ANTI-TANKING RULES Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
The TOS clearly states that they will decide on removing owners regardless of rules.  They don't want to do it.   I don't blame them.   But, as I've said repeatedly, the more interpretation the world uses, the bigger the loophole that's created.   Judging from ADMIN's response, they would not have removed booger if he had kept his yap shut in the WC. 
9/21/2010 8:43 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
I think my "banal shite" makes a little more sense than this:

9/21/2010 8:46 AM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
Why?  You've got a set formula for determining who the best singer is out of a group of singers?
9/21/2010 8:48 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by nfet on 9/21/2010 8:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/21/2010 8:17:00 AM (view original):
In my experience, most cops are egomaniacs on power trips.    While there are some who legitimately want to uphold the law, even those guys will give the buxom blonde a warning while writing you a ticket for the same infraction. 

Nonetheless, I'm sure cops aren't told to "Interpret the law and enforce as you see fit."    Which is what your Panel of Five is doing.
I'm sure that they do, and are expected to.  
I'm sure they don't and aren't expected to.   That's why they don't dish out the punishment.    They take you to jail and let someone else decide your fate. 
9/21/2010 8:59 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
I don't believe there's any singing in HBD. 

But there is a set formula to determine if an owner meets a win requirement.  It's called "YES/NO". 

No tribunal required.
9/21/2010 8:59 AM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
Posted by BastanRedsox on 9/20/2010 3:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 9/20/2010 11:17:00 AM (view original):
And, again, the point is "How will that group of people make their judgement?"    Will it be fair?  Will they add personalities into the equation?  Did one have a bad day?  Did any of them find a bag of money?  

Try as you might, once you have "judgements" being made by owners in the world, you blurr the lines between fair/unfair. 
So I'm guessing that you don't believe in our legal system when it is a bench trial.
Alot of people in prisons(or was in prisons) that 12 men/women found guilty only to find that years later with the help of DNA that these people were  innocent.
9/21/2010 8:59 AM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
win requirement isn't the same as a no tanking rule.  Read about 4 pages ago.  And, if there's no singing in HBD then it's a horrible analogy to introduce, isn't it? Seriously tecwrg, your arguments have as much weight as bowling pins.

Mike, how happy do you think a judge would be hearing a case about a guy that was driving his pregnant wife to the hospital and got ticketed for doing 57 in a 55 on an empty highway?  As well, officers dish out fines.
9/21/2010 9:08 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Are we supposed to care if judges are happy?     Officers dish out fines based on a pre-set list.  Do you really think an officer can say "Hmmmm......58 in 40,  I think that will be $133,58 today!"?   Really?
9/21/2010 9:21 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by nfet on 9/21/2010 9:08:00 AM (view original):
win requirement isn't the same as a no tanking rule.  Read about 4 pages ago.  And, if there's no singing in HBD then it's a horrible analogy to introduce, isn't it? Seriously tecwrg, your arguments have as much weight as bowling pins.

Mike, how happy do you think a judge would be hearing a case about a guy that was driving his pregnant wife to the hospital and got ticketed for doing 57 in a 55 on an empty highway?  As well, officers dish out fines.

As much as you would like to think so, you can't separate tanking from win requirements. 

You cannot enforce a rule about tanking, because there will almost always be some subjectivity involved in determining if somebody is intentionally losing (hard tanking), being indifferent to winning (soft tanking), hitting a streak of bad luck, or just good old-fashioned inability.  Subjectivity invites inconsistency in the decision making process.  Subjectivity invites popularity contests.  Subjectivity allows Randy, Paula and Simon (or Ellen or Steven) to make the decisions.

You can enforce a win requirement.  Either you meet the requirement or you don't.  The numbers makes the decision.  It's completely objective.

Yes, it's that simple.

9/21/2010 11:29 AM (edited)
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
I think there can be tanking without a win requirement but it becomes very subjective and WIS may not enforce it. It involves pitching 0(0) guys, signing tryout campers for the big league level, and other very blantant stuff. That's why a win requirement is preferred by most of the top leagues as it is an objective and easily enforced rule. And WIS has been frowning on any set of league rules that involves some sort of subjective review by one or a group of people, such as the rules that WIS made us re-write in ABU after hart had a little hissy-fit because he was scared that he would get voted out of the league due to the fact that noone likes him.
9/21/2010 10:04 AM
greeny9
Posts: 1444 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 37 11
Prospect
For worlds that want anti-tanking rules Id say you need to have a win floor in addition to a panel of 5-10 regulars from said world.  Evidence needs to be weighed and punishment needs to be handed out.  Subjectivity is fine as long as the decision being made is agreed upon by the panel.  At which time WIS should abide with what the panel has unilateraly agreed upon.  Why shouldnt we have the right to self-police?  As long as there is a panel that is in complete agreeance with what is fair punishment?  In the case of Rickey Its obvious in my eyes that boogerlips was tanking from his ACTIONS in addition to what he was saying in WC and in the investigation.  I also believe that n00bs - real noobs - that have 0 experience previous to said season should be given the benefit of the doubt, and be handed a mentor whom the panel agrees upon, who said n00b can go to with questions and advice.
9/21/2010 10:19 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I have anti-tanking rules in both worlds I commish.   Win 55/125/195/280.   Plain and simple.  I won't be booting the guy who wins 57, unless he blatantly tanks down the stretch, and I won't be giving out reprieves to my buddy if he win 53.    I think good worlds want good owners who can win games at an acceptable rate.   Other worlds, which may still be good, like friendly fellows who do their best.    But that's where the problem starts.   What if he's disliked(like harthj in tankerwood's example)?   What if his "best" would be good enough if he was friendly chap?   Is his "best" lesser because he's a pain in the ***? 
9/21/2010 11:26 AM
mhulshult
Posts: 982 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 3 63
Prospect
What do you mean when you say, "unless he blatantly tanks down the stretch"?  IOW, how subjective are you willing to get?  Are we just talking about putting your ML squad on non-revokeable (?sp) waivers, or does flipping two or three starters with long relievers count as "blatantly tanking"?  And I'm not trying to make a point...I'm genuinely curious.
9/21/2010 11:40 AM (edited)
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Wins and losses.  If you go 2-18(and you're a .400 team), I'll look at your team and see what you've done.    If you go 6-14(and you're a .400 team), I'm not looking for anything.   Same goes for a L12 or whatever.   I have no desire to tell anyone how to run their team.  I've got my own team to screw up.   So, if you want to win games 33-31 by using 8 DH, have at it.   But win games.   Not winning games invites examination. 
9/21/2010 11:40 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
And, to be clear, EVERY world has some indifference to winning down the stretch.   Always has, always will.   But, with my 4 season win rules, it's not real bright to play for the minimums.   It can bite you in the *** later.
9/21/2010 11:41 AM
◂ Prev 1...13|14|15|16 Next ▸
ANTI-TANKING RULES Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.