Quote: Originally Posted By tzentmeyer on 4/09/2010Lots of good comments so far.

And so you guys know, there are 150+ worlds. We receive 25+ tickets per week where one owner or another is asking us to ban another owner from a world. As it is, each ticket takes about 30 minutes to address by the time the back and forth has concluded. I think it's safe to assume both you (the HBD community) and I (WIS) would much rather have us spend our time on development and improving the game and bringing more new users to the game.

The original intent of private worlds included giving the commish full power to restrict access to the world each season. That worked for quite a while. It has recently started breaking down.

I'd like to throw out some actual examples we've had to see if that changes any opinions or generates any more ideas.

A) Veteran commish wants one or multiple owners out of the world. Each owner has been in it for 3+ seasons. Owners have not come anywhere near the tanking guideline of .250 winning percentage. Closer to .450. The owners haven't caused major problems via posts, chats, etc. Owner wants them out because he feels they just aren't good enough for the world. How can we justify not letting 3 owners who have spent time and money on the teams for 3+ seasons back for another season?

B) Private world goes public to fill a few spots. Owner joins when it's public. End of season, reverts to private. Owner doesn't want the owner back the next season. No good reason provided.

C) Middle of season, private world. User has team with fatigued relief pitchers and pretty mediocre offense/defense. Commish wants them out because they aren't investing the same time commitment as he/she. Not violating any stated rules anywhere, just want them out.

D) Spat in a private world. 6+ owners threaten to quit if commish isn't removed. 6+ owners threaten to quit if commish is removed. Source of debate is personal/attitude, not team play.

E) Owner joins private world. Private world has special rules. Owner doesn't meet special rules. We remove. Owner comes back asking what rules were violated. While the world may have special rules, it's not part of Terms of Service.

These are just a few of the examples.

Most of you are rationale individuals and enjoy playing a game and treat each other with respect and do things the right way. But there are many people playing and we have to be prepared for the extremes which occur far more frequently than we'd like

Quote: Originally posted by tzentmeyer on 4/09/2010Lots of good comments so far.

And so you guys know, there are 150+ worlds. We receive 25+ tickets per week where one owner or another is asking us to ban another owner from a world. As it is, each ticket takes about 30 minutes to address by the time the back and forth has concluded. I think it's safe to assume both you (the HBD community) and I (WIS) would much rather have us spend our time on development and improving the game and bringing more new users to the game.

The original intent of private worlds included giving the commish full power to restrict access to the world each season. That worked for quite a while. It has recently started breaking down.

I'd like to throw out some actual examples we've had to see if that changes any opinions or generates any more ideas.

A) Veteran commish wants one or multiple owners out of the world. Each owner has been in it for 3+ seasons. Owners have not come anywhere near the tanking guideline of .250 winning percentage. Closer to .450. The owners haven't caused major problems via posts, chats, etc. Owner wants them out because he feels they just aren't good enough for the world. How can we justify not letting 3 owners who have spent time and money on the teams for 3+ seasons back for another season?

B) Private world goes public to fill a few spots. Owner joins when it's public. End of season, reverts to private. Owner doesn't want the owner back the next season. No good reason provided.

C) Middle of season, private world. User has team with fatigued relief pitchers and pretty mediocre offense/defense. Commish wants them out because they aren't investing the same time commitment as he/she. Not violating any stated rules anywhere, just want them out.

D) Spat in a private world. 6+ owners threaten to quit if commish isn't removed. 6+ owners threaten to quit if commish is removed. Source of debate is personal/attitude, not team play.

E) Owner joins private world. Private world has special rules. Owner doesn't meet special rules. We remove. Owner comes back asking what rules were violated. While the world may have special rules, it's not part of Terms of Service.

These are just a few of the examples.

Most of you are rationale individuals and enjoy playing a game and treat each other with respect and do things the right way. But there are many people playing and we have to be prepared for the extremes which occur far more frequently than we'd like.

Quote: Originally Posted By tzentmeyer on 4/09/2010
A) Veteran commish wants one or multiple owners out of the world. Each owner has been in it for 3+ seasons. Owners have not come anywhere near the tanking guideline of .250 winning percentage. Closer to .450. The owners haven't caused major problems via posts, chats, etc. Owner wants them out because he feels they just aren't good enough for the world. How can we justify not letting 3 owners who have spent time and money on the teams for 3+ seasons back for another season


I'll answer this one since it applies more closely to my situation.

First, .250 is a silly number. 41 wins can be achieved by signing 25 players at the end of FA and putting the team on auto. But that's another argument, I suppose. Second, total wins does not define effort. As I've mentioned previously, an owner can be 41-50 at the A/S break. And lose 71 straight to finish the season above .250. Third, WifS allows owners to reserve one season at a time. That implies that we are paying for the current game. There is no guarantee that the world will fill for next season. There is no guarantee that WifS will be in business in June. We are guaranteed refunds if we request them. Therefore, there is no guarantee that any owner will be playing a future season in any world. Lastly, I feel, as a commish, that one of my few responsibilities is to maintain the integrity of the world. This includes the level of play. If an owner is in "over his head", he is not "good enough". If a commish can't maintain the competition level or expected standards of play in a private world, is there a need for private worlds? What purpose will they serve?

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 4/09/2010Third, WifS allows owners to reserve one season at a time.  That implies that we are paying for the current game. There is no guarantee that the world will fill for next season. There is no guarantee that WifS will be in business in June.  We are guaranteed refunds if we request them. Therefore, there is no guarantee that any owner will be playing a future season in any world.

Quote: Originally Posted By crickett13 on 4/09/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By tzentmeyer on 4/09/2010
Lots of good comments so far.

And so you guys know, there are 150+ worlds. We receive 25+ tickets per week where one owner or another is asking us to ban another owner from a world. As it is, each ticket takes about 30 minutes to address by the time the back and forth has concluded. I think it's safe to assume both you (the HBD community) and I (WIS) would much rather have us spend our time on development and improving the game and bringing more new users to the game.

The original intent of private worlds included giving the commish full power to restrict access to the world each season. That worked for quite a while. It has recently started breaking down.

I'd like to throw out some actual examples we've had to see if that changes any opinions or generates any more ideas.

A) Veteran commish wants one or multiple owners out of the world. Each owner has been in it for 3+ seasons. Owners have not come anywhere near the tanking guideline of .250 winning percentage. Closer to .450. The owners haven't caused major problems via posts, chats, etc. Owner wants them out because he feels they just aren't good enough for the world. How can we justify not letting 3 owners who have spent time and money on the teams for 3+ seasons back for another season?

B) Private world goes public to fill a few spots. Owner joins when it's public. End of season, reverts to private. Owner doesn't want the owner back the next season. No good reason provided.

C) Middle of season, private world. User has team with fatigued relief pitchers and pretty mediocre offense/defense. Commish wants them out because they aren't investing the same time commitment as he/she. Not violating any stated rules anywhere, just want them out.

D) Spat in a private world. 6+ owners threaten to quit if commish isn't removed. 6+ owners threaten to quit if commish is removed. Source of debate is personal/attitude, not team play.

E) Owner joins private world. Private world has special rules. Owner doesn't meet special rules. We remove. Owner comes back asking what rules were violated. While the world may have special rules, it's not part of Terms of Service.

These are just a few of the examples.

Most of you are rationale individuals and enjoy playing a game and treat each other with respect and do things the right way. But there are many people playing and we have to be prepared for the extremes which occur far more frequently than we'd like.

A) Dear User You joined a private world. If you want WIS to protect you join a Public World.

B) Dear User as shown on the join page you joined a Private world that had gone public to fill. If you want WIS to protect you join a public world (for this WIS would need to note that this is a private world gone public on the join page)

C) Dear Comish X As stated in the fair play guidlines we will not remove anyone during mid season unless they have violated one of our terms and conditions. As comisioner you of course still have the ability to not ask them back but untill then if you can not provide us with concrete examples of how they violated our rules then they will stay.

D) Dear Comisioner X and all users in world whatever. According to our rules we need to find out if this world still wishes comish X to represent them please respond with a yes vote to keep Comish X or a no vote to have him removed.

E) Dear user You Joined a private world. If you want WIS to protect you join a public world.

Quote: Originally Posted By tzentmeyer on 4/09/2010Lots of good comments so far.

And so you guys know, there are 150+ worlds. We receive 25+ tickets per week where one owner or another is asking us to ban another owner from a world. As it is, each ticket takes about 30 minutes to address by the time the back and forth has concluded. I think it's safe to assume both you (the HBD community) and I (WIS) would much rather have us spend our time on development and improving the game and bringing more new users to the game.

The original intent of private worlds included giving the commish full power to restrict access to the world each season. That worked for quite a while. It has recently started breaking down.

I'd like to throw out some actual examples we've had to see if that changes any opinions or generates any more ideas.

A) Veteran commish wants one or multiple owners out of the world. Each owner has been in it for 3+ seasons. Owners have not come anywhere near the tanking guideline of .250 winning percentage. Closer to .450. The owners haven't caused major problems via posts, chats, etc. Owner wants them out because he feels they just aren't good enough for the world. How can we justify not letting 3 owners who have spent time and money on the teams for 3+ seasons back for another season?

B) Private world goes public to fill a few spots. Owner joins when it's public. End of season, reverts to private. Owner doesn't want the owner back the next season. No good reason provided.

C) Middle of season, private world. User has team with fatigued relief pitchers and pretty mediocre offense/defense. Commish wants them out because they aren't investing the same time commitment as he/she. Not violating any stated rules anywhere, just want them out.

D) Spat in a private world. 6+ owners threaten to quit if commish isn't removed. 6+ owners threaten to quit if commish is removed. Source of debate is personal/attitude, not team play.

E) Owner joins private world. Private world has special rules. Owner doesn't meet special rules. We remove. Owner comes back asking what rules were violated. While the world may have special rules, it's not part of Terms of Service.

These are just a few of the examples.

Most of you are rationale individuals and enjoy playing a game and treat each other with respect and do things the right way. But there are many people playing and we have to be prepared for the extremes which occur far more frequently than we'd like

Quote: Originally Posted By tecwrg on 4/09/2010I just want to thank tzent for coming forward and actively addressing and discussing this with us today. It's good to know that he is concerned and is looking for a compromise that (hopefully) will be satisfactory to both WIS and the HBD community at large.