hughes,

we get that you think folks are cheating if they're not following the current ToS. I disagree with your definition, but you seem pretty black-and-white, and we've got that. 

The question I want answered by you and the other like-minded folks is this: 

What should have been done a year ago when the rule was implemented? Obviously, you think billyg and iguana and emy and the like should've made immediate moves to bring themselves into compliance. And that's a reasonable position, although I think it's reasonable to disagree. But one year ago, they were not cheating. Then there was a new rule that turned their rule-abiding actions into rule-breaking ones. Should they have just dropped teams without any compensation for losing everything they had put into them? Should they have petitioned WIS to get their resumes moved intact to a different world? What actions, solely on the part of the user, would've made you happy? And if they had asked for some reasonable concessions (like transferring their resume) and WIS blew them off, where would the blame lie? 

Just curious. 

Posted by tarvolon on 5/28/2013 11:11:00 PM (view original):
hughes,

we get that you think folks are cheating if they're not following the current ToS. I disagree with your definition, but you seem pretty black-and-white, and we've got that. 

The question I want answered by you and the other like-minded folks is this: 

What should have been done a year ago when the rule was implemented? Obviously, you think billyg and iguana and emy and the like should've made immediate moves to bring themselves into compliance. And that's a reasonable position, although I think it's reasonable to disagree. But one year ago, they were not cheating. Then there was a new rule that turned their rule-abiding actions into rule-breaking ones. Should they have just dropped teams without any compensation for losing everything they had put into them? Should they have petitioned WIS to get their resumes moved intact to a different world? What actions, solely on the part of the user, would've made you happy? And if they had asked for some reasonable concessions (like transferring their resume) and WIS blew them off, where would the blame lie? 

Just curious. 

I think WIS should move them as an unemployed coach to the world of their choice...  Or they can pick any team they are qualified for in the same world that meets the requirements (more than 1000 miles away). 

I don't think any other compensation is needed. 

If WIS was agreeable, one or two free seasons would also be fine. 

Posted by hughesjr on 5/28/2013 11:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 5/28/2013 11:11:00 PM (view original):
hughes,

we get that you think folks are cheating if they're not following the current ToS. I disagree with your definition, but you seem pretty black-and-white, and we've got that. 

The question I want answered by you and the other like-minded folks is this: 

What should have been done a year ago when the rule was implemented? Obviously, you think billyg and iguana and emy and the like should've made immediate moves to bring themselves into compliance. And that's a reasonable position, although I think it's reasonable to disagree. But one year ago, they were not cheating. Then there was a new rule that turned their rule-abiding actions into rule-breaking ones. Should they have just dropped teams without any compensation for losing everything they had put into them? Should they have petitioned WIS to get their resumes moved intact to a different world? What actions, solely on the part of the user, would've made you happy? And if they had asked for some reasonable concessions (like transferring their resume) and WIS blew them off, where would the blame lie? 

Just curious. 

I think WIS should move them as an unemployed coach to the world of their choice...  Or they can pick any team they are qualified for in the same world that meets the requirements (more than 1000 miles away). 

I don't think any other compensation is needed. 

If WIS was agreeable, one or two free seasons would also be fine. 

Sounds fair. So it seems we're agreed that WIS should've done something. 

The question, I suppose, is whether the onus was on the player or on WIS to make this happen. Personally, I think WIS should have put out a request for anyone in violation of the new rule to discuss what should be done about getting them reasonably compensated (and transferring the resume as an unemployed coach to another world sounds reasonable to me). Or perhaps WIS should've just made an offer along those lines and asked for anyone in violation to take them up on it, a one-time offer for a move with compensation, with the stipulation that anyone discovered to be in violation in the future would have a team dropped with no compensation. 

If those things had been done, I would say the onus is solely on the player, and I would agree with you that there's no room for whining here. But when they stuck it in an update (that, full disclosure, I didn't even read or remember noticing) and added little fanfare, even though they knew many were in violation, I would not say the onus was on the player. I think WIS was sending mixed signals with their words and actions, and I think it's reasonable for the players in violation to take that to mean that they shouldn't have anything to worry about. Not saying it's clearly the right interpretation, but saying it's reasonable. It seems like a confusing situation, and I'd have liked to see WIS stake out their position a little more strongly. Be in, or be out, don't send mixed signals. of course, be understanding of those affected when you make new rules and offer reasonable compensation. But if you make a new rule, stand by it. 

I actually do agree that the 1000 mile rule is arbitrary. I think they should not allow more than one team in any world. That is why it is a world.. There is only one you! In fact, in any other games besides GD and HD, you can have only one team in a world. 

i agree with your suggestions hughes, and think no other compensation was needed, beyond the help you suggest WIS offer. i do however think coaches should have been given a grace period to transition gracefully, say, 4 seasons, maybe even 6-8 if you want to be very reasonable about it. and i think a couple seasons would probably have helped smooth things over, for coaches who were complaint (NOT coaches who violated the rules later). but i dont think it was needed, and id have been happy without it.

if WIS did that, we would have known they were serious, and i cant speak for everyone, but i DEFINITELY would have complied with the rule. i think most other coaches would. but they did nothing, didnt even explain the change, and even further, made it clear that BOTH they would do nothing to help people, and secondly, that people with existing teams werent really their concern and those coaches shouldnt worry.

so i think we arent quite as far apart as you think. we would have liked to follow the rules, but its WIS's responsibility to gracefully transition people who always followed the rule, when they make a new rule that drastically impacts existing coaches, who put a lot of time and money into getting where they were. so i think we at least agree, WIS failed badly, and they failed first, right? if you can agree with that, i can agree that maybe i failed second by not picking up the whole burden and handling everything myself :O

I have to admit, had it not been brought up on the forums, I wouldn't have even known that WIS stuck that new rule in the Fairplay guidelines.  Wouldn't have had a clue.  Was it even announced on the coaches corner or as an update?  If it was, I surely missed it, but I'm not sure that WIS did announce it, maybe a coach who had happened to be skimming through the guidelines caught it and brought it to light.  Honestly can say that I don't ever remember seeing it publicized by anyone from this website, just from other coaches.