Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2017 9:19:00 AM (view original):
This one:

Quote post by mrslam34 on 4/4/2017 12:32:00 AM:

Posted by emy1013 on 4/4/2017 12:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2017 11:37:00 PM (view original):
You gotta shorten it up.

No idea who it is who really told me. Signed up today so I'm sure he's just an alias.

So, if there's no punishment, no breaking of FPG, there's no cheating? Just want to be clear on the subject from your perspective.

You can try to hide Npb's identity all you like, but it's obvious that it's him. I still have his sitemail that uses almost the exact same phrasing as your new "anonymous" source. I'll admit to playing the hypocrite in this instance but to paraphrase you "If it walks, like a duck, blah, blah, blah".

Are the Fairplay Guidelines not the rules? Just want your perspective on that first. Because if you agree that the Fairplay Guidelines ARE the rules and there is no breaking of those Guidelines, then no there is no cheating per se.

If there is something in this game that is not working as Wis intended, then that is on THEM to fix that issue/bug/loophole/whatever term you want to call it. I have no issue with users testing the limits of the system that Wis put in place. Is it that the user is "cheating" or is it that he/she is simply "more creative" and "thinking farther outside the box" than another coach? Personal perspective I suppose but in my time as a supervisor, I both appreciated and applauded my workers who tried new things and didn't stick to the status quo.

You call it "cheating", I call it "experimenting". Semantics maybe. Potato/potatoe, tomato/tomatoe. To each their own.

I've said my piece, nothing more to add to this thread.

I get that mindset and agree that exploiting a loophole or pushing the boundaries isn't cheating if no rules are broken. It's definitely on WIS to clarify the rules and then enforce them.

A few pages back there was discussion about whether the behavior at issue violates the fair play guidelines as written. As a lawyer I could definitely argue it either way, but I find the "rules were broken" argument more compelling. Sharing scouting information between two teams controlled by one person is essentially the same as sharing info between two different people. The fact that this "experimental" strategy requires two different accounts only strengthens that argument.

I should have been more specific when I was referring to "loopholes". The one I was talking about was when a coach named Furrynipps found out that it was possible to "pull down" players instead of waiting for them to drop down. He was told that it was impossible, yet experimented anyway and found out that it WAS possible. It took quite awhile until that became public knowledge but now everyone worth their salt as a coach does it. Nowhere did I explicitly condone sharing of information as you're implying. I think if you look back. you'll find that was an entirely different user. Thank you and apology accepted. Peace.

Mike, you're a hypocrite. All of your ******** about multiple EE threads, there's a live cheating thread (of 14 pages) where multiple coaches are posting, and you decide to start an identical cheating thread? Why? Jesus, at least spud takes breaks from the forums.

And don't get me started on your refusal to read posts of more than three sentences -- tough to take anything you say seriously when you admit you don't read the responses of others (again, even spud does that). You and I have had respectful disagreements, but I think you need to step back and ask yourself what you're doing here. Accusing coaches of cheating with no evidence whatsoever (then admitting you don't know if they cheated or not) isn't moving the ball down the field.

As in most cases, long threads get derailed. Smart people stop paying attention about 3-4 pages in. Only dumbasses like myself stay there.

The point, the entire point of this thread, is to lay out the culture of HD. It seems that exploiting "loopholes" is acceptable. No one wants to upset another user even if they think the other guy might be using said "loopholes" to gain an advantage. So people need to understand they're not a level playing field. And, maybe, just maybe, WifS will take note. Trust me, a ticket will be sent. I think it's insane that people can bend the rules, because they're not explicitly saying "Don't do this" and other users just shake their head or turn a blind eye.

I read your long post. You're reasonable. Others aren't afforded the same because they've proven not to be.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2017 7:09:00 AM (view original):
I've gathered, over the last couple of days, that the following applies:

1. One cannot share info with oneself
2. If there is no punishment, no cheating occurred
3. If one does not violate the Fair Play Guidelines, it is not cheating

So the question I have is this:
If I take a D3 team in one of my worlds for the low, low price of $4.95, I can use it to scout for my main team then dump it after one season. Rinse, repeat. No rules broken as long as they are 1000 miles apart, right?

And, since it's not considering cheating by "respected" users, it's OK to admit you've done it. So let's hear it, how many do/have done this?

when asked, WIS has repeatedly said that this is a violation of the rules of fair play.

WIS has punished people for unintentional overlaps of recruiting activity when they had two teams in a world - for example, both paying some attention to the same international

I have two IDs - metsmax and mamxet. Today, no world in which I have two teams. Long ago, I had two teams in a couple of worlds and kept them outside the 1000 mile limit. Gone, when I cut back on teams in anticipation of 3.0

Based on my experience, playing and watching others play with two teams, the 1000 mile rule no longer is an effective protection and people should not have two teams in a world.

Posted by metsmax on 4/4/2017 9:56:00 AM (view original):
I have two IDs - metsmax and mamxet. Today, no world in which I have two teams. Long ago, I had two teams in a couple of worlds and kept them outside the 1000 mile limit. Gone, when I cut back on teams in anticipation of 3.0

Based on my experience, playing and watching others play with two teams, the 1000 mile rule no longer is an effective protection and people should not have two teams in a world.

My point also. I could go on and on about the reasons but I think people can see it easily by looking at the way the games works. D1 will never benefit from two IDS but I can tell you at D2 and D3, having a D1 team to father their scouting and recruiting is a blessing.

Really there is a simple fix. You can't have 2 teams in a world. It's easy to trace through IP addresses. I play a football sim. It's free unless you want to change team name, players and so on. It makes far less $ than this and still polices IP addresses. 10 teams are plenty. I don't know how someone you can have a job and still have time to keep up with over a couple teams. Solution is easy and whatif needs to stop being lazy in policing it.

I've sent a ticket. I think it's a problem. But I also think it's a problem, due to the current policy of policing ourselves and reporting any possible violations, that many in the community don't see an issue because it doesn't violate an outdated FPG.

Either way, it needs to be fixed. I will state again if a guy wants 13 teams, he should be able to have 13 teams. But there has to be a way to stop him from cross-referencing scouting. As in, if his D1 school scouts NH, his D3 school cannot. But I think that's a lot of work to program.

Posted by zorzii on 4/4/2017 9:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by metsmax on 4/4/2017 9:56:00 AM (view original):
I have two IDs - metsmax and mamxet. Today, no world in which I have two teams. Long ago, I had two teams in a couple of worlds and kept them outside the 1000 mile limit. Gone, when I cut back on teams in anticipation of 3.0

Based on my experience, playing and watching others play with two teams, the 1000 mile rule no longer is an effective protection and people should not have two teams in a world.

My point also. I could go on and on about the reasons but I think people can see it easily by looking at the way the games works. D1 will never benefit from two IDS but I can tell you at D2 and D3, having a D1 team to father their scouting and recruiting is a blessing.

Exactly. With D2 and D3 looking at D1 for most of their players now, they wouldn't need to scout much at D2 and D3 if they had a D1 account

Posted by whitey34 on 4/4/2017 10:03:00 AM (view original):
Really there is a simple fix. You can't have 2 teams in a world. It's easy to trace through IP addresses. I play a football sim. It's free unless you want to change team name, players and so on. It makes far less $ than this and still polices IP addresses. 10 teams are plenty. I don't know how someone you can have a job and still have time to keep up with over a couple teams. Solution is easy and whatif needs to stop being lazy in policing it.

I think the vast majority of people agree that users shouldn't have two teams in a world. But is WIS really going to enforce it? Does your IP address solution allow two family members to use the same CPU to compete against each other with different teams in the same world? (Genuine question -- I don't know enough about IP addresses.) If not, that seems to be a flaw.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/4/2017 10:05:00 AM (view original):
I've sent a ticket. I think it's a problem. But I also think it's a problem, due to the current policy of policing ourselves and reporting any possible violations, that many in the community don't see an issue because it doesn't violate an outdated FPG.

Either way, it needs to be fixed. I will state again if a guy wants 13 teams, he should be able to have 13 teams. But there has to be a way to stop him from cross-referencing scouting. As in, if his D1 school scouts NH, his D3 school cannot. But I think that's a lot of work to program.

Count the number of people on this post who've said it's wrong, vs the number who are defending the practice. Since you started this thread to get a "lay of the land", I'm curious why you're still not satisfied that most users are against multiple teams in the same world?

I think WIS could write software that looks at

- IP addresses
- credit cards used for payments
- timing of log ons

correlations of the above, raise a question whether there is one owner of two teams - the first two items could well be parent/child, so I would expect WIS to ping such users and ask - do you have two teams. If the answer is oh no, its my son - then if the logons are highly correlated - the easy followup is - really, its odd that you and your son both check your teams within the same few minutes every day for the last 20 days.....

it cant be hard to do something like this.

Posted by johnsensing on 4/4/2017 10:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by whitey34 on 4/4/2017 10:03:00 AM (view original):
Really there is a simple fix. You can't have 2 teams in a world. It's easy to trace through IP addresses. I play a football sim. It's free unless you want to change team name, players and so on. It makes far less $ than this and still polices IP addresses. 10 teams are plenty. I don't know how someone you can have a job and still have time to keep up with over a couple teams. Solution is easy and whatif needs to stop being lazy in policing it.

I think the vast majority of people agree that users shouldn't have two teams in a world. But is WIS really going to enforce it? Does your IP address solution allow two family members to use the same CPU to compete against each other with different teams in the same world? (Genuine question -- I don't know enough about IP addresses.) If not, that seems to be a flaw.

Good point. Sometimes rules to prevent cheating affect those who don't. I have a cousin who does the football sim with me. Sometimes due to me working a lot during summer months, it be nice to have some help with my team, but we know that can't happen because our teams would be caught and locked for 30 days. I'd rather a clean game though.

I may have contributed to muddying the waters when I referred to the 3.0 international scouting/recruiting with multiple IDs as a loophole. It's cheating. Using multiple IDs to get advantages with more players is cheating. And it's explicitly against FPGs. Exploiting loopholes isn't necessarily cheating, but it definitely is when it creates an unfair advantage over players abiding by the FPGs.

I don't see things like discovering pulldowns as loopholes anyway. It's just discovering an aspect of the game. For a long time in 3.0, most people didn't think promises increased the value of visits. A few of us suspected they might, and recruited accordingly. That's not exploiting a loophole, it's just pursuing a different method. Sometimes that method ends up being beneficial.

Now for what it's worth, I have no reason to think emy himself cheats. I enjoyed battling against him in the previous version (maybe with my alt ID? :) There's a big difference between great, competitive coaches like emy, and guys who are always looking to cut corners. In the former group, I fully expect them to pursue whatever legitimate competitive advantages they can conceive. The latter group is not concerned with legitimacy, or "fair play".

Posted by metsmax on 4/4/2017 10:14:00 AM (view original):
I think WIS could write software that looks at

- IP addresses
- credit cards used for payments
- timing of log ons

correlations of the above, raise a question whether there is one owner of two teams - the first two items could well be parent/child, so I would expect WIS to ping such users and ask - do you have two teams. If the answer is oh no, its my son - then if the logons are highly correlated - the easy followup is - really, its odd that you and your son both check your teams within the same few minutes every day for the last 20 days.....

it cant be hard to do something like this.

Exactly!