Posted by the0nlyis on 4/28/2015 12:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 4/28/2015 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 4/28/2015 7:53:00 AM (view original):
The only thing piman not playing Gram does is lend a hair of credence to what I said on here initially

The only thing this does is encourage people to go on witch hunts to hurt owners' reputations, without penalty.

Also, I'm still wondering why owners want to have multiple teams in the same world? The only reason I can come up with is that they like being in a Div-3 conference with certain owners, yet want to move up to higher divisions? But then why not just use the same account in a different world?

for that reason as well as learning how slow 1x worlds are id rather have 2 accounts on the 2x than 1 account on all the 1 x days and plan on dropping my 1x once i get my new account running at a high level.

Posted by dacj501 on 4/28/2015 6:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 4/28/2015 12:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 4/28/2015 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 4/28/2015 7:53:00 AM (view original):
The only thing piman not playing Gram does is lend a hair of credence to what I said on here initially

The only thing this does is encourage people to go on witch hunts to hurt owners' reputations, without penalty.

Also, I'm still wondering why owners want to have multiple teams in the same world? The only reason I can come up with is that they like being in a Div-3 conference with certain owners, yet want to move up to higher divisions? But then why not just use the same account in a different world?

for that reason as well as learning how slow 1x worlds are id rather have 2 accounts on the 2x than 1 account on all the 1 x days and plan on dropping my 1x once i get my new account running at a high level.

there are a few reasons why coaches would legitimately want to own multiple teams per world. 

There are only 3 two-game-a-day worlds. Some coaches despise the pace of the slower worlds but want more than 3 teams. 

Some coaches have teams in every world and want even more. 

Some coaches have been at the same team with the same group of coaches a very long time but also want to play in a different division or with different coaches in the same world. 

Some might want multiple teams but might not want to spend almost every waking minute recruiting over multiple worlds. Having multiple teams in one world means getting recruiting out of the way all at once...

There are probably many more reasons that are all legit...

Accusing this player of collusion is ridiculous.  Unless I'm mistaken, collusive moves would "benefit" one or both teams.  If anything this is reverse collusion.  The move does not benefit either in the short run.  Rather it was a long-term move by one or both. [We still don't know if the DIII player left on his own if other teammates were cut, but that is beside the point.]

PI is 0-6 and RW is 1-5.  The player cut was a decent DIII player.  Having DIII players on a DI team doesn't help win games at DI.  Signing a DIII player at DI is not collusion.  In this case a SR transfer has merit even if he's not a DI player (carryover money etc).  Play him PI if you want, but why would you?  Play your frosh to increase their ratings.  You are 0-6.  Who really cares if you go 0-26 or 4-22?  It doesn't appear you are going anywhere in the postseason.  Whoever thinks this move was fishy isn't thinking critically.

RW is 1-5, also a team probably not going anywhere.  A DIII team cutting a decent DIII player is not going to help win games in the short run.  Either this was a case of a mistaken cut, a kid who quit because his buddy was cut, or simply a long term move to free up a scholarship in lieu of having a good senior player playing on a bad team and taking up space.

When I've taken over a terrible team, I've played frosh ahead of better seniors in order to increase ratings faster, a long term focus.

Collusion helps teams gain an advantage not a disadvantage.   This was a long term move by either one or both.

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/27/2015 7:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/26/2015 11:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 4/26/2015 10:38:00 AM (view original):
No evidence that the two names are the same person - is there any?  show us?

No evidence that this approach to cheating makes sense - do we know whether anyone competed for the senior?

If no one competed, why?

If people competed, how did the guy who signed him win?

Explain how the alleged cheating would have worked - how would the DI team have had a special ability to sign him.  Was he located very close to the new team - I have not checked.  Is the new team in the middle of no where?

I could imagine this working in say Hawaii or in Arizona or somewhere.

Want to claim cheating - explain how it would have worked and the unfair advantage.  be specific.  Dont just say it is fishy and it doesnt happen.  Explain the cheating - with specificity or be embarassed at admitting that YOU have cheated and that you attempted to tarnish a reputation without having thought it through,.

I've asked pinman twice if he had to battle any other coaches, and if so then who, but no answer was given. Also, scenarios about how and/or why this type of action could be advantageous have already been discussed in this thread, so I'm not gonna do it again.

Besides, if you can't think of any reason whatsoever off the top of your head why this would appear suspicious or how it might possibly benefit a coach looking to game the system...then either you're being disingenuous or you should look into getting a job at a big tobacco or oil "research institute" because they pay people A LOT of money to not connect the dots.

I'm fairly convinced that pinman isn't a party to collusion in this circumstance, but I'm still damn glad this was brought into the light rather than remaining buried in the sand.

you are glad that a coach's name was dragged through the mud, when colonels could have simply sitemailed piman with his concern, and resolved this non-issue privately? there is a right way and a wrong way to address these issues. it should go without saying, but because it doesn't, ill say it - this is the wrong way.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/29/2015 11:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/27/2015 7:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/26/2015 11:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 4/26/2015 10:38:00 AM (view original):
No evidence that the two names are the same person - is there any?  show us?

No evidence that this approach to cheating makes sense - do we know whether anyone competed for the senior?

If no one competed, why?

If people competed, how did the guy who signed him win?

Explain how the alleged cheating would have worked - how would the DI team have had a special ability to sign him.  Was he located very close to the new team - I have not checked.  Is the new team in the middle of no where?

I could imagine this working in say Hawaii or in Arizona or somewhere.

Want to claim cheating - explain how it would have worked and the unfair advantage.  be specific.  Dont just say it is fishy and it doesnt happen.  Explain the cheating - with specificity or be embarassed at admitting that YOU have cheated and that you attempted to tarnish a reputation without having thought it through,.

I've asked pinman twice if he had to battle any other coaches, and if so then who, but no answer was given. Also, scenarios about how and/or why this type of action could be advantageous have already been discussed in this thread, so I'm not gonna do it again.

Besides, if you can't think of any reason whatsoever off the top of your head why this would appear suspicious or how it might possibly benefit a coach looking to game the system...then either you're being disingenuous or you should look into getting a job at a big tobacco or oil "research institute" because they pay people A LOT of money to not connect the dots.

I'm fairly convinced that pinman isn't a party to collusion in this circumstance, but I'm still damn glad this was brought into the light rather than remaining buried in the sand.

you are glad that a coach's name was dragged through the mud, when colonels could have simply sitemailed piman with his concern, and resolved this non-issue privately? there is a right way and a wrong way to address these issues. it should go without saying, but because it doesn't, ill say it - this is the wrong way.

Two questions: (1) when did I ever say that I was glad somebody's name got drug through the mud, and (2) is piman's reputation any different now than from when this thread started...because I'd say its probably better now (not that it was ever bad to begin with)?

I agree completely with trevor that people are naïve if they think socket-puppet accounts and FSS sharing isn't that big of a deal. I think its good have these conversations out in the open so people won't be afraid to say something if they strongly suspect that shady behavior is going down, as well as to let current or would-be cheaters know that people are watching. Besides, this incident is still suspicious given that we don't know how the player ended up on the market.

If this was a 'witchhunt' then the Grand Inquisitors would be rolling over in their graves...could it have been handled a little better, probably, but we live and we learn. Though I can see why you wouldn't want things to change, since the status quo has always worked out so well for you.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/29/2015 1:00:00 PM (view original):
gillispie, billyg, billyg1, etc., picking up where you left off --- well then, please, go ahead draft one of your treatises on how we should go about formally conducting our informal inquiries...that way we'll know how to properly get on with it in the future.

U mad bro? I see you got a little hot and bothered when I misrepresented your point, doesn't feel very good does it? I could give two flying sh*ts about our disagreements, it's the way you just peddle crap on here with some undue or self-appointed ethos...like your whole "veteran coaches should be allowed to break the multiple team 500 mile rule because they are above the reproach of cheating" nonsense, which sounds pretty boneheaded to me.

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2015 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/29/2015 1:00:00 PM (view original):
gillispie, billyg, billyg1, etc., picking up where you left off --- well then, please, go ahead draft one of your treatises on how we should go about formally conducting our informal inquiries...that way we'll know how to properly get on with it in the future.

U mad bro? I see you got a little hot and bothered when I misrepresented your point, doesn't feel very good does it? I could give two flying sh*ts about our disagreements, it's the way you just peddle crap on here with some undue or self-appointed ethos...like your whole "veteran coaches should be allowed to break the multiple team 500 mile rule because they are above the reproach of cheating" nonsense, which sounds pretty boneheaded to me.

sure, it will be short though. give the guy in question the benefit of the doubt and show them a little respect until its crystal clear there is no reason to do so. i don't think it is any more complicated than that.

on the last bit, that was not the point i made. i did get out on a limb in that conversation though, so i can't be too upset with that framing. but it was about grandfathering in people who were in compliance before a rule change, not letting them break the rule. while i did say the class of people most affected included many of the most dedicated of long time users (as so much of the problem existed from there only being 1 2/day world, which hasn't been the case for many years), that wasn't the key justification for the grandfathering. it was the impact of forcing a move compared to the risk of not forcing it. grandfathering and breaking a rule are very different, i never suggested those people should be able to break the rule with teams they picked up in the future, only to grandfather existing teams. i may be splitting hairs here to you, but to me, its all the difference in the world (as far as that issue is concerned). 

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2015 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/29/2015 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 4/29/2015 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 4/29/2015 1:00:00 PM (view original):
gillispie, billyg, billyg1, etc., picking up where you left off --- well then, please, go ahead draft one of your treatises on how we should go about formally conducting our informal inquiries...that way we'll know how to properly get on with it in the future.

U mad bro? I see you got a little hot and bothered when I misrepresented your point, doesn't feel very good does it? I could give two flying sh*ts about our disagreements, it's the way you just peddle crap on here with some undue or self-appointed ethos...like your whole "veteran coaches should be allowed to break the multiple team 500 mile rule because they are above the reproach of cheating" nonsense, which sounds pretty boneheaded to me.

sure, it will be short though. give the guy in question the benefit of the doubt and show them a little respect until its crystal clear there is no reason to do so. i don't think it is any more complicated than that.

on the last bit, that was not the point i made. i did get out on a limb in that conversation though, so i can't be too upset with that framing. but it was about grandfathering in people who were in compliance before a rule change, not letting them break the rule. while i did say the class of people most affected included many of the most dedicated of long time users (as so much of the problem existed from there only being 1 2/day world, which hasn't been the case for many years), that wasn't the key justification for the grandfathering. it was the impact of forcing a move compared to the risk of not forcing it. grandfathering and breaking a rule are very different, i never suggested those people should be able to break the rule with teams they picked up in the future, only to grandfather existing teams. i may be splitting hairs here to you, but to me, its all the difference in the world (as far as that issue is concerned). 

hehe, you're lulzing me to death here. I knew that you'd end-up giving us a treatise on something, too bad its on a subject that I'm already an expert in...but I have a very strong suspicion that the refresher wasn't for my sake. Which is the WHOLE point. You're talking completely past me, towards whatever potential audience might be reading this, out of fear they might actually think you made a bonehead argument about something...thus you can maintain whatever potential authority you perceive yourself to have.

You said in your previous response to me, "i also advocate for plenty of change in this game, and that has lead to a number of changes in this game." Seriously, get over yourself dude. Maybe then almost everything you say won't annoy me.

that was directed at you... we had the same disagreement then, about the distinction between the grandfathering and letting veterans cheat. that wasn't a boneheaded argument, honestly not sure what you'd pick that one, if that was what you were going for - i said lots of dumb **** during the whole multiple team thing. you know, you're not really hitting me hard here saying im afraid someone would think i made a boneheaded argument, i have posted a ton of crap here and a ton more when i would pursue the forums drunk late at night. its not some big secret. i just try to make up for (not justify) it by being helpful most of the time.

Posted by colonels19 on 4/29/2015 8:13:00 PM (view original):
Just to be clear...I didn't say FFS sharing is a big deal (because I don't think it is) I'm just saying that if u don't think it happens for coaches that have 2+ teams in the same world then you're being naive. I feel like nacho misrepresented my thoughts/premise/stance.