Posted by cubcub113 on 8/24/2020 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 8/24/2020 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/24/2020 1:38:00 PM (view original):
i wish i could see the original players, as i'm not 100% sure i follow based on sports's expectation. i don't think the issue is looking at a player at the first school, and signing at the second - the issue was about not trying to win - which is required as part of fair play (whether it is stated or not). it sounds to me like seble and ab are saying, the players signed were intentionally bad, which is similar to throwing a game and is not allowed. not trying is not penalized; trying to suck is. but what i don't get is how sports's explanation about some other d2 school ties into that.

on a different front - ab came with a legitimate question - i don't get the hostility. i understand many of you don't respect him or his style of playing, but there's no reason to disqualify *anyone* from bringing legitimate lines of inquiry to the forums. i'm not super thrilled he name checked me bc i really don't want to be the defender of ab or his style - but also - the first page of this thread is ridiculous.

i will say, sending a ticket before talking to the coach in question was definitely weak sauce.

The players signed were not intentionally bad. D3 players are just the only players that sign RS1, so I only D3 players work for the strategy.

why do you need to sign D3 players for the strategy to work instead of leaving the ships open? I'm deffo missing something

8.1.2

Oh, its so they don't sign RS2. Smart.

Posted by lilspike0738 on 8/24/2020 3:11:00 PM (view original):
To put this in perspective...

I don't like what Bulls does, at all.. It's a cheap way to win, but it's effective because it's apparently done by so many all over the place. You don't get to pick and choose when to enforce rules, because some whine *** makes a stink that he cant absorb another title shot from someone else.

That's a really crappy stance to take as a business... There are people who sign horrible recruits all the time, there are people who choose to go against the grain and try to win all the time. We get to tell Bulls how he has to play with his money forever because he has success?

Not trying to boast lol, but this strategy has lead to 0 championships for me. I've only signed 2 players ever with it: Jerry Knapp and Joe Himes. But, continue...

Posted by cubcub113 on 8/24/2020 3:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cubcub113 on 8/24/2020 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Sportsbulls on 8/24/2020 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/24/2020 1:38:00 PM (view original):
i wish i could see the original players, as i'm not 100% sure i follow based on sports's expectation. i don't think the issue is looking at a player at the first school, and signing at the second - the issue was about not trying to win - which is required as part of fair play (whether it is stated or not). it sounds to me like seble and ab are saying, the players signed were intentionally bad, which is similar to throwing a game and is not allowed. not trying is not penalized; trying to suck is. but what i don't get is how sports's explanation about some other d2 school ties into that.

on a different front - ab came with a legitimate question - i don't get the hostility. i understand many of you don't respect him or his style of playing, but there's no reason to disqualify *anyone* from bringing legitimate lines of inquiry to the forums. i'm not super thrilled he name checked me bc i really don't want to be the defender of ab or his style - but also - the first page of this thread is ridiculous.

i will say, sending a ticket before talking to the coach in question was definitely weak sauce.

The players signed were not intentionally bad. D3 players are just the only players that sign RS1, so I only D3 players work for the strategy.

why do you need to sign D3 players for the strategy to work instead of leaving the ships open? I'm deffo missing something

8.1.2

Oh, its so they don't sign RS2. Smart.

Yes, for that reason.

Bulls is playing 3d chess here and is 5 moves ahead of a lot of us. I really don't see the issue here. He is being innovative and using different game mechanics to his advantage by out big braining everyone else. The idea that it is punishable to sign D3 projected players, not even intentionally bad D3 projected players, is so so stupid!

His team is still going to be better than others, and anyone can hop on that wagon, cut anyone who doesnt work out and sign new guys after this season.

You're still absorbing his A+ prestige and solid players currently on the roster. You're not even sure what the colors are on the guys he recruited, so how could you make the assumption that they're all bad? It sets a horrible precedent to set...

He paid for that season, and recruited how he wanted... If he didnt get to where he wanted, he would've been stuck with them. I don't see how we can police that appropriately when so many other coaches tank to offer starts/playing time to freshman....etc... It's such a horrible horrible stance to take.

Bulls, please stop logging on, and the admins can just run your team from here... You have to play a certain way, and only sign certain level of recruits based on the success they feel you "could've" had. Might as well just let them take over, man.

Comparing this to wizards exploiting the WE glitch is.... not a strong analogy.

Unless you argue it is a glitch that D3 teams can sign D3 projected players, lol.

Good game design means there shouldn't be things you "can" do but "shouldn't" that help you.

It seems to me that the real question (which I haven't seen directly answered, but i didn't read all 90 or so posts line-by-line) is whether bulls had any direct animus against AB when he did this. Was he deliberately trying to screw over AB, or was he trying to game the system for when he moves to a new team, or was he just fooling around with recruiting on the way out the door? If the former, that seems to me to be a problem. If the latter two, then it seems like a game design issue (don't get me started).

The question of whether AB has violated/is violating the 1000 mile rule, or is a bad guy, or whatever, is completely immaterial to whether this is acceptable. Whatabout-ism isn't particularly persuasive.

Posted by johnsensing on 8/24/2020 3:20:00 PM (view original):
It seems to me that the real question (which I haven't seen directly answered, but i didn't read all 90 or so posts line-by-line) is whether bulls had any direct animus against AB when he did this. Was he deliberately trying to screw over AB, or was he trying to game the system for when he moves to a new team, or was he just fooling around with recruiting on the way out the door? If the former, that seems to me to be a problem. If the latter two, then it seems like a game design issue (don't get me started).

The question of whether AB has violated/is violating the 1000 mile rule, or is a bad guy, or whatever, is completely immaterial to whether this is acceptable. Whatabout-ism isn't particularly persuasive.

I would say the complete opposite.

If you're reporting a guy for leaving a school, and leaving you nothing but trash/mess to clean up, but you do the same thing day in and day out, how can you be trusted or taken seriously?

Let me shoot you in the foot, then you can shoot me back, but when you do it you get arrested and I don't... Then you can discuss with me how fair that is, and how it affects the community going forward... I want a fair and consistent game. It's what I paid for. I didn't pay for personal bias decision making.

Posted by johnsensing on 8/24/2020 3:20:00 PM (view original):
It seems to me that the real question (which I haven't seen directly answered, but i didn't read all 90 or so posts line-by-line) is whether bulls had any direct animus against AB when he did this. Was he deliberately trying to screw over AB, or was he trying to game the system for when he moves to a new team, or was he just fooling around with recruiting on the way out the door? If the former, that seems to me to be a problem. If the latter two, then it seems like a game design issue (don't get me started).

The question of whether AB has violated/is violating the 1000 mile rule, or is a bad guy, or whatever, is completely immaterial to whether this is acceptable. Whatabout-ism isn't particularly persuasive.

Literally didn’t even think of AB until I saw this, lol. That’s what makes this even better. In fact, favre actually sent me a message this morning while I was in a meeting and I was super confused until I saw this forum, lol.

Posted by cubcub113 on 8/24/2020 3:20:00 PM (view original):
Comparing this to wizards exploiting the WE glitch is.... not a strong analogy.

Unless you argue it is a glitch that D3 teams can sign D3 projected players, lol.

Good game design means there shouldn't be things you "can" do but "shouldn't" that help you.

+1

I'm also mad, because I wanted Millsaps with the recruits..

I 100% wanted that challenge, and now that opportunity is taken from me... AB will 100% soak up that squad, because my resume wont compare, and he'll get a free RS2 with full budget, because he complained. That's fair? That's not messing with fairness, or the integrity of the game? lmfao

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/24/2020 3:02:00 PM (view original):
lilspike -

1) there's no real consequence behind seble's warning and that is probably clear to all involved parties

2) ab was not allowed to keep teams within 1000 miles and is not allowed to have them

i'm not saying the system is working perfectly here but i wouldn't get too bent out of shape over it either. the end result is not so bad, even if the tone and semantics along the way are misplaced. CS hates dealing with these fair play issues and basically issues a meaningless warning whenever someone complains because when they refused to warn folks for stuff, people would get really bent out of shape over it, right or wrong. there are almost never severe enough issues for CS to ban someone, so they basically only really engage with these issues at more than a superficial level, when they really have to.

i am a proponent of NOT forcing these issues on CS because this is a small operation that can't be very profitable, and i just feel like its in all of our interest to 1) follow the spirit of fair play and 2) not get too picky about the enforcement of fair play, so that it is not a drain on CS. i think major issues need to be addressed but, for example, i don't like ab sending a ticket about sport's team here. it just doesn't rise to the level of importance. but neither does ticketing about the way this issue was handed, IMO. especially when the use of one team to benefit another is a thorny issue to start with and could plausibly merit a warning even if the competitive thing was a red herring. if people could calmly discuss this with seble and not freak out about whatever decision he made, he might engage with us - but that tends not to be the case.

on the other topic you raised -
i would agree with the premise that ab90 is using a loophole for his system and that it is bad for the game in general for coaches to run teams that way (not recruiting, scheduling, etc). i just don't particularly blame him to the extent the rest of you guys do - but i am sort of a live and let live kind of guy. if you wanted to push the case that the loyalty mechanism is being circumvented by totally dropping a world and returning, and that there should be a check on this, i think you'd have a reasonable case. the whole loyalty mechanism sucks to be honest, it basically is a binary can you apply or not, when in reality it should be a gradient that also (or primarily) impacts the competitive part of the jobs process (which coach gets the job).

in short, for many reasons (not just this scenario), i'd like to see loyalty 1) impact who gets a job multiple people want, first and foremost, with a much less strict enforcement on what job one is qualified for; and 2) a loyalty hit when a coach returns to a world quickly, sort of in line with the loyalty hit from a job change. however, its hard to do #2 (which closes the ab loophole) without #1 because loyalty is so strict.

Part 2 is incorrect. He was allowed to keep both teams for the entire season. He then dropped the D2 squad, but was there during the entire RS1 period and didn’t recruit a single player.

I know this because I filed a support ticket and Seble told me he was giving him until the end of the season to correct the issue.

The issue should’ve been corrected instantly, but was allowed in that instance. That’s the real grey area btw. The administration picks and chooses when transparency is used.

Hey guys, instead of fielding a bunch of support tickets, I'll post to address the situation. We were alerted to the fact that Sportsbulls signed 5 recruits who were below the appropriate level of the team just before leaving it. In this case, the recruits were scouted only to level 1, and were recruited/signed in one day, the final day of recruiting period 1. The quality of the players is arguable, but these facts lead me to believe it was done intentionally to take those scholarship openings away from the next coach. I don't see a valid reason for a very successful coach, who is normally signing DI/DII level recruits, to sign these players on the way out the door. Behavior that unfairly impedes another coach is prohibited.

Here are some other key points:

1. It doesn't matter who reported this. When I get a report, I investigate the situation objectively and take any appropriate actions. If someone wants to report something by ab90, by all means do that, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.

2. There was no punishment handed out here to Sportsbulls, just a warning to avoid this type of behavior.

3. The admission by Sportsbulls of effectively locking down recruits at one school before signing them at another school was not a factor in my response. It's certainly pushing up against the idea of fair play, but it is not relevant to this situation.

4. Every situation is different, but if I find that another coach does this (clearly signing players just to fill scholarships on the way out), I would react the exact same way.

5. There are only so many protections we can build into the game, so we rely on the community for some level of honor in how they play the game. These types of things really bug me, because there's really no reason for it. I wish everyone could just play the game fairly and have fun. Is it really that rewarding to bend the rules as far as possible?

Posted by lilspike0738 on 8/24/2020 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 8/24/2020 3:20:00 PM (view original):
It seems to me that the real question (which I haven't seen directly answered, but i didn't read all 90 or so posts line-by-line) is whether bulls had any direct animus against AB when he did this. Was he deliberately trying to screw over AB, or was he trying to game the system for when he moves to a new team, or was he just fooling around with recruiting on the way out the door? If the former, that seems to me to be a problem. If the latter two, then it seems like a game design issue (don't get me started).

The question of whether AB has violated/is violating the 1000 mile rule, or is a bad guy, or whatever, is completely immaterial to whether this is acceptable. Whatabout-ism isn't particularly persuasive.

I would say the complete opposite.

If you're reporting a guy for leaving a school, and leaving you nothing but trash/mess to clean up, but you do the same thing day in and day out, how can you be trusted or taken seriously?

Let me shoot you in the foot, then you can shoot me back, but when you do it you get arrested and I don't... Then you can discuss with me how fair that is, and how it affects the community going forward... I want a fair and consistent game. It's what I paid for. I didn't pay for personal bias decision making.

I assume your "complete opposite" position (your post isn't particularly clear) is that AB's alleged prior sins -- whatever they are, I don't even know the guy -- are relevant to the question of whether bulls' tactics are acceptable/should be permitted. I think you're totally wrong about that -- if something violates the fair play guidelines or is otherwise unethical, it's a violation and shouldn't be permitted, whether the target is a saint (like me and you) or history's greatest monster. And I'm also not sure what shooting people has to do with fake computer basketball, but you do you.

Looks like a moot point anyway, though, since bulls responded that he had no idea AB was taking over the team. Think we can chalk this one up to a game design issue.

Posted by seble on 8/24/2020 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Hey guys, instead of fielding a bunch of support tickets, I'll post to address the situation. We were alerted to the fact that Sportsbulls signed 5 recruits who were below the appropriate level of the team just before leaving it. In this case, the recruits were scouted only to level 1, and were recruited/signed in one day, the final day of recruiting period 1. The quality of the players is arguable, but these facts lead me to believe it was done intentionally to take those scholarship openings away from the next coach. I don't see a valid reason for a very successful coach, who is normally signing DI/DII level recruits, to sign these players on the way out the door. Behavior that unfairly impedes another coach is prohibited.

Here are some other key points:

1. It doesn't matter who reported this. When I get a report, I investigate the situation objectively and take any appropriate actions. If someone wants to report something by ab90, by all means do that, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.

2. There was no punishment handed out here to Sportsbulls, just a warning to avoid this type of behavior.

3. The admission by Sportsbulls of effectively locking down recruits at one school before signing them at another school was not a factor in my response. It's certainly pushing up against the idea of fair play, but it is not relevant to this situation.

4. Every situation is different, but if I find that another coach does this (clearly signing players just to fill scholarships on the way out), I would react the exact same way.

5. There are only so many protections we can build into the game, so we rely on the community for some level of honor in how they play the game. These types of things really bug me, because there's really no reason for it. I wish everyone could just play the game fairly and have fun. Is it really that rewarding to bend the rules as far as possible?

well said, seble. 100% agree with all of this.