It's a big advantage during those crucial first 4 cycles where AP allocation is precious. Not only are they able to keep AP on their primary targets, but they are already unlocking and deterring competition for their backups or EE targets. Any other team without this glitch would have to wait until their primary targets are addressed before moving to these targets. By that time, they've already avoided those teams on those backups as it appears that an A prestige team was prioritizing them.

Oh I agree with all 3 of these last posts. It’s not much but it’s big for the appearance of more effort than there actually was. So it was a smart strategy.

This discussion is a lot of smoke and misdirection over something that, when you look at the elements, is very simple. These guys cheated, clearly and unequivocally violated the Fair Play Guidelines, and they did it repeatedly. Now CS is faced with the question of whether the cheaters are out and integrity is in, or the cheaters can remain and integrity takes the rumble seat. Can other cheaters, current or future, count on a wrist slap if they get caught, or might there be some actual consequences to their cheating? Will there be a perma-ban for the cheaters, or will CS position themselves as enablers for all other current and future cheating? We’ll see. The cheating mentality, excusing the cheaters, is still present in the forums and discord: “These Guys got banned for a good recruiting strategy, how silly… But it completely sucks *** that people got banned for no reason… doesn't look like cheating to me” for example. Will cheating be OUT at HD, or in?

A couple of other aspects to this fiasco are troubling. One of the cheaters apparently thought he could go on the discord and spin his way out of trouble. “i don't understand the cheater allegations… this whole thing has been pretty damn offputting being called a cheater and disrespected by CS… the real crime here is i was one of the few to know about this aspect of the game…” And a few other users apparently bought his crap but most did not.

Even more troubling is the attitude that the cheating isn’t the problem, CS is the problem. A user whom I respect greatly has offered this very troubling opinion: “And again, this is all hearsay and speculation. But IF that's the case, this whole mess is almost completely on whoever answered that ticket.” The cheater waited until the recruiting session was over to ask his question, feigning innocence and ignorance, asking his question. The answer in question was written in response to an apparently simple, innocent question. Nonetheless, CS asked the cheater to report any future occurrences of the exploit so they could investigate further. Perhaps the CS rep could have been clearer or more direct; perhaps he should have smelled a rat; maybe he could have even thundered a threat. But the communication between cheater and CS in no way absolves the cheaters of full responsibility for their cheating.

27 pages holy **** lol

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/2/2022 2:21:00 PM (view original):
This discussion is a lot of smoke and misdirection over something that, when you look at the elements, is very simple. These guys cheated, clearly and unequivocally violated the Fair Play Guidelines, and they did it repeatedly. Now CS is faced with the question of whether the cheaters are out and integrity is in, or the cheaters can remain and integrity takes the rumble seat. Can other cheaters, current or future, count on a wrist slap if they get caught, or might there be some actual consequences to their cheating? Will there be a perma-ban for the cheaters, or will CS position themselves as enablers for all other current and future cheating? We’ll see. The cheating mentality, excusing the cheaters, is still present in the forums and discord: “These Guys got banned for a good recruiting strategy, how silly… But it completely sucks *** that people got banned for no reason… doesn't look like cheating to me” for example. Will cheating be OUT at HD, or in?

A couple of other aspects to this fiasco are troubling. One of the cheaters apparently thought he could go on the discord and spin his way out of trouble. “i don't understand the cheater allegations… this whole thing has been pretty damn offputting being called a cheater and disrespected by CS… the real crime here is i was one of the few to know about this aspect of the game…” And a few other users apparently bought his crap but most did not.

Even more troubling is the attitude that the cheating isn’t the problem, CS is the problem. A user whom I respect greatly has offered this very troubling opinion: “And again, this is all hearsay and speculation. But IF that's the case, this whole mess is almost completely on whoever answered that ticket.” The cheater waited until the recruiting session was over to ask his question, feigning innocence and ignorance, asking his question. The answer in question was written in response to an apparently simple, innocent question. Nonetheless, CS asked the cheater to report any future occurrences of the exploit so they could investigate further. Perhaps the CS rep could have been clearer or more direct; perhaps he should have smelled a rat; maybe he could have even thundered a threat. But the communication between cheater and CS in no way absolves the cheaters of full responsibility for their cheating.

The "cheat" aspect of it all is the collusion, not the use of the loophole. If the developers did not intend for the system to work that way, it should have been designed better; and at very least, fixed when it was *first* brought to their attention (understanding these guys now are not the guys originally handling the issue). It's frankly pretty absurd to assume that folks will "just know" that using tools straightforwardly, as they exist plainly on the screen, is going to be cheating if it's done in some way developers did not intend. That puts the onus on understanding developers intent on the user, and that is ABSURD. Now, there is some case to be made that cimmy/robinhood or whoever had the interaction 3 years ago with CS should have followed up as asked once they opened the ticket, but really it is still not clear there is an obligation; certainly not rising to the level "you will be banned if you continue to do this, because you'll be exploiting an unintended glitch."

The reason I'm pretty alright with the ban on the Smith-A10 crew is the suspected collusion, even though I'm not positive that's actually part of CS reasoning here; the folks not associated with that crew, any lone wolves, (namely swenske) should be let off with a warning and a "fine"- maybe a postseason ban for a season or two for the teams. But even that is questionable. Because if there's no collusion, then we're just left with a user who is pressing buttons and found some extra value, and it should never be on the user to know whether that is an intended function or not. To be honest, the sheer number of times used kind of speaks to the innocence of it. If they were using it commonly, they probably didn't suspect anything at all was wrong, likely suspected others were doing the same. The guys who used it sparingly (to avoid detection?), and who kept it to themselves within conference/family - that's likely collusion, and that's a different issue.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/2/2022 7:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by CoachSpud on 11/2/2022 2:21:00 PM (view original):
This discussion is a lot of smoke and misdirection over something that, when you look at the elements, is very simple. These guys cheated, clearly and unequivocally violated the Fair Play Guidelines, and they did it repeatedly. Now CS is faced with the question of whether the cheaters are out and integrity is in, or the cheaters can remain and integrity takes the rumble seat. Can other cheaters, current or future, count on a wrist slap if they get caught, or might there be some actual consequences to their cheating? Will there be a perma-ban for the cheaters, or will CS position themselves as enablers for all other current and future cheating? We’ll see. The cheating mentality, excusing the cheaters, is still present in the forums and discord: “These Guys got banned for a good recruiting strategy, how silly… But it completely sucks *** that people got banned for no reason… doesn't look like cheating to me” for example. Will cheating be OUT at HD, or in?

A couple of other aspects to this fiasco are troubling. One of the cheaters apparently thought he could go on the discord and spin his way out of trouble. “i don't understand the cheater allegations… this whole thing has been pretty damn offputting being called a cheater and disrespected by CS… the real crime here is i was one of the few to know about this aspect of the game…” And a few other users apparently bought his crap but most did not.

Even more troubling is the attitude that the cheating isn’t the problem, CS is the problem. A user whom I respect greatly has offered this very troubling opinion: “And again, this is all hearsay and speculation. But IF that's the case, this whole mess is almost completely on whoever answered that ticket.” The cheater waited until the recruiting session was over to ask his question, feigning innocence and ignorance, asking his question. The answer in question was written in response to an apparently simple, innocent question. Nonetheless, CS asked the cheater to report any future occurrences of the exploit so they could investigate further. Perhaps the CS rep could have been clearer or more direct; perhaps he should have smelled a rat; maybe he could have even thundered a threat. But the communication between cheater and CS in no way absolves the cheaters of full responsibility for their cheating.

The "cheat" aspect of it all is the collusion, not the use of the loophole. If the developers did not intend for the system to work that way, it should have been designed better; and at very least, fixed when it was *first* brought to their attention (understanding these guys now are not the guys originally handling the issue). It's frankly pretty absurd to assume that folks will "just know" that using tools straightforwardly, as they exist plainly on the screen, is going to be cheating if it's done in some way developers did not intend. That puts the onus on understanding developers intent on the user, and that is ABSURD. Now, there is some case to be made that cimmy/robinhood or whoever had the interaction 3 years ago with CS should have followed up as asked once they opened the ticket, but really it is still not clear there is an obligation; certainly not rising to the level "you will be banned if you continue to do this, because you'll be exploiting an unintended glitch."

The reason I'm pretty alright with the ban on the Smith-A10 crew is the suspected collusion, even though I'm not positive that's actually part of CS reasoning here; the folks not associated with that crew, any lone wolves, (namely swenske) should be let off with a warning and a "fine"- maybe a postseason ban for a season or two for the teams. But even that is questionable. Because if there's no collusion, then we're just left with a user who is pressing buttons and found some extra value, and it should never be on the user to know whether that is an intended function or not. To be honest, the sheer number of times used kind of speaks to the innocence of it. If they were using it commonly, they probably didn't suspect anything at all was wrong, likely suspected others were doing the same. The guys who used it sparingly (to avoid detection?), and who kept it to themselves within conference/family - that's likely collusion, and that's a different issue.

Shoe my issue is the common sense part of the game. We use AP as effort to unlock items. We use those items to build the overall effort score. All this is somewhat on par with what 99% of people playing should understand. Pushing a button that is free, and then again later, which costs NOTHING as far as effort while also getting you “more” credit than the standard methods, I mean come on man. Duh.

Then the basketball side of it. Sure it’s not real. But if a coach has to work hard (lots of AP) to convince a kid to come to the campus, why would it seem legit to whisper in his ear “hey I’m gonna redshirt you, never mind” and boom…. Your school is now his top priority without any form of actually recruiting him.

I don’t buy the “well how are we supposed to know” thing. And for the record, I’m well past the topic at hand. I’m only referring to you and your response specifically.

Frankly I find it ridiculous so many experienced coaches are sticking their head in the sand pretending like this would not yield a huge advantage. After identifying talent, the entire challenge of recruiting is figuring out where to divvy up your attention, giving yourself the best shot possible at top targets while cultivating potential backups and unlocking schollies for them. It's a zero-sum game. It wasn't for these guys who could unlock schollies on their backups without having to make that calculation. Add in the factor of their prestige deterring others off those recruits, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how over 3 years of doing this cycle after cycle would compound into a massive boost for the program over others who weren't using it.

It's also patently obvious this is not how the game would intend to work, and it's completely insulting to act otherwise, regardless of how bad CS dropped the ball. Genuinely can't believe some of these posts defending the actions. I would probably stop short of a permaban, but not by much.

Posted by usvtheman on 11/2/2022 11:19:00 PM (view original):
Frankly I find it ridiculous so many experienced coaches are sticking their head in the sand pretending like this would not yield a huge advantage. After identifying talent, the entire challenge of recruiting is figuring out where to divvy up your attention, giving yourself the best shot possible at top targets while cultivating potential backups and unlocking schollies for them. It's a zero-sum game. It wasn't for these guys who could unlock schollies on their backups without having to make that calculation. Add in the factor of their prestige deterring others off those recruits, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how over 3 years of doing this cycle after cycle would compound into a massive boost for the program over others who weren't using it.

It's also patently obvious this is not how the game would intend to work, and it's completely insulting to act otherwise, regardless of how bad CS dropped the ball. Genuinely can't believe some of these posts defending the actions. I would probably stop short of a permaban, but not by much.

No, it's not "patently obvious". Nor is it "common sense", to use doggg's words. Neither of those things exist. Neurodiversity is a thing, people think in different ways. What is "obvious" to you is very likely obscure for others - and vice versa. Is it "obvious" that the game intended for D1 pool players to be available for recruiting by lower division teams? Were coaches that first discovered the possibility of "pull downs" cheating when they started doing it, before others realized it was possible? As it turns out, it *was* an intended feature. Not intuitive to everyone - and it still isn't, there are still folks, including the author of this thread, who would prefer the divisions all be separated.

One guy doing it over and over again might be assuming that lots of other people also know about it and could be doing it. All they (might) know is that they get more value when they inform the recruit there will be no redshirt. And that's not exactly counter intuitive. It does make some sense that a kid might want to hear "hey, you will definitely not redshirt next season." There's no mechanism to do that without the redshirt first, which makes it awkward, but it's not the only awkward fit in the design of the game, where we are using virtual dollars to bid on recruits in a supposed college recruiting simulation.

Of course it's a huge advantage. I know that as well as anyone. As I've said before, (Basketts and Texashick will back me up here) I've been vocal about fishy stuff going on in Smith A10 for a number of seasons. I left Kentucky because it was maddening watching St. Joes get a pick of elite recruits every season, often with me as the only team challenging them, while I was getting bombarded with challenges from every direction (including Dayton and Temple). So yeah, I get it. But that's also why I say the collusion, if it's shown to exist, is the cheat here.

Pulldowns are a gray area. You could easily feasibly think that recruits who weren't getting attention from D1 schools would settle for a D2 school making a hard push.

This was not. Nobody would feasibly think it should be a net advantage to tell a kid you would redshirt him and then go back on it, nor that it would make any sense whatsoever for recruiting to work in that manner when every other coach is having to expend AP points to unlock schollies. You would only do this if you believed it was an exploit. You are reverse engineering a far-fetched justification that I'm positive none of these people actually believed. Sorry. I don't see it at all.

Posted by shoe3 on 11/2/2022 11:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usvtheman on 11/2/2022 11:19:00 PM (view original):
Frankly I find it ridiculous so many experienced coaches are sticking their head in the sand pretending like this would not yield a huge advantage. After identifying talent, the entire challenge of recruiting is figuring out where to divvy up your attention, giving yourself the best shot possible at top targets while cultivating potential backups and unlocking schollies for them. It's a zero-sum game. It wasn't for these guys who could unlock schollies on their backups without having to make that calculation. Add in the factor of their prestige deterring others off those recruits, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how over 3 years of doing this cycle after cycle would compound into a massive boost for the program over others who weren't using it.

It's also patently obvious this is not how the game would intend to work, and it's completely insulting to act otherwise, regardless of how bad CS dropped the ball. Genuinely can't believe some of these posts defending the actions. I would probably stop short of a permaban, but not by much.

No, it's not "patently obvious". Nor is it "common sense", to use doggg's words. Neither of those things exist. Neurodiversity is a thing, people think in different ways. What is "obvious" to you is very likely obscure for others - and vice versa. Is it "obvious" that the game intended for D1 pool players to be available for recruiting by lower division teams? Were coaches that first discovered the possibility of "pull downs" cheating when they started doing it, before others realized it was possible? As it turns out, it *was* an intended feature. Not intuitive to everyone - and it still isn't, there are still folks, including the author of this thread, who would prefer the divisions all be separated.

One guy doing it over and over again might be assuming that lots of other people also know about it and could be doing it. All they (might) know is that they get more value when they inform the recruit there will be no redshirt. And that's not exactly counter intuitive. It does make some sense that a kid might want to hear "hey, you will definitely not redshirt next season." There's no mechanism to do that without the redshirt first, which makes it awkward, but it's not the only awkward fit in the design of the game, where we are using virtual dollars to bid on recruits in a supposed college recruiting simulation.

Of course it's a huge advantage. I know that as well as anyone. As I've said before, (Basketts and Texashick will back me up here) I've been vocal about fishy stuff going on in Smith A10 for a number of seasons. I left Kentucky because it was maddening watching St. Joes get a pick of elite recruits every season, often with me as the only team challenging them, while I was getting bombarded with challenges from every direction (including Dayton and Temple). So yeah, I get it. But that's also why I say the collusion, if it's shown to exist, is the cheat here.

I am not in agreement with shoe on his first point (that a coach, on his own, through some sort of self-hypnosis, could construe that acting in such a way could be justifiable and within the rules) but he makes well reasoned argument and does it without ad hominem. That should be respected even if it can't be acceded to.

shoe's second point (collusion among several coaches actively deploying an action to their mutual benefit being the bigger offense)...IMHO...is about spot on. One coach, destroying his own reputation, is stupid. A collusive cabal, setting up shop in Allen A-10, destroys the entire Allen DI landscape.

Wow, nice work Benis. That is not an easy thing to uncover. It might’ve never been revealed.

This has likely already been covered... but has anyone tested to see if the loophole was fixed?

Posted by baseball4309 on 11/3/2022 3:45:00 AM (view original):
This has likely already been covered... but has anyone tested to see if the loophole was fixed?

At the expense of being permanently banned? I’d guess that no one will take that bait! Unless you were sarcastically joking about that

Lol, good point. But I was not being sarcastic. I mean just sometime late in RS2 test it out on a guy that no one else wants. Because I guarantee you it's probably still happening if it can happen. It'd just be nice to have confirmation that it isn't even possible anymore.

I just tested it by scouting D3 CO in Rupp with Chadron State. I offered a redshirt to a recruit with an F grade and then deleted away the redshirt? I think thats what Im supposed to do here, while actually performing this type of action it is quite clear that if a benefit was being given, you'd know this was not by game design. Anyway,

This is no longer against the TOS TD, CS said they fixed this in their post and that the loophole is gone so there's nothing wrong with doing this now from what CS has said, it will just result in -30 effort from what I understand from their post. But im doing the experiment for the community just so people can see, if I messed up the method lmk so I can correct before the 11 am cycle.