10/2018 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/10/2018 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 7/10/2018 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 7/10/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 7/10/2018 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 7/10/2018 12:11:00 PM (view original):
Hey guys, catching up on this situation. This is certainly a gray area when applying fair play rules. In the end, the only advantage for the DIII team was having already scouted the player, but that advantage exists any time a coach changes jobs. I understand that the perception of a DI team pursuing a recruit might scare off other DIII teams.

It's tricky to apply a hard and fast rule to this type of scenario, because there are valid cases where a coach changes jobs and then recruits players he had recruited at the previous school. That's true of the game and in real life.

LOL...you "understand" the perception of a D1 team pursuing a recruit might scare off other D3 teams" but then claim the only advantage for the D3 team was having already scouted the player. I'm not sure you understand what the word "understand" means.

Had the beta been used for something more than serving as a rubber stamping of whatever changes you wanted to make, maybe the area wouldn't be so gray or so broad. You had fair warning in beta that things like this were possible. You chose not to address it then in the rush to get the product out. "Faster" was a higher priority for you than "better," so any "tricky" position you find yourself in is the product of your own inattention to details in both product and policy wording.

Not sure where this is coming from. The split recruiting sessions came directly from the beta testing, as that wasn't in the initial design. I think everyone understood it wasn't ideal, but there was general agreement that it was needed due to early entries and job changes. In fact, there were quite a few changes made during the beta period, directly based on feedback from testers.

"The split recruiting sessions came directly from the beta testing, as that wasn't in the initial design."

?!?! This isn't true. The two recruiting session structure was shared by you when you first started creating threads about the new recruiting. It was nearly a full year before Beta started when there were multiple pinned threads on the forums where ideas were shared by you and everyone could ask questions and comment on it. The two recruiting sessions setup was already cooked before Beta was ever started.

Exhibit A.

In fairness, these pre-testing feedback threads could be considered part of the beta process.

Maybe. But it was already presented from the get go to split the recruiting into two sessions. It didn't result from someone saying "hey, we should split it into two sessions" and everyone else said "yeah that's a great idea!" so it was then implemented. That's not what happened.

I'll add that when Seble says "it wasn't in the initial design", this is not true. It WAS in in the initial design.

False.

Exhibit A-1 Note Page 3, where the EE/transfer issue is brought up. In response, we got...

Exhibit A-2 which is where the 2 session idea is made official.

Posted by shoe3 on 7/10/2018 2:41:00 PM (view original):
Seble is correct, two sessions was an answer to the EE issue. Without the late session, there would have been no way for early entry vacancies to be filled. 2 Sessions was set before beta started, but it was not part of the original plan, when the broad strokes were rolled out to us.

OK let me say it this way..
There was NO REASON to move recruiting to before the season ended. That created problems.....problems the 2 session idea didn't resolve.

Recruiting should have been kept as one session after the NT.

Posted by mullycj on 7/10/2018 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 7/10/2018 2:41:00 PM (view original):
Seble is correct, two sessions was an answer to the EE issue. Without the late session, there would have been no way for early entry vacancies to be filled. 2 Sessions was set before beta started, but it was not part of the original plan, when the broad strokes were rolled out to us.

OK let me say it this way..
There was NO REASON to move recruiting to before the season ended. That created problems.....problems the 2 session idea didn't resolve.

Recruiting should have been kept as one session after the NT.

Nah. It’s a better game now, more realistic, and more competitive. Scouting and recruiting is much more fun than it used to be.

But it would be nice to iron out these “gray,” “tricky” areas. It’s nonsense to claim they are a result of 3.0, since there were plenty of similar shenanigans going on pre-3.0. And as I said above, it should be simple to look at the recruiting actions and determine intent. Not everyone is a good sport, there are always going to be folks trying to game whatever system is in place. But sure, it could be innocent. It would be nice to have developers come out and clarify that *intentionally* using one team to help recruiting prospects for another team is not acceptable.

Posted by Benis on 7/10/2018 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 7/10/2018 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 7/10/2018 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 7/10/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rednu on 7/10/2018 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 7/10/2018 12:11:00 PM (view original):
Hey guys, catching up on this situation. This is certainly a gray area when applying fair play rules. In the end, the only advantage for the DIII team was having already scouted the player, but that advantage exists any time a coach changes jobs. I understand that the perception of a DI team pursuing a recruit might scare off other DIII teams.

It's tricky to apply a hard and fast rule to this type of scenario, because there are valid cases where a coach changes jobs and then recruits players he had recruited at the previous school. That's true of the game and in real life.

LOL...you "understand" the perception of a D1 team pursuing a recruit might scare off other D3 teams" but then claim the only advantage for the D3 team was having already scouted the player. I'm not sure you understand what the word "understand" means.

Had the beta been used for something more than serving as a rubber stamping of whatever changes you wanted to make, maybe the area wouldn't be so gray or so broad. You had fair warning in beta that things like this were possible. You chose not to address it then in the rush to get the product out. "Faster" was a higher priority for you than "better," so any "tricky" position you find yourself in is the product of your own inattention to details in both product and policy wording.

Not sure where this is coming from. The split recruiting sessions came directly from the beta testing, as that wasn't in the initial design. I think everyone understood it wasn't ideal, but there was general agreement that it was needed due to early entries and job changes. In fact, there were quite a few changes made during the beta period, directly based on feedback from testers.

"The split recruiting sessions came directly from the beta testing, as that wasn't in the initial design."

?!?! This isn't true. The two recruiting session structure was shared by you when you first started creating threads about the new recruiting. It was nearly a full year before Beta started when there were multiple pinned threads on the forums where ideas were shared by you and everyone could ask questions and comment on it. The two recruiting sessions setup was already cooked before Beta was ever started.

Exhibit A.

In fairness, these pre-testing feedback threads could be considered part of the beta process.

Maybe. But it was already presented from the get go to split the recruiting into two sessions. It didn't result from someone saying "hey, we should split it into two sessions" and everyone else said "yeah that's a great idea!" so it was then implemented. That's not what happened.

I'll add that when Seble says "it wasn't in the initial design", this is not true. It WAS in in the initial design.

I should clarify this a bit. The two recruiting sessions came on right at the beginning of the recruiting overhaul when EEs and Jobs were mentioned as issues which were caused by in season recruiting. This was a band aid that only pleased people who didn't think they were an issue in the first place. But those who thought there were an issue previously STILL thought it was an issue and never properly resolved.

Mully is 100% correct here. It's not that the two recruiting sessions are the cause of these issues, it's that it didn't really fix the the real cause of the issues which was the in season recruiting! It's basically your classic red herring situation.

To summarize - the two recruiting sessions exist because the initial design called for in season recruiting with the goal of giving the user something to do during the season. However, in addition to not only NOT fixing the issues caused by in season recruiting, it has generated it's own various problems which were also pointed out many times throughout the entire Beta process but by that point, it was too late to really go back on the in season recruiting idea.

I understand Benis is still pretending he doesn’t read my posts, but this is pretty funny, watching him try to correct himself without acknowledging that he’s already been called out. Additionally, the revisionist history, in an attempt to make a guy probably trying to game the system to (mostly unsuccessfully) get a one-season advantage on a couple marginal recruits into a referendum on 3.0 and seble is *especially* entertaining.

Posted by seble on 7/10/2018 12:11:00 PM (view original):
Hey guys, catching up on this situation. This is certainly a gray area when applying fair play rules. In the end, the only advantage for the DIII team was having already scouted the player, but that advantage exists any time a coach changes jobs. I understand that the perception of a DI team pursuing a recruit might scare off other DIII teams.

It's tricky to apply a hard and fast rule to this type of scenario, because there are valid cases where a coach changes jobs and then recruits players he had recruited at the previous school. That's true of the game and in real life.

I disagree with your conclusion but I greatly appreciate you chiming in.

Posted by thewizard17 on 7/9/2018 3:47:00 PM (view original):
That's on WIS to define the "law", it's not for the coaches to decide on the "spirit of the law", because everyone is going to agree or disagree.

What is "unfair advantage"? Is there is a list somewhere? Define unfair. Is hanging off the Top 10 considering list, while having a scholarship offer on the table an unfair advantage?

Wait a sec - Wiz (the cheating cheater who cheated) is defending the flexibility of the fair play guidelines? Who in the world could have seen this coming?