Posted by tbird9423 on 6/6/2012 8:14:00 PM (view original):
First off EMY-  I have the sitemails so if you want everyone to see them, I'll post them on another thread-- something tells me you'll back off from this though and won't want those to be posted. 

My point would be that some people need to look up the word collusion before commenting.  Some of the comments are laughable and you'll see what I mean when you look up the word.

As I mentioned, it would be good to get clarity from WIS on the point because two players are not colluding if a single coach makes a decision that will benefit his team.  You (and I for that matter) may not like it, but calling that collusion is a bit ridiculous.  Like I said, if you don't think so, look up the word and then get back to me.  

I agree with whoever said this is a very minor issue but none of the quotes posted referencing the rules talk about what I am describing and if a coach independently decides to throw a game that cannot be collusion.  And yes, I am serious about that.

Anyways, I'll wait to hear back from EMY and then once he approves, go ahead and open up a new thread to give some insight and a great laugh. 

Dictionary definition of collusion is irrelevant given that it's explicitly listed as an example of collusion under the WIS Fair Play Guidelines, which are obviously what govern the definition of collusion for the purposes of games played on their site...

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/6/2012 11:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tbird9423 on 6/6/2012 8:14:00 PM (view original):
First off EMY-  I have the sitemails so if you want everyone to see them, I'll post them on another thread-- something tells me you'll back off from this though and won't want those to be posted. 

My point would be that some people need to look up the word collusion before commenting.  Some of the comments are laughable and you'll see what I mean when you look up the word.

As I mentioned, it would be good to get clarity from WIS on the point because two players are not colluding if a single coach makes a decision that will benefit his team.  You (and I for that matter) may not like it, but calling that collusion is a bit ridiculous.  Like I said, if you don't think so, look up the word and then get back to me.  

I agree with whoever said this is a very minor issue but none of the quotes posted referencing the rules talk about what I am describing and if a coach independently decides to throw a game that cannot be collusion.  And yes, I am serious about that.

Anyways, I'll wait to hear back from EMY and then once he approves, go ahead and open up a new thread to give some insight and a great laugh. 

Dictionary definition of collusion is irrelevant given that it's explicitly listed as an example of collusion under the WIS Fair Play Guidelines, which are obviously what govern the definition of collusion for the purposes of games played on their site...

The common sense definition of collusion is pretty straight forward on this as well.  I don't need to look in a dictionary or the ToS to know that this is cheating.

I can order a steak 'rare' and the chef will prepare it  according to his definition.  It doesn't matter how the dictionary defines the word.  WIS is our chef.

But again, WIS defines collusion as "between two or more users."

It's an off-point argument, because most of the people who don't think it's collusion still agree that it's wrong, but "collusion" is an inapplicable section in the fair play guidelines, if the fair play guidelines are the measurement here.

Honestly, I thought about doing this last season or 2 seasons ago...we were going to have 4 teams in our conference make the NT...a 5th was borderline and a strong sim ai...I decided I liked winning more, I won the CT and that 5th team made it anyway.  The recruiting money would be nice, but I'd rather have the CT title.

If you don't broadcast your guilt, this is/would be very easy to get away with, especially if there are only 1 or 2 humans in the conference...just saying.

Posted by colonels19 on 6/7/2012 10:29:00 AM (view original):
If you don't broadcast your guilt, this is/would be very easy to get away with, especially if there are only 1 or 2 humans in the conference...just saying.

So?  It's still wrong.  Being easy to get away with doesn't make it any more acceptable.

Just stating what should be obvious.

whether or not its cheating it is definitely cheap.  i mean, selling your integrity for the price of a scouting trip and some phone calls? ($250, d3),   a home visit and some phone calls($416, d2), or two campus visits ($1666, d1) seems pretty cheap to me.

this thread should be studied in graduate level psychology classes

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/5/2012 8:55:00 PM (view original):
It says exactly what I posted.  That is the full text.  "Intentionally throwing a game to ensure another team improves its chances for a post-season bid," listed under examples of collusion.  Even if you do it by yourself it is implicit collusion.

I agree with you, but unless I missed it, it also doesn't specifically mention Hoops Dynasty.  I suppose one could argue the rules would apply to all games, but that's not what it says.  Having said that, intentionally throwing the games is just a bad idea.

Posted by isack24 on 6/7/2012 10:19:00 AM (view original):
But again, WIS defines collusion as "between two or more users."

It's an off-point argument, because most of the people who don't think it's collusion still agree that it's wrong, but "collusion" is an inapplicable section in the fair play guidelines, if the fair play guidelines are the measurement here.

The "two or more users" line is prefaced by "includes" rather than "is" in the collusion section. The fair play rules only provide examples of collusive activity. It's not exhaustive, and it's not intended to be exhaustive.  

Posted by isack24 on 6/7/2012 10:19:00 AM (view original):
But again, WIS defines collusion as "between two or more users."

It's an off-point argument, because most of the people who don't think it's collusion still agree that it's wrong, but "collusion" is an inapplicable section in the fair play guidelines, if the fair play guidelines are the measurement here.

+1

My point exactly and in complete agreement.  I understand having different points of views and perceptions, but arguing about facts seems like people arguing just to argue.  Being too stubborn to admit that WIS (and the rest of the english world) define collusion as requiring two parties and thus isn't relevant to a coach making an independent decision doesn't make those who do understand the term "cheaters".  Especially when I think we have all agreed that losing intentionally is a questionable and frowned upon tactic and doesn't seem to make much sense.

To take it to the extreme, I think whoever pointed out that many teams already do this (sacrifice one year for an upcoming year and therefore not reach their full potential in that sacrificial year)  is right on and I would suggest that although some have said "that is totally different," I would question why?  How many rl college teams are made up of 6 srs and 6 jrs and no freshman or sophomores.  How many teams bench their currently better players just to get the young guys more playing time?  If the suggestion that intentionally losing a single game is unfair to others and not in "the spirit of the game," what makes doing that for an entire season alright?   

Can we all at least agree that this issue is most definetely not covered by the collusion section of the rules and therefore the scare tactics and threats issued toward the OP were off base?

Absolutely not.  I can assure you with better than 99% certainty that if someone was caught throwing the CT game and reported to WIS admin they would at least be reprimanded and repeat performance would result in penalties.  I don't agree at all that it's not covered by the collusion section of the rules, and I absolutely don't believe WIS would allow it based on some semantic argument using the dictionary definition of the word collusion.  I would love for you to try it, though.

I'd go to court over $12.95 ;)