Hey y'all, can we ban Grand Canyon from the Tournament before they beat me by 27 in the Final 4? Or, is that too much to ask?

Posted by Sportsbulls on 8/27/2020 7:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kcsundevil on 8/27/2020 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by buddhagamer on 8/27/2020 2:32:00 PM (view original):
Grand Canyon is now ranked #1 going into the F4 and likely on auto-pilot now (and has a very good shot at winning D2 NT which would of been his first NT title). Anyone still think it was no big deal?

GC beat Sportsbulls in the E8. Always good to see the star of a hit movie movie show up for a cameo in the sequel.

Fair Play Vol. 2 has more action than the original, though perhaps less heart.

I did lose... he’s pretty loaded. He’s probably the best team in the nation. Benis will have a shot. If there’s some real cheating discovered by seble I’d be pretty fuckin ****** about that loss, but if not, he just had the better team this season.

The part that makes it hurt even more is that he beat me in recruiting for his stud (Jones), recruiting like 1000 miles away (which now seems fishy) after shoe pulled his schollie at Kansas.

I’d love to hear seble hop on this forum and clear the air on this scandal though.

Huh. Looks like he turned into a legit D1 player after all, though with a starting defense rating of 40, that was far from a given. Don’t remember why I pulled the offer, though it was probably because I had only one spot and needed a big man, or something along those lines. I have no recollection of this player at all.

On the other hand, after being exiled from Kansas, I was yelled at by some D2 coach on conference chat for having “no shame,” taking “D3 level” international players on the new Wisconsin roster I had just begrudgingly inherited. (They were D1 pool players, just not very good ones to start with - though as a junior and redshirt soph this season, both were honorable mention all B10 for an Elite 8 team, so...). Just about any recruiting move a coach makes in this system has potential to be interpreted as sketchy, if looked at in a certain context, which is probably the main issue I have with everyone being their own HD sheriff of fair play violations.

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/27/2020 1:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/27/2020 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by PAnthony28 on 8/27/2020 11:25:00 AM (view original):
One season under my belt. Is this stuff, along with the other post by ab, commonplace? Competing against D3 teams with D1 rosters is daunting enough (until you learn recruiting) but when you have people gaming the system or bending rules it's a bit frustrating.
I've not been around long enough to know anything, really, but it seems the Fair Play Guidelines have been taking a beating lately.

the sad thing is, no not really... its pretty rare and basically has very little consequence on the overall winning and losing of games and tournaments. i often think these threads do more harm than good and folks just have a lot of time on their hands :)

These threads do nothing but benefit the game. You wanna let everything slide as if nothing is a big deal. I disagree with that mentality.

I do feel like an instant ban is harsh. And to the question about topics/threads like these being commonplace in HD...
it isn't. And it's a shame that these things happen to our great game. But the problem I have with the gil mentality here is..... if we just allow everyone to do as they please and bend rules and cut corners, it can/will eventually make our game worse off than it needs to be.

I think more good comes from calling out situations like this one, and the ab90 thread, than anything bad. And it's less because of these two incidents. And more about the fact that people see this. They know that cheating can/will get called out. And I feel like it can help close the wondering mind for people that may considering doing stuff like this.

I tend to be the same person in every aspect of life. I choose not to be someone that's a hard worker, and then sits on my *** and does nothing at home. I know HD is just a game. But if you SEE foul, why not address it? If my neighbor beats his wife in the front yard, I'm not gonna say "eh it happens all the time". Or if my co-worker is broadcasting how he's robbing the company, I won't say "eh no big deal". Obviously those are much more serious situations. But the point is, we all invest time and effort here. And in some cases, money. So why turn a blind eye to people that are being buttheads and doing foul things?

I had nothing to do with starting either one of these recent topics. But I would have if I had been the first to notice them. I'm not the HD police, but I have a hard time with "eh, just let them do what they do. That's just how some people are" in any aspect of my life. As far as "these threads do more harm than good", I respond with this......

1) exploiting the loophole where coaches weren't renewing, would get their job back, and have a 2nd full recruiting budget..... we cried foul. The good.... loophole closed. Action taken. The bad..... none.

2) the ab90 job hop concept. We cried foul. The good.... adjustments were/are being made to loyalty and reputation. The bad..... none.

3) whatever you wanna call this thread situation. We cried foul. The good..... unclear at this point. Hopefully shows people that going forward, it's not a good idea to do this. The bad..... none.

We also spoke up and got the "10 team only" considering list issue changed. Nothing but positive changes for the game have came from these threads. We've seen seble here more recently than ever before. I'm not sure how there's any way to view any of this as bad. It's much better than seble being a ghost and addressing nothing.

Also, to add in, I could care less about who the coach is. I don't wanna fry anybody in particular. Just the action being done. But i agree that it's not good to have coaches banned. Maybe find other ways to "punish" (Ok ok, maybe I wanna fry ab90 just a lil bit. Muhahahaaaa)

i sort of see two things - i probably took the tone to be a bit harsher than it appears on a re-read, colored by the thread before (and two coaches i like being ones calling for the perma ban on page 1, that probably counted as ten posts in my mind). second, i'm making my point poorly OR just everyone disagrees with me but i kinda think it at least has to be a little of the former. i think in part i am failing to convey how much of this stuff i agree with, how much common ground there is - i'm focused on the differences, but its not like i'm the other side of this issue.

i'm all for transparency, the raising of these kinds of issues on the forums. you know me, there is no hd related topic i will not discuss at great length :) overall having conversations about fair play did help the game make great progress on that issue. there was also a high cost though along the way, a lot of negativity injected into the community. that said, i'm definitely not convinced the two choices - ignoring fair play (with a time machine) and having things go as bomb-throwery as they went, was really all we had on the table. i don't think it had to be so bad - and i don't think these issue have to be so negative today.

i am not saying just don't enforce the rules, either. i'm just wanting to enforce them compassionately. the anti-cheating community tends to involve a lot of folks like us, lunatics if you will (in the best possible sense of the word), who perhaps get a *little* too involved in this game as a whole. its great in a lot of ways but there's that blind spot towards casual folks who just don't play the game how we do. not everybody has participated in 20 debates about fair play edge cases and is well versed on the rules and nuances. my experience is that most of these folks in violation, can be reached and brought around to our side. i am all for fair play. i'm not for executions.

i've got to say, respectfully, you newer generation of folks who have kind of been running the show the past half decade or so, you guys really don't have the full context here. fair play violations these days are of low enough impact that most of you guys learn about them rather than experiencing them. it did not used to be this way. my first year of d1 experience was 1 team, 1 id. in that first year i got i'd estimate at least 10 collusive sitemails, and as many as perhaps 25 over my first couple years at d1. i was a new coach who folks quickly wanted to steer clear of, so i estimate that is more than average, but i was sort of dumbfounded by it. the game admin / creator would not even clearly prohibit collusion at the time. there was a real reckoning - a substantial segment of the community was playing by different rules than the rest, and the impact of that collusion was potentially pretty damn significant. 100:1 impact over a dude playing himself in non conf or even openly FSS sharing. in a couple cases groups of 10+ guys were drafting together - how'd you feel about recruiting next to that? it turns out that was more rare - but even 1 really legitimate story about that, combined with getting a dozen or so collusive sitemails in a year, combined with the game admin refusing to codemn the behavior - i felt there was no alternative, and a lot of other people felt that way, too. the issue had to be resolved, at whatever cost.

i'm not saying mission accomplished either. those fair play battles were brutal and really bad for the community spirit. i have reservations in my role in all that, and that is when it was 100 times worse than now - because of how negative it was for the community. i'm just not sure its worth it, its like after the battle if almost everyone is dead, did anyone win? sort of along those lines. im all for strict fair play rules, but the vitriol that accompanies folks debating a gray area being labelled cheaters... it was just really a bad thing. i definitely connect the negative battles around a number of issues, fair play probably first among them (2.0 and 3.0 releases being next), to the overall decline of the community population. the response here to my questioning the boundaries is honestly as friendly as i've seen, so i appreciate that / you guys. honestly these couple threads as a whole are nothing by the old standards, like, definitely its way better. its just also... there is no longer a 'battle for the soul of HD' or anything. the war is over. the fair play crusaders won, in relatively total fashion. the admins are on our side, and that simply did not used to be the case. the institutions have been remade, and that era should be as firmly put behind us as possible IMO.

when folks straight up refuse to follow fair play, seble has no choice. and i totally am comfortable believing seble did the right thing here - i almost guarantee if he came and told the whole story (unlikely), it would be a lot worse than what we already know (the NT game + non conf stuff + old 1000 mile violation). i said that a couple times already and i have no problem saying it again - i assume seble was right to ban the guy.

however - here's the rub - i really think the community is the one who should be taking the mantle on fair play at this point. CS backs the fair play agenda relatively firmly - there's fairly little question about the legality of all the big **** now. the community should be handling this not only by self identifying the issues, but through constructive dialogue with those in violation. this time around, we would be coming from a position of strength, with the ultimate authority backing our position. i almost guarantee most could be converted, or at least their more severe behaviors curbed, if someone reached out to them to discuss what happened and the potential impact on others. its a lot harder to justify cheating the system when doing so is connected to hurting regular folks. and of course, if folks refuse to follow the rules, fine, sic seble on them. but why is that our starting point? this isn't 10 years ago anymore.

i'd have really liked to see ab sitemail sports, or at least to engage him / us on the forums without ticketing first (the forum bit being dangerous because of the tone the threads tend to devolve to - i shouldn't say these threads hurt the community - what i mean is, the tone of the threads does, at least sometimes and significantly, even if the gains outweigh the losses - which i do not believe is the case, but i don't think others who do are being unreasonable). the sitemail is best for dialogue, but the forum post gives the community memory to catch repeat offenders. this community has a lot of long time folks who spend too much time on the site and who have a really long memory about these issues - i have a lot of faith in our ability to catch the repeat offenders the 2nd time around. similarly, i'd have liked to see benis or whoever sitemail this dude first. maybe that's not their job, but the end result a year down the line from this 1 thread could be a guy with at least 3 teams playing fairly, contributing 3 solid teams to the game, instead of whatever the situation is now. its not nothing, this is a pretty small community. its not a war anymore - these dudes are our neighbors, and we should be a little more neighborly. that is all.

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/28/2020 1:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by topdogggbm on 8/27/2020 1:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/27/2020 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by PAnthony28 on 8/27/2020 11:25:00 AM (view original):
One season under my belt. Is this stuff, along with the other post by ab, commonplace? Competing against D3 teams with D1 rosters is daunting enough (until you learn recruiting) but when you have people gaming the system or bending rules it's a bit frustrating.
I've not been around long enough to know anything, really, but it seems the Fair Play Guidelines have been taking a beating lately.

the sad thing is, no not really... its pretty rare and basically has very little consequence on the overall winning and losing of games and tournaments. i often think these threads do more harm than good and folks just have a lot of time on their hands :)

These threads do nothing but benefit the game. You wanna let everything slide as if nothing is a big deal. I disagree with that mentality.

I do feel like an instant ban is harsh. And to the question about topics/threads like these being commonplace in HD...
it isn't. And it's a shame that these things happen to our great game. But the problem I have with the gil mentality here is..... if we just allow everyone to do as they please and bend rules and cut corners, it can/will eventually make our game worse off than it needs to be.

I think more good comes from calling out situations like this one, and the ab90 thread, than anything bad. And it's less because of these two incidents. And more about the fact that people see this. They know that cheating can/will get called out. And I feel like it can help close the wondering mind for people that may considering doing stuff like this.

I tend to be the same person in every aspect of life. I choose not to be someone that's a hard worker, and then sits on my *** and does nothing at home. I know HD is just a game. But if you SEE foul, why not address it? If my neighbor beats his wife in the front yard, I'm not gonna say "eh it happens all the time". Or if my co-worker is broadcasting how he's robbing the company, I won't say "eh no big deal". Obviously those are much more serious situations. But the point is, we all invest time and effort here. And in some cases, money. So why turn a blind eye to people that are being buttheads and doing foul things?

I had nothing to do with starting either one of these recent topics. But I would have if I had been the first to notice them. I'm not the HD police, but I have a hard time with "eh, just let them do what they do. That's just how some people are" in any aspect of my life. As far as "these threads do more harm than good", I respond with this......

1) exploiting the loophole where coaches weren't renewing, would get their job back, and have a 2nd full recruiting budget..... we cried foul. The good.... loophole closed. Action taken. The bad..... none.

2) the ab90 job hop concept. We cried foul. The good.... adjustments were/are being made to loyalty and reputation. The bad..... none.

3) whatever you wanna call this thread situation. We cried foul. The good..... unclear at this point. Hopefully shows people that going forward, it's not a good idea to do this. The bad..... none.

We also spoke up and got the "10 team only" considering list issue changed. Nothing but positive changes for the game have came from these threads. We've seen seble here more recently than ever before. I'm not sure how there's any way to view any of this as bad. It's much better than seble being a ghost and addressing nothing.

Also, to add in, I could care less about who the coach is. I don't wanna fry anybody in particular. Just the action being done. But i agree that it's not good to have coaches banned. Maybe find other ways to "punish" (Ok ok, maybe I wanna fry ab90 just a lil bit. Muhahahaaaa)

i sort of see two things - i probably took the tone to be a bit harsher than it appears on a re-read, colored by the thread before (and two coaches i like being ones calling for the perma ban on page 1, that probably counted as ten posts in my mind). second, i'm making my point poorly OR just everyone disagrees with me but i kinda think it at least has to be a little of the former. i think in part i am failing to convey how much of this stuff i agree with, how much common ground there is - i'm focused on the differences, but its not like i'm the other side of this issue.

i'm all for transparency, the raising of these kinds of issues on the forums. you know me, there is no hd related topic i will not discuss at great length :) overall having conversations about fair play did help the game make great progress on that issue. there was also a high cost though along the way, a lot of negativity injected into the community. that said, i'm definitely not convinced the two choices - ignoring fair play (with a time machine) and having things go as bomb-throwery as they went, was really all we had on the table. i don't think it had to be so bad - and i don't think these issue have to be so negative today.

i am not saying just don't enforce the rules, either. i'm just wanting to enforce them compassionately. the anti-cheating community tends to involve a lot of folks like us, lunatics if you will (in the best possible sense of the word), who perhaps get a *little* too involved in this game as a whole. its great in a lot of ways but there's that blind spot towards casual folks who just don't play the game how we do. not everybody has participated in 20 debates about fair play edge cases and is well versed on the rules and nuances. my experience is that most of these folks in violation, can be reached and brought around to our side. i am all for fair play. i'm not for executions.

i've got to say, respectfully, you newer generation of folks who have kind of been running the show the past half decade or so, you guys really don't have the full context here. fair play violations these days are of low enough impact that most of you guys learn about them rather than experiencing them. it did not used to be this way. my first year of d1 experience was 1 team, 1 id. in that first year i got i'd estimate at least 10 collusive sitemails, and as many as perhaps 25 over my first couple years at d1. i was a new coach who folks quickly wanted to steer clear of, so i estimate that is more than average, but i was sort of dumbfounded by it. the game admin / creator would not even clearly prohibit collusion at the time. there was a real reckoning - a substantial segment of the community was playing by different rules than the rest, and the impact of that collusion was potentially pretty damn significant. 100:1 impact over a dude playing himself in non conf or even openly FSS sharing. in a couple cases groups of 10+ guys were drafting together - how'd you feel about recruiting next to that? it turns out that was more rare - but even 1 really legitimate story about that, combined with getting a dozen or so collusive sitemails in a year, combined with the game admin refusing to codemn the behavior - i felt there was no alternative, and a lot of other people felt that way, too. the issue had to be resolved, at whatever cost.

i'm not saying mission accomplished either. those fair play battles were brutal and really bad for the community spirit. i have reservations in my role in all that, and that is when it was 100 times worse than now - because of how negative it was for the community. i'm just not sure its worth it, its like after the battle if almost everyone is dead, did anyone win? sort of along those lines. im all for strict fair play rules, but the vitriol that accompanies folks debating a gray area being labelled cheaters... it was just really a bad thing. i definitely connect the negative battles around a number of issues, fair play probably first among them (2.0 and 3.0 releases being next), to the overall decline of the community population. the response here to my questioning the boundaries is honestly as friendly as i've seen, so i appreciate that / you guys. honestly these couple threads as a whole are nothing by the old standards, like, definitely its way better. its just also... there is no longer a 'battle for the soul of HD' or anything. the war is over. the fair play crusaders won, in relatively total fashion. the admins are on our side, and that simply did not used to be the case. the institutions have been remade, and that era should be as firmly put behind us as possible IMO.

when folks straight up refuse to follow fair play, seble has no choice. and i totally am comfortable believing seble did the right thing here - i almost guarantee if he came and told the whole story (unlikely), it would be a lot worse than what we already know (the NT game + non conf stuff + old 1000 mile violation). i said that a couple times already and i have no problem saying it again - i assume seble was right to ban the guy.

however - here's the rub - i really think the community is the one who should be taking the mantle on fair play at this point. CS backs the fair play agenda relatively firmly - there's fairly little question about the legality of all the big **** now. the community should be handling this not only by self identifying the issues, but through constructive dialogue with those in violation. this time around, we would be coming from a position of strength, with the ultimate authority backing our position. i almost guarantee most could be converted, or at least their more severe behaviors curbed, if someone reached out to them to discuss what happened and the potential impact on others. its a lot harder to justify cheating the system when doing so is connected to hurting regular folks. and of course, if folks refuse to follow the rules, fine, sic seble on them. but why is that our starting point? this isn't 10 years ago anymore.

i'd have really liked to see ab sitemail sports, or at least to engage him / us on the forums without ticketing first (the forum bit being dangerous because of the tone the threads tend to devolve to - i shouldn't say these threads hurt the community - what i mean is, the tone of the threads does, at least sometimes and significantly, even if the gains outweigh the losses - which i do not believe is the case, but i don't think others who do are being unreasonable). the sitemail is best for dialogue, but the forum post gives the community memory to catch repeat offenders. this community has a lot of long time folks who spend too much time on the site and who have a really long memory about these issues - i have a lot of faith in our ability to catch the repeat offenders the 2nd time around. similarly, i'd have liked to see benis or whoever sitemail this dude first. maybe that's not their job, but the end result a year down the line from this 1 thread could be a guy with at least 3 teams playing fairly, contributing 3 solid teams to the game, instead of whatever the situation is now. its not nothing, this is a pretty small community. its not a war anymore - these dudes are our neighbors, and we should be a little more neighborly. that is all.

Cliff's Notes: gil thinks we should attempt to engage in friendly dialogue with the suspect before asking the police to investigate.

yes, and thank you for that. i think we should knock on our neighbors door at least a couple times to request they turn down the music, shut their dog up, etc - before calling the cops on them. calling the cops on your neighbors, when its not some seriously crazy *** ****, without reaching out to them yourself... thats basically the theme of the 2020 poster for what a selfish, entitled ******* looks like.

if you think some guy in a community of 500 or so people left playing this game with us, breaking some fair play rules, is more analogous to a suspect in a serious crime than a neighbor, i think that says a lot more about your perspective than mine.

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/28/2020 1:45:00 AM (view original):
yes, and thank you for that. i think we should knock on our neighbors door at least a couple times to request they turn down the music, shut their dog up, etc - before calling the cops on them. calling the cops on your neighbors, when its not some seriously crazy *** ****, without reaching out to them yourself... thats basically the theme of the 2020 poster for what a selfish, entitled ******* looks like.

if you think some guy in a community of 500 or so people left playing this game with us, breaking some fair play rules, is more analogous to a suspect in a serious crime than a neighbor, i think that says a lot more about your perspective than mine.

Dang, our neighbor Gil bringing some hipster Dad energy to the chat.

it may be hipsters who sort of carry that flag these days but its kind of sad it has come to that. its truly more of a redneck energy.

I'm not gonna quote it. But I can dig that gil. At least somewhat. I played in those days but I was horrible so I wasn't as focused on right and wrong. But at the same time..... if business profits have increased by 10%, kudos, but that doesn't mean we stop there and quit trying. We always strive to be better. So I don't really think it's ok that since the game is "better than back in my day" as far as collusion, that it means collusion is not needed to be focused on any longer.

Odd you mention that tho. I did have a coach recently reach out to me thru sitemail asking me to collude. It was a veteran coach too. Definitely didn't expect it. He asked me the ol'........ "Hey we're both on Player A and Player B. How bout you take one and I take one, and that way we don't waste resources". I responded with a firm "**** NO". Haha. But I told him it was against fairplay guidelines and that I wouldn't report it, as long as I don't see it as a habit with him going forward.

So I'm not out here trying to catch every guy that doesn't cross at a crosswalk. I feel every issue I've pushed for, or had a problem with, just happens to be vital to the game.

I think the door knocking was this thread - come out and explain yourself (or selves), and he didn’t respond until after the police stopped by.

Posted by hypnotoad on 8/28/2020 6:19:00 AM (view original):
I think the door knocking was this thread - come out and explain yourself (or selves), and he didn’t respond until after the police stopped by.

Agree but not every coach checks the forums and it seems kolby didn't post until around the time scheyer and fluff were banned. So in this case it's kind of like we knocked on a guy's work door while he was at home and never knocked on his home door before persecution (sent him a site mail directing him to plead his case in this thread).

This is all shady and idk what best outcome is if fluff did get his best player via nefarious means and if he threw a game against himself but if it's a first time violation I really don't think the death penalty is the right way to go.

Really wish seble & CS would comment publicly on this and put it to rest.

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 8/28/2020 8:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hypnotoad on 8/28/2020 6:19:00 AM (view original):
I think the door knocking was this thread - come out and explain yourself (or selves), and he didn’t respond until after the police stopped by.

Agree but not every coach checks the forums and it seems kolby didn't post until around the time scheyer and fluff were banned. So in this case it's kind of like we knocked on a guy's work door while he was at home and never knocked on his home door before persecution (sent him a site mail directing him to plead his case in this thread).

This is all shady and idk what best outcome is if fluff did get his best player via nefarious means and if he threw a game against himself but if it's a first time violation I really don't think the death penalty is the right way to go.

Really wish seble & CS would comment publicly on this and put it to rest.

i think it was explained that shoe was on that recruit with d1 kansas and then dropped off, making it a quality and perhaps insightful scoop for the GCU coach. kinda sounded like that was probably legit, at least absent anything else being said on the subject.

you know, this whole time i've been like, i just assume seble has good reason and my comments here are general, not about this dude. i'm taking exception about the start of the process and so these details that come out later are largely irrelevant to everything i've been saying, and i'm trying to distance this post from my others bc they have little to do either each other. but a couple things have happened now giving me pause even on the 'i'm sure seble had good reason' part. the guy is being insistent they aren't the same person, and i am not inclined to believe anything he says but still, it is enough to make me kind of reconsider if there's anything else in his column. anything of substance.

i've come up with two things - 1) darnoc posted about prior interactions with fluff that point to him not being the same, and i think it was implied fluff seemed like a reasonable guy. to me this is pretty significant. 2) typically with repeat offenders, which it was sort of sounding like this guy might be as perhaps a serial breaker of more or less all the rules (at least when the collusion in recruiting thing was suggested) - other people have seen something, and someone adds their 2 cents. someone comes forward and is like you know, i didn't report this or anything, but (something suspicious or often its even about a blatant violation of rules). outside of the recruit which kinda sounded like nothing, nobody else has spoken up, and its been a few days. that doesn't prove anything but its perhaps another reason for pause? or perhaps a second look by seble?

quick question related to that other thread. i perhaps have a misconception around loyalty. when you leave a job, and then come back some time later, is there a loyalty hit? meaning you don't apply for a job while an active coach, but you basically quit the world, then come back 1-100 seasons later and apply via the jobs process. it has come to my attention that perhaps i am misguided and there is a hit, like after seble changed it so you could leave a job without a CS ticket, and i'm reading too much into being A+ loyalty when i've come back because perhaps you can keep a+ loyalty if you were at your last job a really long time. i know i personally watched my loyalty when i returned and came away thinking there was still no hit (like it was when you had to ticket CS), but i'm being told that is wrong and i'm kinda wondering what other folks have seen, seems like someone has to know this for sure.

It’s all resume; 10 seasons prior.

So if you job hop, you can make a final four, take a season or two off, come back and use the cumulative seasons to beat out most teams for openings.

There obviously needs to be a greater impact for when a coach takes multiple seasons off and finds a contender to jump on for a single season.

Posted by davidcrone on 8/27/2020 11:23:00 PM (view original):
Hey y'all, can we ban Grand Canyon from the Tournament before they beat me by 27 in the Final 4? Or, is that too much to ask?

You’ve been on a tear lately.

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/28/2020 11:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sol_phenom3 on 8/28/2020 8:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hypnotoad on 8/28/2020 6:19:00 AM (view original):
I think the door knocking was this thread - come out and explain yourself (or selves), and he didn’t respond until after the police stopped by.

Agree but not every coach checks the forums and it seems kolby didn't post until around the time scheyer and fluff were banned. So in this case it's kind of like we knocked on a guy's work door while he was at home and never knocked on his home door before persecution (sent him a site mail directing him to plead his case in this thread).

This is all shady and idk what best outcome is if fluff did get his best player via nefarious means and if he threw a game against himself but if it's a first time violation I really don't think the death penalty is the right way to go.

Really wish seble & CS would comment publicly on this and put it to rest.

i think it was explained that shoe was on that recruit with d1 kansas and then dropped off, making it a quality and perhaps insightful scoop for the GCU coach. kinda sounded like that was probably legit, at least absent anything else being said on the subject.

you know, this whole time i've been like, i just assume seble has good reason and my comments here are general, not about this dude. i'm taking exception about the start of the process and so these details that come out later are largely irrelevant to everything i've been saying, and i'm trying to distance this post from my others bc they have little to do either each other. but a couple things have happened now giving me pause even on the 'i'm sure seble had good reason' part. the guy is being insistent they aren't the same person, and i am not inclined to believe anything he says but still, it is enough to make me kind of reconsider if there's anything else in his column. anything of substance.

i've come up with two things - 1) darnoc posted about prior interactions with fluff that point to him not being the same, and i think it was implied fluff seemed like a reasonable guy. to me this is pretty significant. 2) typically with repeat offenders, which it was sort of sounding like this guy might be as perhaps a serial breaker of more or less all the rules (at least when the collusion in recruiting thing was suggested) - other people have seen something, and someone adds their 2 cents. someone comes forward and is like you know, i didn't report this or anything, but (something suspicious or often its even about a blatant violation of rules). outside of the recruit which kinda sounded like nothing, nobody else has spoken up, and its been a few days. that doesn't prove anything but its perhaps another reason for pause? or perhaps a second look by seble?

There is a lot to this idea. I am a high school teacher who has dealt with lots of cheaters, and lots using technology to do so. You have to focus objectively on the facts, but the details and gut feelings are not insignificant to finding out the truth. Both points gil raises are huge in establishing credibility for one of the three accounts in question.

Just like when two tests come back nearly identical, you have to figure out if one is the offender, the other is the offender, both are offenders, or even the least likely neither is an offender. I have seen all four cases, though the last is the most rare by far. Two crazy smart kids sitting next to each other turned in nearly identical tests with the same mistakes on the same problems. The circumstantial evidence (each individual's character and aptitude) gave me a certain bias, but led me to be more diligent in uncovering truth. If they were innocent I wanted to be convinced. Long story short (too late?), it was the differences in how they solved complicated problems with different methods that led me to believe that this was a random occurrence, improbable for an isolated incident, but statistically likely to happen at some point to someone.

Also, it is important to say, "nefarious" and repeat offenders are better at cheating. Kids who suck at cheating and easily caught, in my experience, don't have a history of doing so and have pretty clean records. My favorite is when a kid deleted his entire browsing history after an online quiz, except his Google search for "how to delete your browsing history". Obviously we caught that kid and found more evidence without searching too hard. He was a good kid who had a pretty clean record and never got into any trouble afterwards academically or otherwise.

It's a weird gut feeling, but judging how blatantly obvious that NT game was thrown, it leads me to believe there was not a lot of thought put in or a plan (or collusion) nor a great conspiracy of the three multiple accounts in cahoots. Like gil said, I think it's enough for a second look (if this is the only incident that was found in the original investigation, of course and there may be more to the story we don't know). For fluff, let's not clear his name just yet, but let's not cast him guilty either unless he's found so through due diligence.