Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 5/17/2010And, for the record, saying "I don't have a problem fillng MY world" doesn't mean there isn't a problem.   I know I've said it before, just to be an ***, but when there are dozens of worlds posting "Just need two to roll today", there is a problem.I said long ago that HBD was going to develop into 3-4 different types of worlds.   It has.  The quality worlds with aggressive commissioners aren't going to have a problem filling.  People want to be in these worlds because they know they won't have to wait to play and that the competition is good.  But that's not the majority of the worlds. 

Quote: Originally Posted By nfet on 5/17/2010
Maybe WIS could introduce something that could characterize or identify worlds more clearly?

Quote: Originally Posted By 98greenc5 on 5/17/2010

Here is a fun idea that WiS would never do:

You can open a new world whenever you want, but there can be no change of the 32 owners for 5 seasons ... can't keep your 32 owners for 5 season, the world folds ... obviously it wouldn't work for any number of reasons, most notably that any one owner could hold the world "hostage" if he decided

But in general I've always thought that WiS should let private worlds be formed by anyone for any reason ... but let it be known that 1) they can never go public, 2) that WiS takes no ownership in them being able to have 32 owners to play the next season, and 3) that all owners are in the league soley at the commish's request and can be kicked out at any time ... and obviously they would never do this because they are so scared of the whine-fest tickets they will get from disgruntled owners, but that is the only way to respect the "private" aspect of private worlds and let supply and demand seek its own level




I suggested something similar somewhere. Make anyone joining a new world buy a 4-pack that can only be applied to this new world. You wanna leave after 1 season? Sure. But you've just paid $89.95 for a season. I think that would lessen the desire for something shiny and new or, at the very least, only attract owners who are sure they want to play with that group of owners for a full year.

Quote: Originally Posted By nfet on 5/17/2010

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 5/17/201
And, for the record, saying "I don't have a problem fillng MY world" doesn't mean there isn't a problem. I know I've said it before, just to be an ***, but when there are dozens of worlds posting "Just need two to roll today", there is a problem.

I said long ago that HBD was going to develop into 3-4 different types of worlds. It has. The quality worlds with aggressive commissioners aren't going to have a problem filling. People want to be in these worlds because they know they won't have to wait to play and that the competition is good. But that's not the majority of the worlds.

It's important to note here that you say things just to be an *** sometimes. Many miket wannabes would benefit from keeping that in mind.

Seriously though, I would add that it is actually difficult to get a read on a world until you've invested a few seasons into it. Even doing your homework, checking on the world history and all that, it's tough to know the character of a world. For a n00b, it would be even more than difficult.

Maybe WIS could introduce something that could characterize or identify worlds more clearly?




Yeah, if anyone DIDN'T know I say things, on occassion, just to be an ***, they haven't been paying attention.

The ONLY thing that WifS could introduce that wouldn't result in scores of tickets like 'motown suggests would beAverage number of openings and Average wait time between seasons. Anything else would be subjective and create more problems than it solves.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 5/17/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 5/16/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By grivfmd1 on 5/16/2010

I know nothing about Bo Jackson but

Retorically(sp?) - is "a large amount of one and done owners" good for WIS's business

I have no issue with WIS looking at a league and saying "there is nothing wrong here" and leaving it alone for one or two years to see if it heals itself.WIS Administration is as capable (I hope) as we are of seeing when a league has been FUBARed (f**ked up beyond all recognition) and should act on it. What the posters here seem to disagree on is whether it is in WIS's business interest to act. I believe it is, Mike apparently does not. Not the 1st time he is wrong.

Mike and I apparently agree that WIS's definition of "bad behavior" is inadequate. We have both encourage more stringent "rules" in the leagues we commish than WIS's "fair play" rules. Apparently we both feel that encouraging "bad behavior" results in more "bad behavior". I feel "bad behavior is bad for business and WIS needs to take "bad behavior" more seriously if they wish to improve business.




Now you're letting someone decide who as a "super" team. And you're putting it into the hands of the same folks who think winning 41 games and not using fatigued pitchers for 10 straight games is good enough to not be violating any fair play guidelines.

That doesn't seem like a smart thing to do. At all.

Not sure why you ignored this.

Quote: Originally Posted By soxfan121 on 5/17/2010WifS has proven that they are not going to return worlds to "dynasty central for adjustment". They are going to wait for users to fix the problem. As a business strategy, it's borderline brilliant. Managing a complex system is tricky at best, but here they have the white knights on horseback who will organize a posse and ride to the rescue. It's not like this is a new problem...it's been a problem since I've been around and I've got 30 seasons of reading these boards. And the rescue efforts keep happening - so at this point, WifS has no motivation to do anything other than answer tickets and process CC#'s. (and work on an update, hopefully)

There are a couple different levels of HBD worlds:
1A. The aggressively managed private worlds that roll quickly and make a lot of noise about being elite because they are (Cooperstown, etc)
1B. The strong core private worlds that have highly loyal membership, formal or infomal rules, little drama and stable, long term ownership (MLB, Kinsella, etc) with few openings, quick rollovers and elite competition
2. The broad middle class of private worlds that take a few days to fill, have decent competitive balance and quiet commissioners (Puckett, etc)
3. The newer private worlds from merges or competitive balance issues or past drama that need 8-12 or more at each rollover
4. The top tier public worlds heavy with vets and long-timers (Aaron?, etc)
5. Public worlds

New users almost always end up in #3 or #5. Leagues in group 2 are wary of upsetting a developing world with a disruptive n00b or alias; Group 1A. won't even consider players without specific experience requirements, Group 1B very rarely do and only on strong references. Group 4 rarely has an opening that isn't coveted or planned for.

Which leaves the low-tier private worlds who always need ~8 and the public pool. Both are rife with predators - either super teams, aliases or both. And both are where new users are funneled.

That's why WifS is giving 'trusted' customers the chance to recruit 8 new owners and opening new worlds. Because they're starting to see that one & done is the most frequent result of being confined to groups 3 & 5. WifS sees new worlds as a chance to admit new users to the Group 2 experience - which is where they make their money.

Quote: Originally Posted By grivfmd1 on 5/17/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 5/17/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 5/16/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By grivfmd1 on 5/16/2010

I know nothing about Bo Jackson but

Retorically(sp?) - is "a large amount of one and done owners" good for WIS's business

I have no issue with WIS looking at a league and saying "there is nothing wrong here" and leaving it alone for one or two years to see if it heals itself.WIS Administration is as capable (I hope) as we are of seeing when a league has been FUBARed (f**ked up beyond all recognition) and should act on it. What the posters here seem to disagree on is whether it is in WIS's business interest to act. I believe it is, Mike apparently does not. Not the 1st time he is wrong.

Mike and I apparently agree that WIS's definition of "bad behavior" is inadequate. We have both encourage more stringent "rules" in the leagues we commish than WIS's "fair play" rules. Apparently we both feel that encouraging "bad behavior" results in more "bad behavior". I feel "bad behavior is bad for business and WIS needs to take "bad behavior" more seriously if they wish to improve business.




Now you're letting someone decide who as a "super" team. And you're putting it into the hands of the same folks who think winning 41 games and not using fatigued pitchers for 10 straight games is good enough to not be violating any fair play guidelines.

That doesn't seem like a smart thing to do. At all.

Not sure why you ignored this.

It was ignored because it was addressed in the original statement. IF WIS makes a conscious decision to change its approach they are probably intelligent enough to recognize a FUBARed league from a "bad luck" league. I can not rule out the possibility that they are not intelligent enough to do so therefore the (I HOPE)


Uh, the bolded, italicized part is their solution for tanking. Would you like to re-phrase your thought?

Quote: Originally Posted By soxfan121 on 5/17/2010

So, by community service, do you mean "Taking on a free, still loaded team that should win 90-100 games for the next 6 seasons by just re-signing players after all the clean-up work is done"?

Because, if that's what you mean, I'd say you've accomplished your goal.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 5/17/2010

The ONLY thing that WifS could introduce that wouldn't result in scores of tickets like 'motown suggests would beAverage number of openings and Average wait time between seasons. Anything else would be subjective and create more problems than it solves.