As a person who has 1 team in 1 world, I find this entire topic interesting.  Rather than take a side (publicly) I'll throw out a different solution that could still be implemented for most users.  I don't know if this solution makes sense, and I am not a computer programmer, but how hard would it be to offer a "team trade?"  WIS gives a one time offer, if you have teams within a 1000 miles of each other you can go to another school in the same division that is more than 1000 miles away from the school you're keeping, taking your current roster and prestige with you.  Obviously this may only work at D3 and D2 so a Mich St. roster did not end up in the Big West.  Or say a Big 6 has to go to another Big 6 conference.  The sim roster and prestige would then be transferred to the human player's old school.  I know there are issues, but it would have left loyal and dedicated users keep there rosters and prestige and follow the new 1000 mile rule that would make the other side happy. Anybody who did not come forward when asked to would then be subject to losing one of their teams if found to be in violation of the rule.

Posted by piman314 on 5/26/2013 5:20:00 PM (view original):
As a person who has 1 team in 1 world, I find this entire topic interesting.  Rather than take a side (publicly) I'll throw out a different solution that could still be implemented for most users.  I don't know if this solution makes sense, and I am not a computer programmer, but how hard would it be to offer a "team trade?"  WIS gives a one time offer, if you have teams within a 1000 miles of each other you can go to another school in the same division that is more than 1000 miles away from the school you're keeping, taking your current roster and prestige with you.  Obviously this may only work at D3 and D2 so a Mich St. roster did not end up in the Big West.  Or say a Big 6 has to go to another Big 6 conference.  The sim roster and prestige would then be transferred to the human player's old school.  I know there are issues, but it would have left loyal and dedicated users keep there rosters and prestige and follow the new 1000 mile rule that would make the other side happy. Anybody who did not come forward when asked to would then be subject to losing one of their teams if found to be in violation of the rule.

i would be all for that, and could even live with only being allowed 1 team in an entire world. assuming your resume transferred too, of course! i can really live with any of the proposed rules as long as the site staff put an honest effort into handling the situation gracefully.

Firstly, I would like to give a big peace-out to Iguana. I'm a big fan of your work, hopefully you'll find your way back sooner rather than later.

Secondly, and I do not want or intend to start a fight with this, but just ask billyg an honest question in an attempt to find some understanding.

On the previous page, in response to mamxet's questions concerning recruiting conduct, you said this:
"3) i dont think i agree with this one. in d1, when i had two teams, i would only scout a state on one team, and only scout national players from scouting areas. when i had d1/d3 teams in the same state, i definitely scouted the same **** all the time, but there is 0 overlap. basically, if my 2 teams overlap in recruits, i dont want to scout the same state, to be safe. but if they dont, who cares? overlap is somewhat subjective, but as long as people try to be reasonable, im not too worried about it. i dont consider a BCS d1 team to overlap with my a+ d2 team, but there could be a recruit here and there when i had for example, south carolina at a b-. i had UK right next door to SIUE (border of illinois and missouri) starting at a b-, and then generally at an a+ after building up. but that was before the new engine, back then, no overlap. today, maybe a tiny bit? i think when you try to get it right, there are often very, very small advantages and disadvantages for you (actually, more commonly the latter, it seems to me), and my philosophy on right and wrong is such that as long as you make a true reasonable effort to minimize it, its not a big deal. were not competing in the olympics here. anyway i would consider d2 teams overlapping, and low d1 and d2 teams overlapping. but thats just my opinion, i dont think in practice, its that big of a deal. i know of a guy (well, most of us do) with two d2 teams really close. im not even worried about him seeing the same guys - its a disadvantage overall - because he now has to split the guys he likes between both schools. that sucks. nobody can match your tastes more closely than yourself. i guess you dont battle yourself, but the average amount you battle another school in the area is pretty small, i think its a much bigger loss to have to decide which d2 team to recruit a guy with, than to avoid having those battles.

4) absolutely."

And I apologize in advance if anything is not an adequate interpretation of what you said, and should it happen I'll amend my comments. With that being said, I want to address specifically the statement, "in d1, when i had two teams, i would only scout a state on one team, and only scout national players from scouting areas. when i had d1/d3 teams in the same state, i definitely scouted the same **** all the time, but there is 0 overlap. basically, if my 2 teams overlap in recruits, i dont want to scout the same state, to be safe. but if they don't, who cares?" I understand what you're saying about D1 & D3 teams not having any overlapping recruits, but I'm assuming that you don't FSS one state with both teams and in those cases it's probably the D1 school that picks up the tab most of the time. Given that approximately 11 states average roughly between $500 and $800 individually while 4 other states average between $1,300 and $1,400, can't you see how this would be a significant advantage (especially at DIII) and why people would care? And, if my observations are correct, wouldn't it mean that your answer to the fourth question in that set could be seen as somewhat hypocritical?

Posted by emy1013 on 5/26/2013 4:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 5/26/2013 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/26/2013 2:54:00 PM (view original):
well, assuming we paid. i generally have had to pay on this ID at least, always hopping around doing odd jobs, never staying at an already-established program (south carolina WOULD have been the first).

id honestly be 95% as ****** if i picked up south carolina AFTER the rule change. just sort of use the grandfather rule of an example of trying to deal with things gracefully - i could have avoided moving to keep teams in the world. but even without making the grandfather clause, its bullcrap i have all my time spent building up IDs in one world from when that was totally above board. i really dont want to start again in d3 anywhere. im like 1 for 5 trying to get an ID built up just to low d1 in a world since the rule change (i did want to try to comply eventually, and honestly i figured some day the straight up multiple team ban was coming and i wanted to prepare - it was just too big a pain in the *** to accomplish without seble doing anything. why should i have to pay for that anyway?). ive yet to have the stamina to get any ID to a BCS team anywhere but tark, it takes a long *** time and frankly i put the time in already, im just not interested in doing it again, and making me is bullshit. if seble would have offered to transfer resumes when he made the rule, for say up to a year after, i definitely would have done it. i think most other coaches would too - take some time to wind down at the programs that aren't your most favorite and painful to give up, and move. a select few have been at BOTH programs for 5 years and maybe an exception could be made for them? (i am not even close to being one of those). anyway, again, i really dont care so much about the rule, or even about being in compliance before the rule. you cant make a rule that impacts people to that extent in a setting like this, and in no way address the situation or give people *any* guidance on how to proceed. its just retarded.

the votes on banning multiple teams were pretty split. im 100% against it - but not on principle of the rule alone. simply because we know seble wont do **** to mediate the situation and it would be a total ******* disaster. so i could even live with multiple team ban, if handlled reasonably...

Well said...does it surprise you that seble is quite reviled in/for the NBA sim as well?  He got a guy (e-monk) banned over there for "repeated abuse" because the guy took seble to task on everything and there's a pretty large agreement over that way that that sim is in the shitter...I used to play it all the time...that used to be my game here.

Again to penalize honest, respectable, well-liked guys who have poured thousands into your game/company is incredibly dumb, naive, and short-sighted...especially because of the lazy/selective enforcement and the lack of enacting 1 or more of MANY simple/reasonable solutions.  He seems to leave a wake of destruction every where he goes.

Funny, I got banned from the forums for a few days many years ago, also for taking Seble to task about decisions he had made regarding HD.  I don't think it was Seble personally who banned me, not from the way the response was written.  Appeared as though it was some flunky intern, who was upset that his idol Seble wasn't being viewed in the best light, who got a little sensitive and laid down the ban.  Again, don't think it was Seble personally just by how it was written.  If it was, he's definitely got split personalities.  There is definitely a "circle-the-wagons" mentality amongst site staff here though.

Lol, I got banned 2 or 3...maybe 4 different times, ranging from 3 days to 30 days (got banned for a month, maybe that was the time I redlined seble...his post wasn't pertinent lol) and that's really the first/only reason I created another ID was so I could post on the forums.

He's not a saint and neither are a lot of the WIS staff, but I went way too hard at them for a while back in the day and I'm sorry for it...if I could do it over again I would.  Honey over vinegar.  With that said though, sometimes I got smart *** answers that just set me off...I digress as I'm probably only repeating this for the 19th time lol.

Seble's in a tough spot, but if I were in his shoes, I would have thought about this situation a lot more and acted a lot less/differently when making determinations that sealed/were to seal the fates of players who A. had multiple < 1000 mile teams before the rule was created and B. spent a lot of time/money/effort at said school/the company I work for.  Not in some "stick it to the man" way or anything, but I hope he regrets what he did someday...just saying.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/27/2013 9:10:00 AM (view original):
Firstly, I would like to give a big peace-out to Iguana. I'm a big fan of your work, hopefully you'll find your way back sooner rather than later.

Secondly, and I do not want or intend to start a fight with this, but just ask billyg an honest question in an attempt to find some understanding.

On the previous page, in response to mamxet's questions concerning recruiting conduct, you said this:
"3) i dont think i agree with this one. in d1, when i had two teams, i would only scout a state on one team, and only scout national players from scouting areas. when i had d1/d3 teams in the same state, i definitely scouted the same **** all the time, but there is 0 overlap. basically, if my 2 teams overlap in recruits, i dont want to scout the same state, to be safe. but if they dont, who cares? overlap is somewhat subjective, but as long as people try to be reasonable, im not too worried about it. i dont consider a BCS d1 team to overlap with my a+ d2 team, but there could be a recruit here and there when i had for example, south carolina at a b-. i had UK right next door to SIUE (border of illinois and missouri) starting at a b-, and then generally at an a+ after building up. but that was before the new engine, back then, no overlap. today, maybe a tiny bit? i think when you try to get it right, there are often very, very small advantages and disadvantages for you (actually, more commonly the latter, it seems to me), and my philosophy on right and wrong is such that as long as you make a true reasonable effort to minimize it, its not a big deal. were not competing in the olympics here. anyway i would consider d2 teams overlapping, and low d1 and d2 teams overlapping. but thats just my opinion, i dont think in practice, its that big of a deal. i know of a guy (well, most of us do) with two d2 teams really close. im not even worried about him seeing the same guys - its a disadvantage overall - because he now has to split the guys he likes between both schools. that sucks. nobody can match your tastes more closely than yourself. i guess you dont battle yourself, but the average amount you battle another school in the area is pretty small, i think its a much bigger loss to have to decide which d2 team to recruit a guy with, than to avoid having those battles.

4) absolutely."

And I apologize in advance if anything is not an adequate interpretation of what you said, and should it happen I'll amend my comments. With that being said, I want to address specifically the statement, "in d1, when i had two teams, i would only scout a state on one team, and only scout national players from scouting areas. when i had d1/d3 teams in the same state, i definitely scouted the same **** all the time, but there is 0 overlap. basically, if my 2 teams overlap in recruits, i dont want to scout the same state, to be safe. but if they don't, who cares?" I understand what you're saying about D1 & D3 teams not having any overlapping recruits, but I'm assuming that you don't FSS one state with both teams and in those cases it's probably the D1 school that picks up the tab most of the time. Given that approximately 11 states average roughly between $500 and $800 individually while 4 other states average between $1,300 and $1,400, can't you see how this would be a significant advantage (especially at DIII) and why people would care? And, if my observations are correct, wouldn't it mean that your answer to the fourth question in that set could be seen as somewhat hypocritical?

I may be mistaken, but I believe that when cbg says he "scouted the same **** all the time" I take that to mean that he used FSS for the same areas with both teams. I really do not think he just paid for it from the D 1 team, but I'm sure he'll see this and respond as well...

Yeah, but my opinion is that if you have two teams in the same world - which I think is fine in theory - you shouldn't be recruiting the same geographic areas, even if FSSing with both. I understand all of the reasons to want two teams in the same world, but you also have to make sacrifices. Doing anything you can to avoid the appearance of impropriety is just one of those sacrifices.

Posted by colonels19 on 5/27/2013 10:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 5/26/2013 4:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 5/26/2013 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/26/2013 2:54:00 PM (view original):
well, assuming we paid. i generally have had to pay on this ID at least, always hopping around doing odd jobs, never staying at an already-established program (south carolina WOULD have been the first).

id honestly be 95% as ****** if i picked up south carolina AFTER the rule change. just sort of use the grandfather rule of an example of trying to deal with things gracefully - i could have avoided moving to keep teams in the world. but even without making the grandfather clause, its bullcrap i have all my time spent building up IDs in one world from when that was totally above board. i really dont want to start again in d3 anywhere. im like 1 for 5 trying to get an ID built up just to low d1 in a world since the rule change (i did want to try to comply eventually, and honestly i figured some day the straight up multiple team ban was coming and i wanted to prepare - it was just too big a pain in the *** to accomplish without seble doing anything. why should i have to pay for that anyway?). ive yet to have the stamina to get any ID to a BCS team anywhere but tark, it takes a long *** time and frankly i put the time in already, im just not interested in doing it again, and making me is bullshit. if seble would have offered to transfer resumes when he made the rule, for say up to a year after, i definitely would have done it. i think most other coaches would too - take some time to wind down at the programs that aren't your most favorite and painful to give up, and move. a select few have been at BOTH programs for 5 years and maybe an exception could be made for them? (i am not even close to being one of those). anyway, again, i really dont care so much about the rule, or even about being in compliance before the rule. you cant make a rule that impacts people to that extent in a setting like this, and in no way address the situation or give people *any* guidance on how to proceed. its just retarded.

the votes on banning multiple teams were pretty split. im 100% against it - but not on principle of the rule alone. simply because we know seble wont do **** to mediate the situation and it would be a total ******* disaster. so i could even live with multiple team ban, if handlled reasonably...

Well said...does it surprise you that seble is quite reviled in/for the NBA sim as well?  He got a guy (e-monk) banned over there for "repeated abuse" because the guy took seble to task on everything and there's a pretty large agreement over that way that that sim is in the shitter...I used to play it all the time...that used to be my game here.

Again to penalize honest, respectable, well-liked guys who have poured thousands into your game/company is incredibly dumb, naive, and short-sighted...especially because of the lazy/selective enforcement and the lack of enacting 1 or more of MANY simple/reasonable solutions.  He seems to leave a wake of destruction every where he goes.

Funny, I got banned from the forums for a few days many years ago, also for taking Seble to task about decisions he had made regarding HD.  I don't think it was Seble personally who banned me, not from the way the response was written.  Appeared as though it was some flunky intern, who was upset that his idol Seble wasn't being viewed in the best light, who got a little sensitive and laid down the ban.  Again, don't think it was Seble personally just by how it was written.  If it was, he's definitely got split personalities.  There is definitely a "circle-the-wagons" mentality amongst site staff here though.

Lol, I got banned 2 or 3...maybe 4 different times, ranging from 3 days to 30 days (got banned for a month, maybe that was the time I redlined seble...his post wasn't pertinent lol) and that's really the first/only reason I created another ID was so I could post on the forums.

He's not a saint and neither are a lot of the WIS staff, but I went way too hard at them for a while back in the day and I'm sorry for it...if I could do it over again I would.  Honey over vinegar.  With that said though, sometimes I got smart *** answers that just set me off...I digress as I'm probably only repeating this for the 19th time lol.

Seble's in a tough spot, but if I were in his shoes, I would have thought about this situation a lot more and acted a lot less/differently when making determinations that sealed/were to seal the fates of players who A. had multiple < 1000 mile teams before the rule was created and B. spent a lot of time/money/effort at said school/the company I work for.  Not in some "stick it to the man" way or anything, but I hope he regrets what he did someday...just saying.

My brother is a long-time player of an MMO (actually, I think he's been playing since it launched in the early to mid 2000s), and I'm trying to get him onboard with HD (he sometimes refers to his game as "Spreadsheets in Space," so I feel like there's some common appeal here). 

Anyways, I was telling him how it seems like the WIS staff is interested in listening to the players here but that this sometimes just results in taking to heart whatever the loudest guy on the forum is shouting. He told me that they have a player-elected council that gets together and suggests changes that will benefit the community as a whole, and that the programmers generally listen to the council. This seems like a much better strategy than what we do. 

Of course, his game releases massive updates twice a year, and I don't expect that (or even want that--I think you're more likely to do harm than good when messing with a solid Sim engine) from HD, but it would be nice if the tinkering here and there actually focused on what people want tinkered with (i.e. hiring/firing logic) instead of exactly how far away your teams can be. 

Yep, I've been suggesting something like that for a long time, back in the Admin days. I think he might've even put something together for a bit an excluded me purposefully, because he ... ummm ... hated me.

It would be a great thing.

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/26/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 5/25/2013 8:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 5/25/2013 8:17:00 PM (view original):
the whole argument of if someone willfully followed the rules or not, is simply not the point. the people who keep beating that drum are looking at the small picture, not the big one. old admin, who made this game, *WOULD HAVE NEVER PULLED THIS *****. its so obviously bad when such a big % of the population of this game is predicated on people having multiple teams. seble doesnt really understand, and he didnt have a problem either, he is just trying to silence the whiners. further, there was no provision or guidance on how to unwind - rather, it was more like emy said, seble wont do anything unless someone cheats and gets reported for it (cheating meaning, abusing the two teams for an unfair advantage).problem is, people started complaining WITHOUT those coaches doing anything unreasonable between teams. hughes, explain how me having a d1 A+ prestige team and a d2 team within 1000 miles is an unfair advantage *even without intentional abuse*, as you suggest it must be. its god damn ridiculous, their pools of recruits dont overlap not even for one guy. its not even close. to claim that is an unfair advantage is just ignorant, plain and simple. so yeah, i know my a+ school isnt going after that 200 miles away guy i really want on my d2 school. ok. tell me something i didnt already know. seriously, please do... its just stupid. 

the big picture is this. this game is strictly for fun, and this game needs a healthy population to be a fun game (what it doesnt need to be a fun game, is the policing of ridiculous rules). thats the gigantic flashing sign in the sky you all seem to ignore. this game needs a healthy population and its struggled to grow for many years. what keeps things going is the few coaches who do play often get hooked and pick up multiple teams. sometimes they are in different worlds, sometimes, the same world. to prioritize eliminating maybe possibly a guy gets some miniscule unmeasurable advantage from having 2 d1 schools 800 miles apart, not intentionally abusing it, over the healthy population of this game, it just makes no sense at all. the big picture is there, some of you guys are refusing to look at it. if it was reasonable to put the rule in place, it was non arbitrary to draw the line at 1000, if there was any legitimacy at all, it would be different.

Why the rule was developed or how is not relevant.

There is a rule and it is a violation of fair play to disregard the rule.

It does not even matter if there is or is not an advantage.

Fair game play means following the rules .. we don't get to pick only the ones we agree with.

i was going to try to avoid ridiculous examples, but if we cant get beyond black and white, i fail to see another way.

correct me if im wrong here, but im going to characterize your argument as not follow a rule is wrong no matter what, period.

is that an accurate characterization? i dont want to get hung up on the word "cheating" or not. right and wrong, forget the vocabulary.

my counter example, as ridiculous as it may be, is the actions of jewish people who fled germany after ordered to go to concentration camps. they didnt know how it would turn out but thought the rule was ridiculous and fled the law. if you characterize that as them doing something wrong, i cant see us continuing this discussion!

to me what makes it not wrong is the rule itself was flawed. the system of enforcement of the rule was flawed (the treatment at the camps being an unreasonable enforcement of the rule). you *cant* simply take any rule on face value and fault anyone who does not follow it. its not always black and white. can we at least agree on that?

I don't agree with every rule, everywhere, not matter what.

In this case, I am saying that this game has rules that must be followed.  One agrees to follow the rules to play, before you are given a team ... and every time you pay to add credits if you have a team.

A person who says they will follow the game rules, and does not is dishonest.

Anyone who does not follow the fair play guidelines is not playing fair and is subject to being banned from the game.

While I don't want anyone terminated, I feel that I (as a paying customer) have a right to expect that if I follow the fair play guidelines, i should expect that others will also follow the same guidelines or that they will face consequences.  I don't think that unfair play should be allowed and I, in fact, demand that it is not allowed.  If they want to change the rules so that it is allowed to have 2 teams w/in 1000 miles, I would be against it ... HOWEVER, if it was the rule, then I would accept that people who did it are playing fair and then I would need to make a decision if I wanted to continue to pay to play a game that allowed this rule.

I would post my opinion of the rule when asked and petition to have it changed if possible ... but I would accept the rule (as a term of service to play the game) and abide by it.

All I am saying is that there are terms of service to play and everyone needs to follow the terms of service ... that puts everyone on an equal playing field and within the parameters of the game.  When people do not follow the terms of service and it is known by everyone that it is happening, it undermines all the other fair play guidelines too.

If Coach A does not have to follow the 1000 mile rule, why do I have to follow the "No Throwing a Game Rule" (it might be good for my whole conference if Team B gets into the NT and not hurt my seed at all to lose the last game in the CT) or the "No Collusion Rule" (No need to risk me and Team B going for the same recruits ... we both have A+ prestiges and really only need to fear each other ... if we exchange lists then we can both recruit better and we are going to beat the other guys in the area anyway ... what does it hurt) ... etc, etc?

The bottom line is, if there are rules for fair game play then all users need to follow them all the time ... we don't get to pick our own rules to follow or none of them matter.

Posted by kujayhawk on 5/24/2013 4:39:00 PM (view original):
Interesting thread.

For the record, I support the grandfathering of folks that had teams prior to the 1000 mile rule.

And for the record, I think that Iguana was one of the more helpful and intelligent users in HD.  Losing him will be a loss.  His forum posts were gold.


And with those disclaimers out of the way, Iguana / Oldwarrior is a perfect example for those that are anti-grandfathering and/or opposed to two teams in the same world.  This is a year old thread, but I still remember it because I lost a tremendous amount of respect for Iguana after reading it.  Iguana took his Michigan State team and recruited a player from the South that was previously considering a different team in his D2 conference.  Yes, it is possible that Iguana did that with "blinders on" and chose to scout and recruit a long distance state that just happened to be in the 360 mile radius of his D2 team and since the blinders were on didn't notice that he'd be taking a recruit from another team in his D2 conference which would obviously benefit the D2 team.  But there is just way too much opportunity for foul play in what happened and as such it impacted the way I looked at Iguana.  And as such I think it is rather amusing that he's being held as a paragon of something that WIS needs to go out of its way to protect.

Eesh. Yeah, don't really need to read much farther than this post. That interaction was essentially a textbook example of why the rule is in place, and why it needs to be consistently enforced. 

That rule wouldn't stop this from happening... which is the problem with the rule, it's just arbitrary. Which is what veteran coaches keep echoing but many seem not to understand. 

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/27/2013 9:10:00 AM (view original):
Firstly, I would like to give a big peace-out to Iguana. I'm a big fan of your work, hopefully you'll find your way back sooner rather than later.

Secondly, and I do not want or intend to start a fight with this, but just ask billyg an honest question in an attempt to find some understanding.

On the previous page, in response to mamxet's questions concerning recruiting conduct, you said this:
"3) i dont think i agree with this one. in d1, when i had two teams, i would only scout a state on one team, and only scout national players from scouting areas. when i had d1/d3 teams in the same state, i definitely scouted the same **** all the time, but there is 0 overlap. basically, if my 2 teams overlap in recruits, i dont want to scout the same state, to be safe. but if they dont, who cares? overlap is somewhat subjective, but as long as people try to be reasonable, im not too worried about it. i dont consider a BCS d1 team to overlap with my a+ d2 team, but there could be a recruit here and there when i had for example, south carolina at a b-. i had UK right next door to SIUE (border of illinois and missouri) starting at a b-, and then generally at an a+ after building up. but that was before the new engine, back then, no overlap. today, maybe a tiny bit? i think when you try to get it right, there are often very, very small advantages and disadvantages for you (actually, more commonly the latter, it seems to me), and my philosophy on right and wrong is such that as long as you make a true reasonable effort to minimize it, its not a big deal. were not competing in the olympics here. anyway i would consider d2 teams overlapping, and low d1 and d2 teams overlapping. but thats just my opinion, i dont think in practice, its that big of a deal. i know of a guy (well, most of us do) with two d2 teams really close. im not even worried about him seeing the same guys - its a disadvantage overall - because he now has to split the guys he likes between both schools. that sucks. nobody can match your tastes more closely than yourself. i guess you dont battle yourself, but the average amount you battle another school in the area is pretty small, i think its a much bigger loss to have to decide which d2 team to recruit a guy with, than to avoid having those battles.

4) absolutely."

And I apologize in advance if anything is not an adequate interpretation of what you said, and should it happen I'll amend my comments. With that being said, I want to address specifically the statement, "in d1, when i had two teams, i would only scout a state on one team, and only scout national players from scouting areas. when i had d1/d3 teams in the same state, i definitely scouted the same **** all the time, but there is 0 overlap. basically, if my 2 teams overlap in recruits, i dont want to scout the same state, to be safe. but if they don't, who cares?" I understand what you're saying about D1 & D3 teams not having any overlapping recruits, but I'm assuming that you don't FSS one state with both teams and in those cases it's probably the D1 school that picks up the tab most of the time. Given that approximately 11 states average roughly between $500 and $800 individually while 4 other states average between $1,300 and $1,400, can't you see how this would be a significant advantage (especially at DIII) and why people would care? And, if my observations are correct, wouldn't it mean that your answer to the fourth question in that set could be seen as somewhat hypocritical?

i absolutely would FSS the same states on both. generally every state i scouted in d3 was scouted in d1. first, its cheating not to, so theres no decision to be made on my part how to handle that. second, what a pain in the *** that would be! i cant even get the energy up to coach my teams, i dont have the energy to try to save some money by finding recruits first on a d1 team and then going back and searching again on another team. there have been a number of seasons when i scouted the same state on all 3 of my teams (when i had d1, d2, and d3 teams). i dont really know why people have the impression someone with multiple teams surely wouldnt pay twice, i cant imagine paying once and suffering through trying to find the guys i like from one search in another. i mean, i can imagine, having written tools myself and used those other wrote, where you could import recruits but not export, and man, it sucks. its so bad i couldnt even make it through one season. so really, even if it wasnt cheating, there is no way i would put up with that crap. but more importantly, its clearly an abuse, an unfair advantage, and i cant derive pleasure from a strategy game when i have an unfair advantage. i try (and generally fail, it seems) to not let passion for the subject matter come across as arrogance or being conceited. but the simple reality is i have too much confidence in myself to take pride in winning with an unfair advantage. i dont need it and i sure as hell dont want it. 

the whole point about being able to have a d3 and d1 team 10 miles apart is that when you scout and search on one, it doesnt impact the other, because you are looking at d1 recruits in one case, and d2/d3 in the other. there is no overlap. using one team to scout for both totally invalidates that. i totally agree that if you did use your d1 team to scout for d3, that would be cheating, and i totally would see why people would care. but i dont know why you would assume a coach wouldnt scout the same state on both. why not? you can just as easily pick up a free HD team and intentionally abuse them, as i can with my 2 teams. should i just assume you do it? i guess i dont understand that way of thinking. i understand skepticism with respect to the moral values of people around you, and i always would be on the look out for cheating in say, a high stakes below ground poker game, where there is huge incentive to abuse the system. but in this game if you win a title you win like 15 bucks. 25? i dont know, something like that (above basic season cost). i doubt anyone is out there cheating for the money. so what do you cheat for? pride of winning? im sure that works for some members of the community but i dont believe it works for the true competitors. when the reward of winning is huge, of course guys like lance armstrong will abuse the system. but i like to have a little faith in my fellow coaches that they wont cheat to... have some minor bragging rights in an online simulation game?? again, i know some guys do it, i just dont think a significant portion of the competitive coaches do.

Posted by hughesjr on 5/27/2013 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/26/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 5/25/2013 8:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 5/25/2013 8:17:00 PM (view original):
the whole argument of if someone willfully followed the rules or not, is simply not the point. the people who keep beating that drum are looking at the small picture, not the big one. old admin, who made this game, *WOULD HAVE NEVER PULLED THIS *****. its so obviously bad when such a big % of the population of this game is predicated on people having multiple teams. seble doesnt really understand, and he didnt have a problem either, he is just trying to silence the whiners. further, there was no provision or guidance on how to unwind - rather, it was more like emy said, seble wont do anything unless someone cheats and gets reported for it (cheating meaning, abusing the two teams for an unfair advantage).problem is, people started complaining WITHOUT those coaches doing anything unreasonable between teams. hughes, explain how me having a d1 A+ prestige team and a d2 team within 1000 miles is an unfair advantage *even without intentional abuse*, as you suggest it must be. its god damn ridiculous, their pools of recruits dont overlap not even for one guy. its not even close. to claim that is an unfair advantage is just ignorant, plain and simple. so yeah, i know my a+ school isnt going after that 200 miles away guy i really want on my d2 school. ok. tell me something i didnt already know. seriously, please do... its just stupid. 

the big picture is this. this game is strictly for fun, and this game needs a healthy population to be a fun game (what it doesnt need to be a fun game, is the policing of ridiculous rules). thats the gigantic flashing sign in the sky you all seem to ignore. this game needs a healthy population and its struggled to grow for many years. what keeps things going is the few coaches who do play often get hooked and pick up multiple teams. sometimes they are in different worlds, sometimes, the same world. to prioritize eliminating maybe possibly a guy gets some miniscule unmeasurable advantage from having 2 d1 schools 800 miles apart, not intentionally abusing it, over the healthy population of this game, it just makes no sense at all. the big picture is there, some of you guys are refusing to look at it. if it was reasonable to put the rule in place, it was non arbitrary to draw the line at 1000, if there was any legitimacy at all, it would be different.

Why the rule was developed or how is not relevant.

There is a rule and it is a violation of fair play to disregard the rule.

It does not even matter if there is or is not an advantage.

Fair game play means following the rules .. we don't get to pick only the ones we agree with.

i was going to try to avoid ridiculous examples, but if we cant get beyond black and white, i fail to see another way.

correct me if im wrong here, but im going to characterize your argument as not follow a rule is wrong no matter what, period.

is that an accurate characterization? i dont want to get hung up on the word "cheating" or not. right and wrong, forget the vocabulary.

my counter example, as ridiculous as it may be, is the actions of jewish people who fled germany after ordered to go to concentration camps. they didnt know how it would turn out but thought the rule was ridiculous and fled the law. if you characterize that as them doing something wrong, i cant see us continuing this discussion!

to me what makes it not wrong is the rule itself was flawed. the system of enforcement of the rule was flawed (the treatment at the camps being an unreasonable enforcement of the rule). you *cant* simply take any rule on face value and fault anyone who does not follow it. its not always black and white. can we at least agree on that?

I don't agree with every rule, everywhere, not matter what.

In this case, I am saying that this game has rules that must be followed.  One agrees to follow the rules to play, before you are given a team ... and every time you pay to add credits if you have a team.

A person who says they will follow the game rules, and does not is dishonest.

Anyone who does not follow the fair play guidelines is not playing fair and is subject to being banned from the game.

While I don't want anyone terminated, I feel that I (as a paying customer) have a right to expect that if I follow the fair play guidelines, i should expect that others will also follow the same guidelines or that they will face consequences.  I don't think that unfair play should be allowed and I, in fact, demand that it is not allowed.  If they want to change the rules so that it is allowed to have 2 teams w/in 1000 miles, I would be against it ... HOWEVER, if it was the rule, then I would accept that people who did it are playing fair and then I would need to make a decision if I wanted to continue to pay to play a game that allowed this rule.

I would post my opinion of the rule when asked and petition to have it changed if possible ... but I would accept the rule (as a term of service to play the game) and abide by it.

All I am saying is that there are terms of service to play and everyone needs to follow the terms of service ... that puts everyone on an equal playing field and within the parameters of the game.  When people do not follow the terms of service and it is known by everyone that it is happening, it undermines all the other fair play guidelines too.

If Coach A does not have to follow the 1000 mile rule, why do I have to follow the "No Throwing a Game Rule" (it might be good for my whole conference if Team B gets into the NT and not hurt my seed at all to lose the last game in the CT) or the "No Collusion Rule" (No need to risk me and Team B going for the same recruits ... we both have A+ prestiges and really only need to fear each other ... if we exchange lists then we can both recruit better and we are going to beat the other guys in the area anyway ... what does it hurt) ... etc, etc?

The bottom line is, if there are rules for fair game play then all users need to follow them all the time ... we don't get to pick our own rules to follow or none of them matter.

edit: im going to go ahead and clarify that this isnt really worth reading unless you are hughes having the conversation with me, and even then its questionable :)

i see where you are coming from, but i take a couple exceptions.

"A person who says they will follow the game rules, and does not is dishonest." - first, i cant recall signing a license or use agreement when i add seasons. i dont think i ever agreed to follow seble's new rule, and i dont think anyone asked me. ive made it perfectly clear ive had teams within 1000 miles even though it was never made clear to me if it mattered if they were cross division. i knew that the possibility existed and hoped seble wasnt stupid enough to make the rule cross division, but he is, and he did. so i was in violation, but i *never* claimed to be following that rule. most people in this position can make the same statement. theres a difference between saying you will do something and not doing it, which is somewhat dishonest (as you point out), and saying, this is total bullshit, im going to ignore it. most people who have had multiple teams went with the latter, myself included.

im glad you would accept any rule and just go with it, that makes life simpler for you. and you are generally a pretty good guy so im happy that system works for you. im personally not OK with playing a game for 5 years and then having the situation ripped out under me. its too big a hit to the enjoyment of the game. its similar to (but of greatly different magnitude) when people flee a country for having rules they cannot stomach. typically, this is predicated by those same people ignoring rules they could not abide by, when the repercussions were small enough to risk. just like in prohibition - people knew it was illegal to drink, but they did. they broke a rule they were not willing to abide by. the ramifications of getting caught are small enough to risk it. at some point, if the government says, the penalty for drinking is death, those people generally want to leave. sometimes they have the financial means, sometimes they dont. 

this is a similar situation. my responsilibity to follow seble's rules is pretty small, so is the grievance. in the context of this game though, which is a minor facet of life, the grievance is quite significant. im perfectly happy to have enjoyed the game a bit longer and get banned as a result, because i really have very minimal interest in playing by seble's rules when they are so pitifully communicated and executed. you want to take the idealistic view of no matter what, id follow the fairplay rules. but the impact to you is nothing. if i didnt drink, id go along with prohibition. but if the government put prohibition in now, they would have to pry the makers mark from my cold, dead hands. i dont drink often, but its my right and the government can go **** themselves if they have a problem with it. this is a for fun game, and its everyones right to enjoy it. if seble wants to majorly screw that up and do nothing to mediate the situation, he can go **** himself. its really easy to take the idealistic view until it actually affects you. i hope you can recognize that and see that its not out of maliciousness or dishonesty that some of us refuse to follow sebles stupid system (the rule is ok, the implementation and execution is not ok). its out of the impact just being meaningful enough. you'd do the same if you loved drinking and the penalty for doing so was a ticket. at least, 99% of people would. occasionally a situation comes along, socrates agrees to get put to death for crimes against the church, when his guards will allow him to escape, and he refuses on moral ground. but most of us would simply escape, and i am one of them. im for being idealistic, but whats the cause here? the cause has to justify ignoring the simple realistic tradeoff. following the rules of an idiot who doesnt know what hes doing, for the sake of following his rules, just isnt a big prize, in my book. 

just to be clear, i dont collude with other coaches in recruiting. why? not because its a rule. because its an unfair advantage, that i want nothing to do with. there is a moral responsibility to follow rules but it has to be weighted against the situation and the rule itself, the value of "doing what you are supposed" to wins out when its close, but not when its not. when i drive down a 25mph road and its questionably too late for kids to be out, i go 25mph. there is reasonable justification, and even though my opinion differs, i follow the rule. when im driving through the middle of PA and its clear as could be, no traffic, and the speed limit is 55mph, i go faster. what am i going to do, veer offroad and hit a cow? i see the justification for a speed limit, but in some cases its ridiculous, so sometimes i comply, and sometimes i dont. maybe you always follow the speed limit, but 99% of people have rules they follow when they dont strongly object, when the costs of doing so are low. but when the rules dont make sense in that application, 99% of people have a case where they bend or break a rule. if you havent, i would bet money its from lack of experience, not a sincere devotion to idealism. 

what im saying is, this is not about honesty or dishonesty. ive been 100% honest, ive had teams within 1000 miles forever and would not move them myself even if i knew seble meant you couldnt have teams within 1000 miles even in different divisions. i simply dont agree people are subject to following the rules no matter what. if this was a free situation - if i had nothing invested - id have no say. but i have plenty invested, so i get some say, in my book. its not honesty or dishonesty, its a matter of principles and your values. my values are such that i can do whatever the hell i want until i infringe upon the rights of someone else and cause them some harm, where they suffer non trivially as a result. so can anyone else. if someone tries to inhibit that sort of behavior, without good cause, i dont respect the rule. i can see if you disagree with that philosophy, but i do object to calling it dishonest.

anyway, one last point to touch on. you say - "When people do not follow the terms of service and it is known by everyone that it is happening, it undermines all the other fair play guidelines too." - exactly! i feel like finally, we agree on something. thats the point. thats my way of protesting the system. the whole fair play guidelines system has been shoddy from day 1. i find myself on the other side of the coin in one sense, but in the big picture, my stance has not changed. in the past, i pushed for a clearer system and better enforcement of anti-collusion rules. but its more about the communication and clarity, and how the rules are implemented and enforced, than the details of what is allowed and what is not. i say the same thing today, i could accept (and follow) a set of rules that i didnt totally agree with. i cant accept the way the system of rules is handled by those responsible for handling it. same complaint ive had for 5 years. if i really agreed with the way the US govt operates, id probably respect that 55mph speed limit on a long straight flat road in the middle of nowhere, at least more than i do now. not following the rules where i legitimately disagree, and can tolerate the penalty, is partly how i express my objections to the system as a whole. now, i dont go up to the police officers and tell them that, but people around me notice it, i notice when the people around me do it, and to some degree, its a protest against the system in general. i dont drunk drive, but that doesnt mean on the way home from the drive through, a whopping  couple minute drive from home, i wont sometimes crack open the first beer on the way. why? because i should be allowed to and its total bullshit i cant. you cant get drunk drinking a third of a beer during a 5 minute ride home. its no worse than drinking water. does that make me dishonest? i dont think so. does it make me in the wrong, simply because i didnt follow a rule? thats debatable, but i dont think you or anyone else has the right to tell me not to do it, until it does (or has the potential to) directly and substantially infringe upon your rights. in short, anyone who says i cant crack open a beer 3 minutes from home, can go **** themselves. i rarely do it, not wanting to put up with the bullshit that can come with it, but its *NEVER* because i feel its wrong. and in the rare case i do open that beer 2 minutes early, its not because i cant wait, but out of frustration that some ******* is a big enough ******* to tell me not to do it.

the whole point of that needlessly long rant, hughes, is that i just dont at all agree you have to follow the rules without considering the bigger context, the situation, and the rule itself. and, i think its unfair to call that system of values dishonest, even if you disagree with it. just because i think the govt oversteps their bounds and authority with respect to interfering with individual liberties, and thus, wont abide all their rules where they strip individual liberties, doesnt make me dishonest, not at all. just because i believe in "spirit of the law", not "letter of the law" interpretations, that doesnt make me dishonest. i feel i followed the spirit of the HD code of conduct and i dont particularly care if that means i followed it to the letter or not - you can disagree, but again, that doesnt make me dishonest. and even if the "establishment" asks you if you are following a rule and you say yes, thats different than being dishonest to the community. i do feel a responsibility not to gain an unfair advantage, to play fair, but thats a responsibility i feel to my fellow HD coaches. not to seble. maybe there was some user agreement i signed when i put credits in (i doubt it), but even if there was, i dont consider that being dishonest to the community, which is really the only party in this situation that i feel any responsibility towards.

Posted by girt25 on 5/27/2013 1:41:00 PM (view original):
Yep, I've been suggesting something like that for a long time, back in the Admin days. I think he might've even put something together for a bit an excluded me purposefully, because he ... ummm ... hated me.

It would be a great thing.

i think it would be a good thing in theory. but with the way things go here, admin would just surround himself with a bunch of yes men, and would use that as an excuse to ignore everybody else, even more than he does now. or maybe it would  actually work. could go either way, i guess.