Yes, but you're stupid at a 45 year old's level.

Ok, I see it, I get it, but I can't link who's his alias.

He might be split personality.

Yeah, I am seriously leaning more towards mentally deficient now than an alias. sport65 has no basis in reality, I don't think...

Although, I haven't ruled out alias. That was absolutely ridiculous, the "only veto because it was a bad deal," to "He was a cheater, protest via the Veto button!" Then the explanation being that he had no idea frapercaper had cheated. Uhhh...what? Seriously? You had no idea? How is that possible???

On that note, is anyone kicking around this thread in a league with sport65 other than Foxx? Curious what the guy is like in there or if this is how he posts in there too.

I went back a couple of weeks in the chat in his other worlds. I can verify two things:

1. In a world of 100 watt bulbs, he's a 25 watter.

2. He doesn't think accepted trades should ever be discussed in the world chat.

He doesn't think trades should be discussed...hmm, wonder why that is?

To be fair, griv feels the same way. A lot of people believe discussing questionable trades in the world chat is some crazy form of collusion. I think that's dumb but I can semi-understand their reasoning.

You forgot #3, "death is a 200 watt bulb"

World Foxx kicks ***! Such entertaining WC reading!

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 2/26/2010
To be fair, griv feels the same way. A lot of people believe discussing questionable trades in the world chat is some crazy form of collusion. I think that's dumb but I can semi-understand their reasoning.

Any discussion of a trade will colour your decision to Approve/Veto... but the idea that the WC discussion could swing an otherwise acceptable (or unacceptable) trade voting result implies that the owners in your world are a bunch of weak willed mouth breathers.

If you can't trust your fellow owners to make up their own damned mind, then you should find another world.

Discussion calls attention to the deal. In the current state of HBD, most deals are rubberstamped. Calling attention to it just stops the rubberstamp. Some still pass, some get vetoed. But, if it's a fair deal, you should have no problem is someone wants to talk it out.

I actually have no issue with the involved owners discussing their deal. Or a non-involved owner giving a "heads up" as in "pay attention to the trades" but since I feel all owners should pay attention to trades and have CONSISTENT criteria for vetoing or accepting a trade I do not see the reason for non-involved owners to actively discuss a trade under consideration. Nor do I feel a commish should be imposing his view of trading on other league members - esp when they have reviewed and vetoed a trade. When these activities occur then I feel it is a form of collusion. Not all collusion is necessarily evil but it runs that risk. (Much like: Not all federal overreaching is necessarily evil, but it runs that risk). In a private world there are other ways for a Commish to deal with these issues. I understand in public worlds there is not.

As I stated earlier worlds like Foxx should be allowed to die and not be forcably rescued. Wis should adopt a policy that worlds with more than X openings will be "killed". WIS can take the league back to "headquarters", adjust half the "problem" players on the best and worst teams, and then recycle it as a "new world". All those owners who want new worlds can sign up and deal with the other half of the mess - which is approximately what occurred with "new worlds" in the past. As customers it is not our "job" to fix WIS problems - they should do it themselves.

I think griv is completely and utterly WRONG.

Drawing attention to lopsided and possibly collusive trades is a necessary part of league chat. Newer owners might not know about a history of shady or borderline deals. Guys with only one league might not know that the guys that just agreed on a deal are also trading with each other in a different league. Sometimes, the only way you learn about these types of potentially damaging deals is through league chat.

That isn't collusion, it's league preservation.

No league should be depending on a couple of newer owners to be preventing collusion or lopsided trades - if the core ownership of a league can not muster the 10 votes to veto a bad trade based on a simple "heads up" without further discussion then slap the " 'tard world " label on and wear it with pride.

Too long. This covered it:

Discussion calls attention to the deal. In the current state of HBD, most deals are rubberstamped. Calling attention to it just stops the rubberstamp. Some still pass, some get vetoed. But, if it's a fair deal, you should have no problem is someone wants to talk it out.

As far as the commish's duties, it's his duty to maintain a league standard. If there is a league standard, it doesn't change in mid-stream. If the league standard is not being followed, it's best for him and those who aren't interested in maintaining the league standard to part ways. Sometimes it has to wait until the season is over, sometimes it has to happen immediately.