Posted by zorzii on 4/3/2017 10:39:00 AM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 4/3/2017 10:33:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mamxet on 4/3/2017 9:53:00 AM (view original):
My take - I have no clue whether cheating took place.
I dont think it matters whether cheating took place - with the launch of 3.0, WIS should eliminate the ability to have two teams in a world under different names. The old 1000 mile rule was okay in prior game. It is not adequate in 3.0
They would have to make it functionally impossible, though, and that would include prohibiting multiple players in the same house (which is how I ended up with 2 IDs). That functional prohibition may be good for people's sense of fair play, but it would further hurt WIS's bottom line.
If I'm WIS, I think the best path forward is to require IDs used from the same IP address and/or credit card be linked and public. Have folks report questions of fair play violations. In this instance, it should be pretty easy to see, as long as they archive scouting/recruiting actions for more than just the current season. If the D1 scouted the player to L4, it's pretty damning. According to seble, policy is that beyond the 1000 mile rule, there is a "no-touching" rule, i.e. WIS would consider it a violation to go after a player that you scouted with a different team.
Shoe : This has nothing to do with this. The way the game is designed makes for cheating or at least for getting tempted. It needs to get rid of two IDS.
No, the moral obligation at question here is in no way on WIS. They aren't obligated to do anything.
The worst thing they can do is set a new ID restriction policy they can't or won't enforce, and rely on self-enforcement. That will stop very little actual cheating, because it will only affect the transparent players. That's not to say that transparent players never cheat - but I'm not nearly as worried about most of the guys I know about as I am about the guys I don't.
I totally get the fair play worry. When I first started, I was on that side (against multiple IDs) too. If they make it structurally impossible, I'll abide by it, and I won't complain. But I'm not interested in a soft ban they don't want to enforce. That's the worst of all worlds.