Recently I inquired about a coach who has 2 teams in the same division of the same world that unfortunately fall within the new 1000 mile limit outlined in the Fair Play Guidelines. I was told by CS that is was ok for this particular user to keep their teams since they had gotten permission shortly before the new guidelines were published. I don't want to name names, I really just want to get the feedback of the community regarding this decision.

I will state that I do not feel it is appropriate to make exceptions to this rule. If they (WiS) are going to impose this rule, presumably it is because they perceive some kind of unfair advantage (otherwise why call them Fair Play Guidelines) to coaches with multiple schools within 1000 miles. That perceived advantage must exist for the established user just like it would (or wouldn't) for anyone else.

To be clear, I don't agree with the 1000 mile rule, it is arbitrary and probably does very little to affect those willing to "cheat" to "win" at HD. That said, the 1000 mile rule exists, and therefore everyone should be held to the same standard IMHO.

I voiced my concerns in reply to CS and stated just that, and never received a response, so after waiting a while decided to solicit feedback from the community at large. Am I wrong here?

So, this coach requested permission to violate the rules and was approved. That is pure BS. I agree with you, dac, rules are rules regardless of whether you like them or not.

On the other hand, if he had been expressly given permission beforehand, would it be right to suddenly revoke that explicit permission for him? Other question is ... Just how close are we talking? Was it '990 miles" or 90 miles?

I'm against the idea of 2 teams in the same world no matter what divisions or how far away. I know it is done a lot, but I find it hard to believe that coaches with 2 teams have never once taken advantage in some way during recruiting.

I agree, you shouldn't have two teams in the same world, no matter the distance

I don't know how I feel about this.  I mean, yes, it's the rules, and you hate to make exceptions because it weakens the rule.  That being said, if the schools are several states apart (for example, a New England school and a South Carolina school could easily be within 1000 miles of one another but would be very unlikely to scout many of the same states except, perhaps, some scantily-populated states, unless they were explicitly attempting to cheat, at which point distance is irrelevant) and if the coach has been coaching at both programs for many seasons, it seems harsh to force him to give up an established Dynasty when he is in no wise violating the spirit of the rule.

That turned into a ridiculously long sentence, particularly when you include the stuff inside the parentheses.

The fact that a coach can have two teams in the same world, never mind division, has long been on my short list of major flaws with this game.

The schools are not what one would really consider close and recruit in different regions. They are around 850 miles apart. The coach has been at both schools for some time. All of this just really goes to show the pointlessness of the rule itself, but no matter, if there is a rule (I feel)  it should apply to all users equally...

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/28/2012 12:19:00 AM (view original):
On the other hand, if he had been expressly given permission beforehand, would it be right to suddenly revoke that explicit permission for him? Other question is ... Just how close are we talking? Was it '990 miles" or 90 miles?

To your first question, yes, it would be right. I counter that it is the only thing that is right. Well, actually, they could revoke the rule and go back to the way they used to handle things. That permission was granted back when the 1000 mile rule was informal and CS handled matters on a case by case basis. Now that there is an explicit rule, everyone should have to be bound by it. To exclude some users from the rule cheapens the existence of the rule and implies privilege.

Posted by dacj501 on 8/28/2012 1:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/28/2012 12:19:00 AM (view original):
On the other hand, if he had been expressly given permission beforehand, would it be right to suddenly revoke that explicit permission for him? Other question is ... Just how close are we talking? Was it '990 miles" or 90 miles?

To your first question, yes, it would be right. I counter that it is the only thing that is right. Well, actually, they could revoke the rule and go back to the way they used to handle things. That permission was granted back when the 1000 mile rule was informal and CS handled matters on a case by case basis. Now that there is an explicit rule, everyone should have to be bound by it. To exclude some users from the rule cheapens the existence of the rule and implies privilege.

Especially if they didn't make this available to ALL coaches. I had a long discussion with CS about the pointlessness of the rule and they never once mentioned the opportunity for exemptions. One more reason I've paid my last money to WIS and will be dropping all HBD and HD teams as credits expire.

Posted by acn24 on 8/28/2012 6:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 8/28/2012 1:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/28/2012 12:19:00 AM (view original):
On the other hand, if he had been expressly given permission beforehand, would it be right to suddenly revoke that explicit permission for him? Other question is ... Just how close are we talking? Was it '990 miles" or 90 miles?

To your first question, yes, it would be right. I counter that it is the only thing that is right. Well, actually, they could revoke the rule and go back to the way they used to handle things. That permission was granted back when the 1000 mile rule was informal and CS handled matters on a case by case basis. Now that there is an explicit rule, everyone should have to be bound by it. To exclude some users from the rule cheapens the existence of the rule and implies privilege.

Especially if they didn't make this available to ALL coaches. I had a long discussion with CS about the pointlessness of the rule and they never once mentioned the opportunity for exemptions. One more reason I've paid my last money to WIS and will be dropping all HBD and HD teams as credits expire.

See the thing is, WIS changed the rule AFTER both teams had already been established.  Back in the day, C/S refused to put a hard and fast rule in place.  So if a team was asked to be moved, they were told to go 800 miles away (I know this for a FACT).  And, according to your earlier post, the coach in this question meets that standard (you said he is 850 miles away).   So when WIS suddenly decides to make a brightline rule of 1000 miles, I have ZERO PROBLEM with them making an exception for somebody, since that person acted in reliance to a previous standard.

And like you said dac, this rule hardly would stop cheating somebody really wanted to cheat.  So... in that case, you come across like a dude with sour grapes.  And...since you are whining about it, I am also glad that you left our conference in Wooden.  I really don't want to be surrounded by that kind of stuff.  THIS IS A FREAKING COMPUTER SIMULATION GAME that people pay to play.  Not life or death.  Enjoy it a little bit.  It is supposed to be fun.

Also, I don't think you are referring to Metsmax (the mileage doesn't match), but I now believe you are certainly behind him not being at Auburn (he has Maryland too).  Dude is/was an institution in this game and the fact that you just ran off a team is garbage and makes me think you are afraid of competition.  Of course you have a vested interested in getting him booted from the school, since he is in your recruiting territory for CUSA.  I assume the other coach you complain about is as well.

Sorry if I seem angry in the post above. I am really not.  I just get tired of seeing a vocal majority constantly unsatisfied with everything WIS does and putting on a self-prescribed fun-police tiara.  

Is this game perfect?  No way (goodness knows I have my pity pants on about EE's right now).  Is it pretty darn good though?  You betcha, and you believe that too, or you wouldn't spend your entertainment dollars here.   

So anyway - my point to dac is -  lets not get bogged down in minor stuff, when 1) you know a coach is given permission to have a team and acts in reliance on that information, and 2) isn't cheating!  

If you know (heck even reasonably think) they are cheating, that is a different story.

Posted by dacj501 on 8/27/2012 11:56:00 PM (view original):
Recently I inquired about a coach who has 2 teams in the same division of the same world that unfortunately fall within the new 1000 mile limit outlined in the Fair Play Guidelines. I was told by CS that is was ok for this particular user to keep their teams since they had gotten permission shortly before the new guidelines were published. I don't want to name names, I really just want to get the feedback of the community regarding this decision.

I will state that I do not feel it is appropriate to make exceptions to this rule. If they (WiS) are going to impose this rule, presumably it is because they perceive some kind of unfair advantage (otherwise why call them Fair Play Guidelines) to coaches with multiple schools within 1000 miles. That perceived advantage must exist for the established user just like it would (or wouldn't) for anyone else.

To be clear, I don't agree with the 1000 mile rule, it is arbitrary and probably does very little to affect those willing to "cheat" to "win" at HD. That said, the 1000 mile rule exists, and therefore everyone should be held to the same standard IMHO.

I voiced my concerns in reply to CS and stated just that, and never received a response, so after waiting a while decided to solicit feedback from the community at large. Am I wrong here?

If you disagree with the rule, why do you care to enforce it?  I would bet it's because by running a coach off, you'll benefit -- your team will have less recruiting competition.  If you can't beat 'em, cry to WIS, I guess.  The way this rule has been enforced has harmed, not helped, gameplay -- on multiple occasions, arbitrary enforcement of this rule has caused strong human-run teams to go SIM for seasons at a time.

Posted by johnsensing on 8/28/2012 8:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 8/27/2012 11:56:00 PM (view original):
Recently I inquired about a coach who has 2 teams in the same division of the same world that unfortunately fall within the new 1000 mile limit outlined in the Fair Play Guidelines. I was told by CS that is was ok for this particular user to keep their teams since they had gotten permission shortly before the new guidelines were published. I don't want to name names, I really just want to get the feedback of the community regarding this decision.

I will state that I do not feel it is appropriate to make exceptions to this rule. If they (WiS) are going to impose this rule, presumably it is because they perceive some kind of unfair advantage (otherwise why call them Fair Play Guidelines) to coaches with multiple schools within 1000 miles. That perceived advantage must exist for the established user just like it would (or wouldn't) for anyone else.

To be clear, I don't agree with the 1000 mile rule, it is arbitrary and probably does very little to affect those willing to "cheat" to "win" at HD. That said, the 1000 mile rule exists, and therefore everyone should be held to the same standard IMHO.

I voiced my concerns in reply to CS and stated just that, and never received a response, so after waiting a while decided to solicit feedback from the community at large. Am I wrong here?

If you disagree with the rule, why do you care to enforce it?  I would bet it's because by running a coach off, you'll benefit -- your team will have less recruiting competition.  If you can't beat 'em, cry to WIS, I guess.  The way this rule has been enforced has harmed, not helped, gameplay -- on multiple occasions, arbitrary enforcement of this rule has caused strong human-run teams to go SIM for seasons at a time.

I believe he has ethical standards and is uncomfortable with explicitly outlined rules being broken courtesy of the governing body.

But I'm just spitballing here.