Fair Play Guidelines? Topic

Quote: Originally Posted By crickett13 on 4/10/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By dmurphy104 on 4/10/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By crickett13 on 4/10/2010

TZ I find it interesting that you have not chimed in on whether Admin will support league rules which differ from the WIS guidlines.

Admins continued silence makes it seem that admin will not and will "strike down" league rules and side with the owner who breaks them.

Sure they did.

They removed the owner from Coop. That should be your answer. They revised the TOS to allow for the removal between seasons

With regards to private worlds, a commissioner may prevent an owner from entering at the start of a season via the password system. If it's a returning owner, the commish must request the removal via customer support ticket and it must include the rationale for removal and the rationale must be acceptable (we evaluate). A ticket must be submitted before the end of a season and the same ticket must be re-opened after the world rolls over if the owner tries to return to the world.

An owner violating established league rules would be sufficient rationale. In actuality the owner was removed from Coop with a lesser burden of proof, as was the public world owner.

No they did not. What they showed in cooperstown was that if the rest of the league is willing to quit then they will remove an owner. Read the fairplay guidlines. There is absolutly no mention that private league rules will be upheld by admin.

The (we evalute) means they reserve the right to overturn private world rules and again their silence says it all. You assume that they will always side with the league when they have shown over and over again that is not true.

Again this would be very simple to clear up by stating here and in the Fair Play Guidelines that private leagues have the right to have their own rules and violating those rules are enough reason to have your franchise stripped. They had no qualms about explicitly stating the conditions where they would remove a comish so this should not be a problem for them either. The fact that it seems to be a problem shows that they will not support a private league when the rules differ from their own.

You are reaching for straws. If they refuse to uphold a league's rules there will be another shi$storm. I think they got the message the first time. I dont feel the need to disect every word of the update. Their actions indicate their willingness to uphold the rules.
4/10/2010 8:51 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By plague on 4/10/2010

Quote: Originally posted by grivfmd1 on 4/10/2010
THE issue - at least for those of us in Cooperstown who were directly effected by Smoelheim's appeal to WIS - is not whether he is a "good owner" or a "good commissioner" elsewhere or even in Cooperstown. It was and is on the impact his and WIS's initial response would have on the ability to maintain the integrity of private leagues which would have been (and may still be) disastrous.

I encourage all commissioners (even Smoelheim and Plague) to get their league rules in order, approved by your leagues owners, and published - you WILL need them.





I don't really know about the Cooperstown issue. I was mainly responding to the remark about Smoelheim would be treated like small pox. I just wanted to say he has been a good coach in the worlds I have coached. That does not mean I agree or disagree with whatever situation he is apart of in Cooperstown.

I have mixed feelings on the new policy. As a GM I would want the ability to remove a owner at the end of the season. I consider myself a reasonable commissioner. However there is Commissioners out there that abuse their power and remove owners for reasons that is very unfair to said owner who maybe has invested many seasons into his team. That is the basic reason why Unions and regulations exist. Many in positions of managerial power will abuse their position of power, and I work at a job that has both union and non union employees and non union employees get abused. The managers who abuse their power ruin it for the managers who treat their employees with respect. Anyone that thinks unions are the problem don't realize how abusive management can be to their work force.
I try not to get to political but I can't let this one pass - 40 yrs ago I worked in a factory on the night shift. The factory had 2 types of employees - non union skilled "piece" workers and unionized unskilled hourly workers. The "piece" workers were constantly upset because work would be "lost" in inventory transfer resulting in their having to do multiple unpaid set ups to complete a job. One night I decided to "fix" inventory (I was the shuttle person in inventory). For the next week everything ran smoothly and the "piece" workers were thrilled. The following week I was fired because the union representative during days complained that the "fix" I put in was so efficient it would result in one less worker being needed (to hunt down the missing inventory). A week later I was called by one of the "piece" workers and told everything had returned to the previous mess. The company (in CT) used to employee over 2000 americans. It is now out of business. The company name was sold to an Asian firm and some people think it still exists.

Two wrongs never make a right - employees should not be abused but "feather bedding" and blatant disregard for economic reality by unions have cost more americans jobs than any other factor in the last 60 years.

As to abusive Commishs and league dismissal issues - the focus needs to be on whether it is an abusive request, if it is the commish needs to be removed. Once one of these issues reaches WIS it should be with the clear knowledge that someone is going to be gone when the decision is made. You might be surprised at how quickly abuse disappears when everyone realizes the possible outcomes. What initially occurred in Cooperstown - the owner allowed to stay and the commish still in place - should NEVER happen again.

Finally it was NOT a Cooperstown issue (just happened in Cooperstown) it was and remains a Private World issue
4/10/2010 8:56 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By smoelheim on 4/10/2010
Quote: Originally posted by tecwrg on 4/10/201
You were removed for your inability to field a competitive team, and your subsequent attempt to make it even less competitive after the All-Star break. Mike explained this clearly to you. Mike explained it clearly to WIS in his ticket to have you removed. WIS apparently agreed that this was a valid reason to remove you.

You make it sound like you were removed for an arbitrary reason. It was not. It was based in fact, data and your stated intentions.

FACT: My team was awful at the AS Break. 28-63 (.307).

FACT: My team was going nowhere, so I offered up the two, maybe three assets that my team had, to try and shake things up. I never claimed I wanted only prospects. I DID want less payroll. I'd have taken cheaper MLers, maybe a 2-for-1 deal that would've fixed multiple problems on my team.

FACT: It was all irrelevant anyways, as nobody made me any offers.

FACT: I went 27-42 after the AS Break (.442).

27-42 record = .391
4/10/2010 8:56 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By alogman1 on 4/09/2010I see an opportunity for a premium service here. Let these whining, elitist, d-bag, drama queens who complain about everything and think their leagues are better than everyone else's have their way. Let them have the right to boot owners just because they feel like it. But there will be a $10 per team admin fee per season for the extra work in administering their requests to boot so and so because MikeT didn't like one of their forum posts, and maintaining a "special" league.
from a business point of view, this seems like the best solution i have seen in the 12 pages (or how ever many i've read) so far... of course i don't think i'm halfway through. this issue may be resolved by now.

make private worlds MORE exclusive but put a "cadillac tax" on them. $10 might be steep. but a $2 or $5 per season surcharge would certainly pay for the added time necessary to deal with private world "issues".

enforce the guidelines as they are for public worlds.
4/10/2010 9:04 PM
keep reading. public worlds are going away.
4/10/2010 9:05 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By dmurphy104 on 4/10/2010keep reading. public worlds are going away.
No they're not.
4/10/2010 9:17 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By dmurphy104 on 4/10/2010

If they refuse to uphold a league's rules there will be another shi$storm. I think they got the message the first time. I dont feel the need to disect every word of the update. Their actions indicate their willingness to uphold the rules.
This is how I read it as well - but with the caveat that the league rules must be precise and published. The commish has done the pre-notification and provided the proof. Few leagues would presently pass this standard and in the future most commishes will be turned down. GET YOUR LEAGUES IN ORDER
4/10/2010 9:26 PM
"Two wrongs never make a right - employees should not be abused but "feather bedding" and blatant disregard for economic reality by unions have cost more americans jobs than any other factor in the last 60 years."

If it was not for Unions most of us would be earning far less money, working in harsher working conditions, and working far more hours just to make enough money to feed our family. We can get into all the positives and negatives of unions, and I agree that unions is on the other spectrum of problems, but it exists because without unions management has proven to exist on the other end of the extreme. If all business treated their employees fairly unions would never had a need to exist. I would not want to see a America where Business is allowed to run free without regulation or unions, we would go straight back to the industrial revolution. Without unions we would be seeing far less of a middle class than we currently have in America.

One other thing that bothers me about non union jobs is that those jobs don't worry about laws, laws seem to be a wink wink thing to make the masses feel comfortable, so they can tell someone who is being abused "Hey they can't do that, that is against the law.". Both my Girlfriend and my best friend work for non union jobs and they pretty much ignore laws designed to give workers rights. People that complain generally end up getting fired a few months down the line for some other BS reason, and the employees generally know that and are afraid.




4/10/2010 9:29 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 4/10/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By dmurphy104 on 4/10/2010
keep reading. public worlds are going away.
No they're not
my bad. some are getting converted to private.
4/10/2010 9:33 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By dmurphy104 on 4/10/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 4/10/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By dmurphy104 on 4/10/2010
keep reading. public worlds are going away.
No they're not.
my bad. some are getting converted to private
nice. i'm sure Ruth will go private. i'd be alright paying another few bucks per season for exclusivity (namely protection from known tankers/franchise destroyers).

maybe instituing a premium surcharge could be a pre-cursor to LIVE play. asking a steeper (double?) price might be enough incentive to get WiS coding for elite (LIVE) worlds...
4/10/2010 9:43 PM
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
4/10/2010 9:50 PM
Also, private worlds should be able to decide how they want to be run.

When you have 31 like-minded individuals and 1 who has other ideas, guess who's going to end up on the outside looking in?

Seriously, if you're the 1, why do you feel that you NEED to stay?
4/10/2010 10:01 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By dmurphy104 on 4/10/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By crickett13 on 4/10/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By dmurphy104 on 4/10/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By crickett13 on 4/10/2010

TZ I find it interesting that you have not chimed in on whether Admin will support league rules which differ from the WIS guidlines.

Admins continued silence makes it seem that admin will not and will "strike down" league rules and side with the owner who breaks them.

Sure they did.

They removed the owner from Coop. That should be your answer. They revised the TOS to allow for the removal between seasons

With regards to private worlds, a commissioner may prevent an owner from entering at the start of a season via the password system. If it's a returning owner, the commish must request the removal via customer support ticket and it must include the rationale for removal and the rationale must be acceptable (we evaluate). A ticket must be submitted before the end of a season and the same ticket must be re-opened after the world rolls over if the owner tries to return to the world.

An owner violating established league rules would be sufficient rationale. In actuality the owner was removed from Coop with a lesser burden of proof, as was the public world owner.

No they did not. What they showed in cooperstown was that if the rest of the league is willing to quit then they will remove an owner. Read the fairplay guidlines. There is absolutly no mention that private league rules will be upheld by admin.

The (we evalute) means they reserve the right to overturn private world rules and again their silence says it all. You assume that they will always side with the league when they have shown over and over again that is not true.

Again this would be very simple to clear up by stating here and in the Fair Play Guidelines that private leagues have the right to have their own rules and violating those rules are enough reason to have your franchise stripped. They had no qualms about explicitly stating the conditions where they would remove a comish so this should not be a problem for them either. The fact that it seems to be a problem shows that they will not support a private league when the rules differ from their own.

You are reaching for straws. If they refuse to uphold a league's rules there will be another shi$storm. I think they got the message the first time. I dont feel the need to disect every word of the update. Their actions indicate their willingness to uphold the rules
Not at all what I, and others, are reaching for and asking for is a simple statement of facts from admin.

Admin can make it all go away by typing these 7 simple words "Yes we will uphold private worlds rules."

If they won't do that it is simply because they want the leeway to strike down league rules if someone who spends enough complains enough and they feel they can get away with it like they have many many times before. Cooperstown was the exception not the rule and you are well aware of that and so is admin.
4/10/2010 10:12 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By crickett13 on 4/10/2010
Not at all what I, and others, are reaching for and asking for is a simple statement of facts from admin.

Admin can make it all go away by typing these 7 simple words "Yes we will uphold private worlds rules."

If they won't do that it is simply because they want the leeway to strike down league rules if someone who spends enough complains enough and they feel they can get away with it like they have many many times before. Cooperstown was the exception not the rule and you are well aware of that and so is admin.

The new fairplay guidelines make the intent clear. If the statement is put in as you wish, then people would complain that they wont remove owners if they dont specifically violate a league rule. If an owner violates a league rule, and the commish follows the process that is laid out, they will remove the owner.
4/10/2010 10:25 PM
Crickett, my guess is that there won't be that blanket statement because they don't know every situation they could be presented with -- again, the loophole thing. Who knows what someone could bring to them and try to exploit.

In this case, definitive statements can be a problem, so saying what they've said, in my mind, is mostly strong enough.
4/11/2010 2:16 AM
◂ Prev 1...27|28|29|30 Next ▸
Fair Play Guidelines? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.