Not really, because it's also been made reasonably clear that active, "hands-on" mentoring needs to follow the same rules as personally owning multiple teams in the same world.  In other words, it would not be acceptable to mentor someone actively (such as suggesting specific players or actions, as in this case) if you had a team in the same state.

for mentoring does leaving names, states, and  exact locations work.

say you found a player Jon James a D3 prospect 350 miles away in TN.  hes 45 ath 70 spd 60 def 20 per 40 bh 50 pas. 30 we. with no other schools on him and you have 4,630K left to recruit.
you also have Jerry Johnson a D2 prospect 150 miles away in KY hes 60 ath 60 spd 40 def 50 per 60 bh 30 pas 75 we with no schools and again 4,630K left 

in this situation is this too much:

Hey, "mentor"

I have a question on which player would be better to go after:

player A is 45 ath 70 spd 60 def 20 per 40 bh 50 pas. 30 we. and 1 state away
player B is 60 ath 60 spd 40 def 50 per 60 bh 30 pas 75 we in the same state as me.

which do you think would be better to go after, for my motion/press team?  I was leaning player A as he is more of a PG which I need, but player B might be better in the press with his speed however may not be as good as a PG as player A.  However would needing to pull down player B make player A a better option?


In that scenario is that too much help and therefore colluding?  It is not giving away names, exact location, but clearly if the mentor wanted he could search and find the 2 prospects by himself.

What if the mentor is not even in the same world.  What if the mentor is in the same world but Division 1 A prestige where clearly neither players would be great.

I just read the bottom of gil's post and realized i just basially wrote the same thing.

So Player 1 can spend his recruiting money wisely and strategically, maneuver and take risks fighting off the sharks to sweat out signing day and get a solid couple of recruits...

Meanwhile, Player 2 blows his wad of cash like an idiot, gets into dumb recruiting battles, sits there on the last boring day with 2 open spots, and he just gets spoonfed ridiculously helpful FSS information. He signs good recruits that he otherwise was clueless about, and then beats out Player 1 in the standings or for an NT bid...

Seems extremely unfair to Player 1, right? Does this actually happen while mentoring? What if Players 1 and 2 are in the same conference? What if Player 2 is in the same city but a different division? What if Player 1 can't afford to scout New York, while Player 2 is fed key information on NY recruits?

I would be pretty aggravated if I was Player 1.

I think the 18% who voted that this is legal behavior should be outed and subsequently punished.

Posted by npb7768 on 6/9/2015 7:19:00 PM (view original):
So Player 1 can spend his recruiting money wisely and strategically, maneuver and take risks fighting off the sharks to sweat out signing day and get a solid couple of recruits...

Meanwhile, Player 2 blows his wad of cash like an idiot, gets into dumb recruiting battles, sits there on the last boring day with 2 open spots, and he just gets spoonfed ridiculously helpful FSS information. He signs good recruits that he otherwise was clueless about, and then beats out Player 1 in the standings or for an NT bid...

Seems extremely unfair to Player 1, right? Does this actually happen while mentoring? What if Players 1 and 2 are in the same conference? What if Player 2 is in the same city but a different division? What if Player 1 can't afford to scout New York, while Player 2 is fed key information on NY recruits?

I would be pretty aggravated if I was Player 1.

hold on... just to clarify - the scenario is that player 2 is getting mentored, and he shares HIS OWN fss data with his mentor, who simply offers advice. in nothing that i've said in this entire thread, did i intend to say/imply there sharing of FSS info to the guy getting mentored. 

i agree completely that the scenario you outline is collusion and unacceptable...

Posted by gillispie1 on 6/9/2015 10:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by npb7768 on 6/9/2015 7:19:00 PM (view original):
So Player 1 can spend his recruiting money wisely and strategically, maneuver and take risks fighting off the sharks to sweat out signing day and get a solid couple of recruits...

Meanwhile, Player 2 blows his wad of cash like an idiot, gets into dumb recruiting battles, sits there on the last boring day with 2 open spots, and he just gets spoonfed ridiculously helpful FSS information. He signs good recruits that he otherwise was clueless about, and then beats out Player 1 in the standings or for an NT bid...

Seems extremely unfair to Player 1, right? Does this actually happen while mentoring? What if Players 1 and 2 are in the same conference? What if Player 2 is in the same city but a different division? What if Player 1 can't afford to scout New York, while Player 2 is fed key information on NY recruits?

I would be pretty aggravated if I was Player 1.

hold on... just to clarify - the scenario is that player 2 is getting mentored, and he shares HIS OWN fss data with his mentor, who simply offers advice. in nothing that i've said in this entire thread, did i intend to say/imply there sharing of FSS info to the guy getting mentored. 

i agree completely that the scenario you outline is collusion and unacceptable...

Ok, thanks gillispie, for explaining about mentoring and FSS.

I had written mainly in response to the original post, which i agree would be unacceptable.

Posted by ettaxpress on 6/9/2015 9:51:00 PM (view original):
I think the 18% who voted that this is legal behavior should be outed and subsequently punished.

LOL, punished for a vote?  Oh boy.

If a person caught using their FSS for multiple accounts isn't punishable by a ban, then talking about players on a CC shouldn't even be looked at.

By the way, thanks for the explanation, gillispie. 

There needs to be a clearly written rule about collusion instead of a "whenever CS feels like it is" type of thing.  No consistency with the way it is.

a starting point on collusiobn and fairplay:

http://whatif.cincinnati.com/locker/fairplay.shtm

then, there are several very long and informative threads in which admin commented on hypotheticals - maybe two years ago....

a key concept - it is not just dictionary definition collusion that is treated as contrary to rules of fair play. Collusion is often used as shorthand - see the link and those threads

Posted by ettaxpress on 6/9/2015 9:51:00 PM (view original):
I think the 18% who voted that this is legal behavior should be outed and subsequently punished.

Oh please god let this really be etta....well bro, why don't you report them, that's always been your favorite course of action.

Posted by metsmax on 6/10/2015 11:51:00 AM (view original):
a starting point on collusiobn and fairplay:

http://whatif.cincinnati.com/locker/fairplay.shtm

then, there are several very long and informative threads in which admin commented on hypotheticals - maybe two years ago....

Thanks for the link!

Here is the Hoops Dynasty part (for those of us that are too lazy to click the link):

Collusive transactions

Collusion includes any act that supports bad, deceitful or illegal behavior agreed upon by two or more users or attempted by a single user. Here are a few examples:

• Discussing the pursuit of a recruit with another coach, including who is pursuing him and money that might have been spent.
• Sharing Future Stars Scouting (FSS) information between multiple teams
• Scheduling a non-conference game against an alias team (i.e. team owned by same owner in a different conference and more than 1,000 miles away). Exhibition games are permitted in this situation, however.
• Any clear throwing of a game (normally indicated by massive lineup changes or settings changes)
• Specifically targeting another coach is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, focusing on recruits a particular coach is pursuing in order to steal them or force the coach to overspend.
• Attempting to persuade another user to participate in a collusive effort (only the initiator would be at fault unless agreed upon by other user)

Potential punishments

Each infraction is reviewed by customer service with a goal of consistent punishment. Some infractions are more egregious than others and users with a history of violating the guidelines receive stiffer punishment. The below is a list of potential punishments for any of the above infractions:

1. Warning via sitemail (or conference chat if directed at the conference in general)
2. Losing recruiting money
3. Coach reputation hit
4. Removal of players/recruits (including releasing a signed recruit from a team)
5. School prestige hit
6. Removal of coach from team
7. Banning of user from site