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.

Posted by jpmills3 on 8/28/2012 7:07:00 AM (view original):

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.

Posted by acn24 on 8/28/2012 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 8/28/2012 7:07:00 AM (view original):

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.

So it shouldn't apply since both teams were established before the rule was put in place? Again, they could have mentioned that either in the rule or during the CS exchange I had asking if I really had to leave the school I had spent 15 seasons building up from a doormat into an NT contender in one of the toughest DII conferences in HD, and the answer was a definite yes.

It is BS that they have a rule but choose not to enforce it.

Posted by dacj501 on 8/28/2012 10:02:00 AM (view original):
Thank you caesari. To the others who question my motives, that's fine, its your right to do so. I would not benefit from this either way - I am not in  a conference with this coach nor is he particularly near my team in that world. As to the allegation I am behind some other coach being affected by this I can only insist that I had nothing to do with that, believe what you will.

I thought I made my point perfectly clear. I believe that the rule, if it exists at all (which I don't believe it should, but since it does...) should be applied to all users equally. My money is just as green as anyone else's; why should we be allowed to play by different rules? I'm ok with folks disagreeing, but I guess the negativity, while not entirely unexpected, is a bit disappointing. Given your basically unfounded attack jp, I'm glad I left your conference too...

Posted by jpmills3 on 8/28/2012 10:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 8/28/2012 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 8/28/2012 7:07:00 AM (view original):

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.

So it shouldn't apply since both teams were established before the rule was put in place? Again, they could have mentioned that either in the rule or during the CS exchange I had asking if I really had to leave the school I had spent 15 seasons building up from a doormat into an NT contender in one of the toughest DII conferences in HD, and the answer was a definite yes.

It is BS that they have a rule but choose not to enforce it.

You didn't tell us how far your school was from the other school.  Did you get prior approval for that 2nd school too?  A school that is 850 miles as the crow flies is hardly close for recruiting purposes (especially at D2 in your case).  If that was the case, you should have continued to escalate it and made it a big deal.   Ex post facto enforcement is an awful policy.

Posted by caesari on 8/28/2012 8:26:00 AM (view original):

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.

Posted by acn24 on 8/28/2012 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 8/28/2012 10:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by acn24 on 8/28/2012 9:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jpmills3 on 8/28/2012 7:07:00 AM (view original):

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.

So it shouldn't apply since both teams were established before the rule was put in place? Again, they could have mentioned that either in the rule or during the CS exchange I had asking if I really had to leave the school I had spent 15 seasons building up from a doormat into an NT contender in one of the toughest DII conferences in HD, and the answer was a definite yes.

It is BS that they have a rule but choose not to enforce it.

You didn't tell us how far your school was from the other school.  Did you get prior approval for that 2nd school too?  A school that is 850 miles as the crow flies is hardly close for recruiting purposes (especially at D2 in your case).  If that was the case, you should have continued to escalate it and made it a big deal.   Ex post facto enforcement is an awful policy.

550 miles between a DI and DII team. I had never gotten 'approval' for a sEcond team because it was never required, Admin had never done anything regarding teams in different divisions. It was expressly stated to me in the thread that Coaches would not be allowed to have two teams within 1000 miles of each other, that coaches could finish current seasons and that CS would provide assistance if loyalty/reputation prevented a move to a different school.

FYI though - in the case at hand - the user had went to WIS before acquiring the 2nd team to find out the mileage requirements (which were not posted at that time, but officially/unofficially 800 miles).  They relied on WIS telling them that 800 miles was the rule.

Posted by dacj501 on 8/28/2012 10:36:00 AM (view original):

FYI though - in the case at hand - the user had went to WIS before acquiring the 2nd team to find out the mileage requirements (which were not posted at that time, but officially/unofficially 800 miles).  They relied on WIS telling them that 800 miles was the rule.

jp, I do not believe that is the case. I believe that the user in question had both teams for some time before inquiring about the distance and getting permission to keep both teams to my knowledge. This was granted apparently shortly before the rule was enacted. I do believe both teams were already established before the CS discussion was had.

Posted by dacj501 on 8/28/2012 10:23:00 AM (view original):
Yes unfounded, as in, having no evidentiary basis. I don't even recall the mets thing, I have no idea when it occurred. (Unless it happened yesterday and you are referring to this thread when you say I publicly questioned the policy.) If it happened some time ago, I don't recall what I might have said. If you do, or know where I can see it, I'll take a look and answer more specifically. My memory is not great, and I sometimes find posts on threads I'm browsing that I don't recall making. It happens a lot actually. My questioning the policy now is also not really evidence that I acted on something in the past. Coincidence is also not evidence.

I do recall that I was in the SEC in Tark when mlats was forced to leave Mississippi over this type of thing before the rule was in place. I was vocally against that action, and even sent a ticket in complaining about the situation (a ticket I then pulled and closed without a response as, once I calmed down and re-read it realized it would have no effect other than souring CS against me...) But, as I said, believe what you will. I will continue to defend my honor (which is what is being impinged here by you and johnsensing) to the best of my ability.

Yes, it happened yesterday.  You can't even acknowledge the "coincidental" nature of things?  While questioning the policy now is not evidence you acted on something, the fact that you already admittedly acted on this issue in the same world, could at least be considered circumstantial evidence, no?

If I find out that mets left voluntarily, I will happily give you a big apology.  Seriously, happily do it.  20 point font.

 

Posted by dacj501 on 8/28/2012 10:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 8/28/2012 10:36:00 AM (view original):

FYI though - in the case at hand - the user had went to WIS before acquiring the 2nd team to find out the mileage requirements (which were not posted at that time, but officially/unofficially 800 miles).  They relied on WIS telling them that 800 miles was the rule.

jp, I do not believe that is the case. I believe that the user in question had both teams for some time before inquiring about the distance and getting permission to keep both teams to my knowledge. This was granted apparently shortly before the rule was enacted. I do believe both teams were already established before the CS discussion was had.

For the record, so my position is clear, either way (getting approval for 800 prior to taking new school or having both long term and then getting approval at 850ish) I still don't feel the rule should have exceptions. It has nothing to do with a competitive edge and everything to do with if there is a rule all users should be bound by it equally.

Posted by dacj501 on 8/28/2012 10:42:00 AM (view original):
I had no idea til you mentioned it that mets left a job yesterday.  I can't prove that in any way short of ESP. It is coincidental, I'll agree. I suppose it could be construed as circumstantial evidence of a sort. I guess I will change my previous wording to poorly founded accusation, instead of totally unfounded.