TZ I find it interesting that you have not chimed in on whether Admin will support league rules which differ from the WIS guidlines.

Admins continued silence makes it seem that admin will not and will "strike down" league rules and side with the owner who breaks them.

Quote: Originally Posted By crickett13 on 4/10/2010
TZ I find it interesting that you have not chimed in on whether Admin will support league rules which differ from the WIS guidlines.

Admins continued silence makes it seem that admin will not and will "strike down" league rules and side with the owner who breaks them.

Sure they did.

They removed the owner from Coop. That should be your answer. They revised the TOS to allow for the removal between seasons

With regards to private worlds, a commissioner may prevent an owner from entering at the start of a season via the password system. If it's a returning owner, the commish must request the removal via customer support ticket and it must include the rationale for removal and the rationale must be acceptable (we evaluate). A ticket must be submitted before the end of a season and the same ticket must be re-opened after the world rolls over if the owner tries to return to the world.

An owner violating established league rules would be sufficient rationale. In actuality the owner was removed from Coop with a lesser burden of proof, as was the public world owner.

In season removal is still an open issue. They set the standards way too low. I understand why they did that--those owners already paid their $ and those credits have been applied.

If an owner knows that if they tank they will be removed before the start of the next season, then they have absolutely no reason to tank. They wont be there to reap the benefits.

Quote: Smoelheim is in one of the worlds I commish and I have never had a problem with him. I am also in one of the worlds Smoelheim commishes and I feel he has done a good job in commishing that world. I don't know the situation with cooperstown but he is welcomed in the world I commish and I have no intentions of leaving the world he commishes.

+1

THE issue - at least for those of us in Cooperstown who were directly effected by Smoelheim's appeal to WIS - is not whether he is a "good owner" or a "good commissioner" elsewhere or even in Cooperstown. It was and is on the impact his and WIS's initial response would have on the ability to maintain the integrity of private leagues which would have been (and may still be) disastrous.

I encourage all commissioners (even Smoelheim and Plague) to get their league rules in order, approved by your leagues owners, and published - you WILL need them.

Quote: Originally posted by grivfmd1 on 4/10/2010THE issue - at least for those of us in Cooperstown who were directly effected by Smoelheim's appeal to WIS - is not whether he is a "good owner" or a "good commissioner" elsewhere or even in Cooperstown.  It was and is on the impact his and WIS's initial response would have on the ability to maintain the integrity of private leagues which would have been (and may still be) disastrous.

+1

Quote: Originally posted by grivfmd1 on 4/10/2010THE issue - at least for those of us in Cooperstown who were directly effected by Smoelheim's appeal to WIS - is not whether he is a "good owner" or a "good commissioner" elsewhere or even in Cooperstown.  It was and is on the impact his and WIS's initial response would have on the ability to maintain the integrity of private leagues which would have been (and may still be) disastrous.I encourage all commissioners (even Smoelheim and Plague) to get their league rules in order, approved by your leagues owners, and published - you WILL need them.

I don't really know about the Cooperstown issue. I was mainly responding to the remark about Smoelheim would be treated like small pox. I just wanted to say he has been a good coach in the worlds I have coached. That does not mean I agree or disagree with whatever situation he is apart of in Cooperstown.

I have mixed feelings on the new policy. As a GM I would want the ability to remove a owner at the end of the season. I consider myself a reasonable commissioner. However there is Commissioners out there that abuse their power and remove owners for reasons that is very unfair to said owner who maybe has invested many seasons into his team. That is the basic reason why Unions and regulations exist. Many in positions of managerial power will abuse their position of power, and I work at a job that has both union and non union employees and non union employees get abused. The managers who abuse their power ruin it for the managers who treat their employees with respect. Anyone that thinks unions are the problem don't realize how abusive management can be to their work force.

Quote: Originally Posted By smoelheim on 4/10/2010The precedent has been set. Any commissioner can have any user removed at any time.

Your refusal to acknowledge the reason why you were asked to leave, and then eventually removed by ADMIN, is laughable.

The updated policy is quite clear: there needs to be a valid reason for owner removal, and WIS has to agree that it IS a valid reason.

Both of those conditions were met yesterday, as is shown by the fact that you were removed from Coop.

Your denial does not change the facts.

Quote: Originally Posted By dmurphy104 on 4/10/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By crickett13 on 4/10/2010

TZ I find it interesting that you have not chimed in on whether Admin will support league rules which differ from the WIS guidlines.

Admins continued silence makes it seem that admin will not and will "strike down" league rules and side with the owner who breaks them.

Sure they did.

They removed the owner from Coop. That should be your answer. They revised the TOS to allow for the removal between seasons

With regards to private worlds, a commissioner may prevent an owner from entering at the start of a season via the password system. If it's a returning owner, the commish must request the removal via customer support ticket and it must include the rationale for removal and the rationale must be acceptable (we evaluate). A ticket must be submitted before the end of a season and the same ticket must be re-opened after the world rolls over if the owner tries to return to the world.

An owner violating established league rules would be sufficient rationale. In actuality the owner was removed from Coop with a lesser burden of proof, as was the public world owner.

No they did not. What they showed in cooperstown was that if the rest of the league is willing to quit then they will remove an owner. Read the fairplay guidlines. There is absolutly no mention that private league rules will be upheld by admin.

The (we evalute) means they reserve the right to overturn private world rules and again their silence says it all. You assume that they will always side with the league when they have shown over and over again that is not true.

Again this would be very simple to clear up by stating here and in the Fair Play Guidelines that private leagues have the right to have their own rules and violating those rules are enough reason to have your franchise stripped. They had no qualms about explicitly stating the conditions where they would remove a comish so this should not be a problem for them either. The fact that it seems to be a problem shows that they will not support a private league when the rules differ from their own.

Quote: Originally posted by dmurphy104 on 4/10/2010An owner violating established league rules would be sufficient rationale. In actuality the owner was removed from Coop with a lesser burden of proof, as was the public world owner.

Just to keep this straight... I never violated any league rules, but was still removed.

<for private worlds> If it's a returning owner, the commish must request the removal via customer support ticket and it must include the rationale for removal and the rationale must be acceptable (we evaluate).

I hope, as others, that this is only a fail safe built in for the extremely rare case. My understanding is private worlds strive to ensure a little more excellence or a specific theme. To enforce these efforts there needs to be a governing body, or commish in this case. Someone to say straighten up or tough cookies. WiS can not be that governing body. Their intrests, rightfully so, lay elsewhere - customer satisfaction and renewed membership.

Their concerns can be met by the continuation of public worlds. And I like the suggestions of a disclaimer in the ToS when signing up for private worlds.

I also liked the suggestions about voting out rogue commish'es. Something like 20 owners or the like.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

You were removed for your inability to field a competitive team, and your subsequent attempt to make it even less competitive after the All-Star break. Mike explained this clearly to you. Mike explained it clearly to WIS in his ticket to have you removed. WIS apparently agreed that this was a valid reason to remove you.

You make it sound like you were removed for an arbitrary reason. It was not. It was based in fact, data and your stated intentions.

Quote: Originally posted by tecwrg on 4/10/2010You were removed for your inability to field a competitive team, and your subsequent attempt to make it even less competitive after the All-Star break.  Mike explained this clearly to you.  Mike explained it clearly to WIS in his ticket to have you removed.  WIS apparently agreed that this was a valid reason to remove you.You make it sound like you were removed for an arbitrary reason.  It was not.  It was based in fact, data and your stated intentions.

FACT: My team was awful at the AS Break. 28-63 (.307).

FACT: My team was going nowhere, so I offered up the two, maybe three assets that my team had, to try and shake things up. I never claimed I wanted only prospects. I DID want less payroll. I'd have taken cheaper MLers, maybe a 2-for-1 deal that would've fixed multiple problems on my team.

FACT: It was all irrelevant anyways, as nobody made me any offers.

FACT: I went 27-42 after the AS Break (.442).

You guys claim that I tried to make my team WORSE after the AS Break, when in fact, my winning percentage improved by 135 points after the break.

The facts, however, became irrelevant because Mike had already made up his mind that I was going to be removed, regardless of how my team ACTUALLY performed in the 2nd half.

So yes, I claim it was arbitrary because the FACTS did not back up his claim.

Nice try.

You were playing .307 ball, and you then attempted a sell-off of what few assets you had. So yes, you did try to make your team worse after the break. The problem (for your plan) was that nobody bought. And it was only AFTER you were called out on your non-competitiveness and attempted fire-sale did you start to put some W's on your record.

Again, indisputable facts. Backed up by your own post.