FWIW, I'd just remove the affected players from the team. Let wizard start over and give those who were affected the upper hand. Maybe that's restitution. Or maybe thewizard just quits. Either way, the rest of the conference's teams would be "upgraded" for a couple of seasons.

And I wouldn't give him the credits he "earned" this season. Seems petty but he was doing it for some reason. If it was for recognition from the community, that's gone. Take a couple of bucks too.

Posted by johnsensing on 7/11/2017 8:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by zorzii on 7/11/2017 8:21:00 AM (view original):
It's cheating for sure since you purposely acted to get an edge and never told a soul. The guy hiding in the list, knowing it will be cake to get a player because the vh team feels it has no competition so it does not use resources is also cheating. Sniping a guy at the last minute when you are showed in the condidering list, like Alabama supposedly has done, and that I have done(to pcclark Providence) is not poaching but a recruiting strategy.

It's not cheating, for all of the reasons I stated yesterday in the now-missing "cheat code" thread (and it's interesting in and of itself that that thread has apparently been ethered). It's a loophole. It is quite telling to me that WIS Support has not called it cheating.

Nor is the "hide at the end of the alphabet" tactic during recruiting cheating. It's another loophole, which is made possible by WIS' own glitchy programming. And it's ridiculous that WIS has not fixed them both by now.

This. It was a loophole that wizard successfully exploited. Is it unsportsmanlike? Yes, but it is not cheating. It was an action permitted within the constraints of the programming that lead to unintended results, but it was still an action permitted within the constraints of the programing. Cheating would be if he has found a way to hack the coding to do this, not work within its rules.

whether or not it was cheating isnt the deciding question - see second sentence of relevant Fair Play Guidelines

Cheating

All owners must play by the rules and requirements set forth by each game on our site. If an owner discovers a loophole, a way to cheat, or any other method of giving himself an unfair advantage, WhatIfSports reserves the right to take the necessary steps to correct the issue at any time without prior notification. Refunds or roster changes will not be given to any owner in this situation.

in addition to cheating, that sentence makes clear that WIS has authority to correct any use of a loophole or any other method of getting an unfair advantage.

WIS can - and I think should - delete the affected players. And then declare that this episode is done.

What's the over/under on how many more times people are going to copy and paste the "Cheating" rules in this thread? More or less than the amount of pages people will add to the thread by continuing to beat their heads against the wall?

Posted by fd343ny on 7/12/2017 2:44:00 PM (view original):
whether or not it was cheating isnt the deciding question - see second sentence of relevant Fair Play Guidelines

Cheating

All owners must play by the rules and requirements set forth by each game on our site. If an owner discovers a loophole, a way to cheat, or any other method of giving himself an unfair advantage, WhatIfSports reserves the right to take the necessary steps to correct the issue at any time without prior notification. Refunds or roster changes will not be given to any owner in this situation.

in addition to cheating, that sentence makes clear that WIS has authority to correct any use of a loophole or any other method of getting an unfair advantage.

WIS can - and I think should - delete the affected players. And then declare that this episode is done.

I read that as saying whatifsports reserves the right to correct the issue; i.e. close the loophole. It does not say anything about deleting players or changing past results. It reads as saying once they close the loophole, any coach affected cannot request a refund or roster change. It does not say anything about changing the coaches roster.

i would read "correct the issue" much more broadly - it would make no sense to say that they can stop it from happening again but that "correct" doesnt include getting rid of the effects of the exploitation of a loophole or unfair advantage.

keep in mind, the first sentence of that paragraph is addressed to users. The second sentence is the one that speaks to what WIS can do. WIS can close the loophole and make the effects of prior use of the loophole go away. They have done it before.

"The second sentence is the one that speaks to what WIS can do. WIS can close the loophole and make the effects of prior use of the loophole go away. They have done it before."

I don't see anywhere in the language that says they can make the effects of prior uses of the loophole go away. It simply says "WhatIfSports reserves the right to take the necessary steps to correct the issue at any time without prior notification." They reserve the right to close the loophole without any warning. It says nothing about punitive measures or changing what has already happened. It says they reserve the right to correct the issue (close the loophole), extrapolating "correct the issue" to mean they will go back and change players or outcomes after they have corrected the issue (closed the loophole) is far too broad an interpretation. From a legal standpoint, they are simply saying they can close the loophole and you cant do anything about it. Anything more than that would never hold up in court ;)

Posted by mbriese on 7/12/2017 2:50:00 PM (view original):
What's the over/under on how many more times people are going to copy and paste the "Cheating" rules in this thread? More or less than the amount of pages people will add to the thread by continuing to beat their heads against the wall?

Roughly the same amount of times someone pops in and says "It wasn't cheating".

Posted by snafu4u on 7/12/2017 3:37:00 PM (view original):
"The second sentence is the one that speaks to what WIS can do. WIS can close the loophole and make the effects of prior use of the loophole go away. They have done it before."

I don't see anywhere in the language that says they can make the effects of prior uses of the loophole go away. It simply says "WhatIfSports reserves the right to take the necessary steps to correct the issue at any time without prior notification." They reserve the right to close the loophole without any warning. It says nothing about punitive measures or changing what has already happened. It says they reserve the right to correct the issue (close the loophole), extrapolating "correct the issue" to mean they will go back and change players or outcomes after they have corrected the issue (closed the loophole) is far too broad an interpretation. From a legal standpoint, they are simply saying they can close the loophole and you cant do anything about it. Anything more than that would never hold up in court ;)

Complete nonsense. The fact of the court having jurisdiction often provides it inherent authority to take measures to remedy bad behavior. That is so even absent a specific statement of authority to do so (contempt powers are often like this). You would have no basis to claim that WIS lacks authority to remedy both the loophole and the damage caused by its abuse.

Besides which, you have to torture language to make it fit your preference on this point. If I found an exploit that allowed me to manipulate the RNG and award myself players in recruiting or make end of game three point shots go in as I wished, your position would state that WIS could only fix the exploited code, but had divested itself over authority to police the results of its own product!

I believe the legal phrase is "Bullshit!"

Two things astound me about these loophole/cheating threads:

1. The apparent lack of reading comprehension by so many adults, and
2. That WIS apparently doesn't have the tools and/or the know how to search their own databases to locate players with large WE gains.

Both are troubling.

Posted by snafu4u on 7/12/2017 3:37:00 PM (view original):
"The second sentence is the one that speaks to what WIS can do. WIS can close the loophole and make the effects of prior use of the loophole go away. They have done it before."

I don't see anywhere in the language that says they can make the effects of prior uses of the loophole go away. It simply says "WhatIfSports reserves the right to take the necessary steps to correct the issue at any time without prior notification." They reserve the right to close the loophole without any warning. It says nothing about punitive measures or changing what has already happened. It says they reserve the right to correct the issue (close the loophole), extrapolating "correct the issue" to mean they will go back and change players or outcomes after they have corrected the issue (closed the loophole) is far too broad an interpretation. From a legal standpoint, they are simply saying they can close the loophole and you cant do anything about it. Anything more than that would never hold up in court ;)

I think you're pretty far out on a limb here, snafu. "Correct the issue" is far broader than just closing the loophole -- I view that as WIS giving itself the authority to level the playing field once an issue has been identified, whether it's just closing the loophole, or taking other actions as well. As others have noted, WIS has taken broader remedial measures in the past.

Tortured language is trying to read through your fragmented sentence structure. I really don't see how whatifsport's statement can be read any other way than through the words they use.

"WhatIfSports reserves the right to take the necessary steps to correct the issue at any time without prior notification."

This says they have the right to close the loophole at any time without notification. That is all it says, the language is simple and clear. You would have no claims that whatifsports has stated it has the authority to do anything more than close the loophole. And to be clear, I'm not saying they don't have that authority, it just isn't stated here.

Is "the issue" the loophole, the results of using the loophole, or both? I think it's both, personally.

Posted by hypnotoad on 7/12/2017 4:59:00 PM (view original):
Is "the issue" the loophole, the results of using the loophole, or both? I think it's both, personally.

Fair enough, I read it as fixing the issue being exploited. I figured the reason they said no refunds or roster changes was that after closing a loophole they aren't going to give a refund or make changes for a coach who argues along the lines of "now that you closed the loophole I never would have taken those guys, I want my money back" or the like.

or that they have the right to do whatever they decide is needed to correct the issue - stop the loophole, reset players, delete players - and the user has no right to a refund. I'm sure that is what WIS would say it means.