this seems to be the one thing that always bugs me, that doesnt seem to get as much of a reaction from the other owners. I dont think diabeticrock initially posted anything maliciously..I was just trying to point out how it could lead to an unfair advantage.

I agree with you, dmurphy.  I've changed my prospect rankings before (when I had 20 Mill HS, 0 Coll) to move a guy up that was called out as a stud... of course, I only had a last name to go on, and it turned out I had the wrong guy and drafted him with a comp pick (never signed him, so I don't know how good he was), but that is besides the point.  I've probably done it other times, but that is the only one I remember (for obvious reasons).

Bad form.  I hate when people do it. 

i really wasnt trying to be a dick by pointing it out, or even posting it here. But diabeticrock wont give an inch in admitting that this information could potentially help an owner that doesnt deserve it.

People don't like being told they're wrong and that they don't even understand why they're wrong.

I thought that sharing draft scouting information prior to the draft was considered a pretty serious offense due to the collusive possibilities.

I don't mind so much when someone says, "Wow, that IFA is a stud. Wish I had the money to sign him," or, "Hope that guy falls to me at #5. He's the best pitching prospect I've ever seen." I don't love it, but it doesn't bother me too much when names aren't used. Those who can see them know who they're talking about, and everyone else is just curious or doesn't care.

You are obviously right and I don't think you will get any real disagreement on this board.  Its relatively minor IMO, but you are clearly right.

Let me ask something a shade different.  More than once I have had a top 2 or 3 pick and thought 3-4 guys were really, really close.  I have buddies in every world I play and will sometimes ask their advice on whether I should rank guy A higher or guy B higher not by giving their exact ratings usually, but by finding guys with similar scores and then citing their stats.  For example, I might say "Do you think I should rank Smith who I see hitting .300 with 35 HR's and plus defense for 2b with great durability and health, but make up worries or Johnson who I see as 180 inning guy with #1 starter stuff and great makeup, but a little bit of a health concern higher?."  Technically, I think I violating this principle, but I don't feel like I am doing anything wrong.

Posted by travisg on 2/20/2012 7:07:00 PM (view original):
I don't mind so much when someone says, "Wow, that IFA is a stud. Wish I had the money to sign him," or, "Hope that guy falls to me at #5. He's the best pitching prospect I've ever seen." I don't love it, but it doesn't bother me too much when names aren't used. Those who can see them know who they're talking about, and everyone else is just curious or doesn't care.

Assuming they aren't playing a double secret mind game, the funny thing is the person posting those things are hurting themselves the most.

Posted by topoftheworl on 2/20/2012 7:07:00 PM (view original):
You are obviously right and I don't think you will get any real disagreement on this board.  Its relatively minor IMO, but you are clearly right.

Let me ask something a shade different.  More than once I have had a top 2 or 3 pick and thought 3-4 guys were really, really close.  I have buddies in every world I play and will sometimes ask their advice on whether I should rank guy A higher or guy B higher not by giving their exact ratings usually, but by finding guys with similar scores and then citing their stats.  For example, I might say "Do you think I should rank Smith who I see hitting .300 with 35 HR's and plus defense for 2b with great durability and health, but make up worries or Johnson who I see as 180 inning guy with #1 starter stuff and great makeup, but a little bit of a health concern higher?."  Technically, I think I violating this principle, but I don't feel like I am doing anything wrong.

You're getting information you didn't budget to get, that the random breaks of the game didn't give you, and that all of the other owners don't have.

IMO, you're cheating.  No grey area.

How about this next season - You budget 20 for IFA, one of your buddies budgets 20 for Col, & another budgets 20 for HS.  You all bottom out the other 2.

Then you chat with them about every prospect.  It's not a perfect system.  Sometimes one of you won't see a prospect at all, so you can't bid or draft him. 

You and your buddies do get an extra $40M to do something else with, so that makes up for missing some prospects.

Is that doing anything wrong?

Posted by tufft on 2/20/2012 7:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by topoftheworl on 2/20/2012 7:07:00 PM (view original):
You are obviously right and I don't think you will get any real disagreement on this board.  Its relatively minor IMO, but you are clearly right.

Let me ask something a shade different.  More than once I have had a top 2 or 3 pick and thought 3-4 guys were really, really close.  I have buddies in every world I play and will sometimes ask their advice on whether I should rank guy A higher or guy B higher not by giving their exact ratings usually, but by finding guys with similar scores and then citing their stats.  For example, I might say "Do you think I should rank Smith who I see hitting .300 with 35 HR's and plus defense for 2b with great durability and health, but make up worries or Johnson who I see as 180 inning guy with #1 starter stuff and great makeup, but a little bit of a health concern higher?."  Technically, I think I violating this principle, but I don't feel like I am doing anything wrong.

You're getting information you didn't budget to get, that the random breaks of the game didn't give you, and that all of the other owners don't have.

IMO, you're cheating.  No grey area.

How about this next season - You budget 20 for IFA, one of your buddies budgets 20 for Col, & another budgets 20 for HS.  You all bottom out the other 2.

Then you chat with them about every prospect.  It's not a perfect system.  Sometimes one of you won't see a prospect at all, so you can't bid or draft him. 

You and your buddies do get an extra $40M to do something else with, so that makes up for missing some prospects.

Is that doing anything wrong?

1.  You are adding a quid pro quo that doesn't exist in my question
2.  You are adding a premeditation that doesn't exist in my question

I think its different, but I'll listen if the preponderance of people disagree with me.

Yeah, you're in the wrong.   Not necessarily with what info you'll get but the info you're giving.    Maybe you have 20m and your buddy has 16m.   You see a 2B capable of .300 with 35 homers.    He's sees the same guy but he looks like a LF who might hit .270 with 20 homers.   You've changed his view of said player. You decide on the pitcher, the 2B drops to your buddy because he moved him up 20 slots. 

And, if the budgets are reversed and he says "That dude will never be a 2B or hit .300", he's just given you info you didn't have.   Also cheating.   Intentional or not.

Everything I wrote after the first 2 sentences is speculative.  A quick (& likely ineffective )attempt to demonstrate that is what you are currently doing is cheating.  Maybe not to that extreme, but my example is just one or two steps further past the line you've already crossed.  You're in cheater land.

Once you open the door by asking another owner in your world for information you don't have, you are cheating.  That might upset the part of your self image that likes to think of yourself as a good person, but it doesn't change that what you're doing is cheating at a game.

Would be a different debate if we all had the same information, but we don't.

If you're playing poker with 6 people at the table & 3 of them are showing each other their cards and talking about how much they think they should bet on this hand or should they drop, are you going to stay in the game?  Since you posted it here, there's a reasonable chance you don't see yourself as cheating. But that doesn't mean you aren't.

The only ethical move you can make now is to come 100% clean. Make sure everyone in your world(s) knows who your buddies are. And, if you really want a clean slate, release the draft pick(s) you got based on any knowledge you gathered this way.  At least make that offer to the other owners.

If you were in a world with me, I'd give you that chance to make it right before appealing to WIS & the commish to have you tossed.  I wouldn't want to play in a world where some percentage for the other players were sharing information & tips. Either we're all paying our own cards to win, or some folks are cheating. I'd look for another world.