I submitted this ticket to admin... thoughts?

This is a ticket to voice my opinion on the fair play guidelines.

HBD is a dynasty game, and I understand the idea of sunken costs for dynasty teams. However, when a player joins a private world he agrees to play by the world's guidelines. A commissioner should be able to enforce those guidelines. So he should be able to reserve the right to disallow a player to renew if, during that season, they break the rules. This said, because of sunken costs, a player should not have to worry about being "booted" from a world arbitrarily by an owner.

I believe having a "statement of unique world rules" before you join a world and an "accept terms" button would solve this problem. This way a player knows they are held accountable for more stringent "fair play" rules and has no recourse if they violate the rules.

Anything less than this makes it so that the dozens of private league commissioners will not be able to create the gameplay environment they desired when creating the world, and effects the investment all the other players have put in their world.

Please consider this revision to the game.

Edit bump

I like it.

I had a similar, yet different, idea while spitballing in the BTP WC:

Giving the commissioner more discretionary leeway (not less) would be a good thing, IMHO.

However, this could only be done in a private world, and with some kind of commissioner approval process that is linked to your renewal to keep from indiscriminate bootings.

Too few approvals with renewal, and a commissioner can be impeached, as it were.

Simple, I'd say.

I guess your idea is more proactive, whereas mine could be viewed as more reactionary, but I think they get at the same point where owners give their blessing to the rules (or de-facto rule enforcer/commissioner) in exchange for the priviledge of joining or staying in a given world.

Quote: Originally posted by iain on 4/09/2010I guess your idea is more proactive, whereas mine could be viewed as more reactionary, but I think they get at the same point where owners give their blessing to the rules (or de-facto rule enforcer/commissioner) in exchange for the priviledge of joining or staying in a given world.

Exactly, if the world rules are stated clearly and with measurable results: (i.e. Cannot have consecutive <.300 winning percentage seasons) vs. (cannot suck).

Then this should not be a problem, and it would not allow commissioners to boot people with personality conflicts.

both great ideas