Posted by scthallfan on 5/27/2013 11:08:00 PM (view original):
This will be my first, and last, post on this subject.  If WiS really cared about this rule, they wouldn't make us police ourselves with it.  They would create some way that the majority of users couldn't get around.  Of course you are always going to have those people that are computer people and could get around whatever it is that is implemented.  I was around when HD started, played for a couple years and then quit for another few years.  I came back to the site somewhere around the beginning of the year.  If WiS really was that worried about this rule, they would be proactive about finding those people with multiple accounts that are also violating the 1000 mile rule.  Instead, they only do anything when someone ******* about it and creates a headache for them. Which tells me they really don't care so long as they aren't "being bothered" by users that complain about it.

Absolutely spot on.

years? theres no years, its maybe a year since the cross division thing came into play. the bottom line is when seble changed the rule and put a lot of good customers in violation, without them doing anything wrong, he had an obligation to do something - address the situation. by not doing anything to help transition, not even providing any direction (actually they did - the direction being not to worry about it, they never intended to really go out and enforce it - which you seem to ignore, for some reason) - they set up for a really negative situation if they did start enforcing it. it makes no sense how it was handled, and by giving people the idea they didnt really care about the issue, what do you expect people to do? i should not have to pay 15 seasons to build back up to replace a team i paid 15 seasons to get somewhere. that is absolute bullshit and that cannot be ignored. WIS has a responsibility to do something there and they failed to do so. its not just the 15 seasons but the 1-2 years it takes to go through those seasons.

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/27/2013 9:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mamxet on 5/27/2013 9:27:00 PM (view original):
ever wonder how much communication about recruits goes on between coaches in some conferences via sitemail?  

yeah... do you have any idea about the answer? i was shocked how many sitemails i got when i first started d1, but i try to block that from my memory. i dont get those requests now, but i feel like that is probably explained in a variety of ways (colluders learn who says yes and no, etc), other than people no longer do it. however, i just prefer to think its none of those reasons and people no longer do it =) at least not most people. so, if you have any idea... id sort of like to know. but only if the answer is the answer i hope for ;)

no idea

many seasons ago, I got a good number of sitemails suggesting the division of recruits.  They stopped when I was not cooperative, although I get one now and then - at very wide intervals now

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/28/2013 12:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/28/2013 12:44:00 AM (view original):
years? theres no years, its maybe a year since the cross division thing came into play. the bottom line is when seble changed the rule and put a lot of good customers in violation, without them doing anything wrong, he had an obligation to do something - address the situation. by not doing anything to help transition, not even providing any direction (actually they did - the direction being not to worry about it, they never intended to really go out and enforce it - which you seem to ignore, for some reason) - they set up for a really negative situation if they did start enforcing it. it makes no sense how it was handled, and by giving people the idea they didnt really care about the issue, what do you expect people to do? i should not have to pay 15 seasons to build back up to replace a team i paid 15 seasons to get somewhere. that is absolute bullshit and that cannot be ignored. WIS has a responsibility to do something there and they failed to do so. its not just the 15 seasons but the 1-2 years it takes to go through those seasons.

haha, I think you're being overly generous to your own cause when you say "maybe a year". On release notes/developer chats for the past year & a half I couldn't find anything...but don't worry, recruiting in Smith starts tomorrow so I'll have plenty of time to look that up for you, boo.
 

Well I'm pretty sure it was never talked about in a developer chat or release note.

Posted by isack24 on 5/28/2013 8:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/28/2013 12:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/28/2013 12:44:00 AM (view original):
years? theres no years, its maybe a year since the cross division thing came into play. the bottom line is when seble changed the rule and put a lot of good customers in violation, without them doing anything wrong, he had an obligation to do something - address the situation. by not doing anything to help transition, not even providing any direction (actually they did - the direction being not to worry about it, they never intended to really go out and enforce it - which you seem to ignore, for some reason) - they set up for a really negative situation if they did start enforcing it. it makes no sense how it was handled, and by giving people the idea they didnt really care about the issue, what do you expect people to do? i should not have to pay 15 seasons to build back up to replace a team i paid 15 seasons to get somewhere. that is absolute bullshit and that cannot be ignored. WIS has a responsibility to do something there and they failed to do so. its not just the 15 seasons but the 1-2 years it takes to go through those seasons.

haha, I think you're being overly generous to your own cause when you say "maybe a year". On release notes/developer chats for the past year & a half I couldn't find anything...but don't worry, recruiting in Smith starts tomorrow so I'll have plenty of time to look that up for you, boo.
 

Well I'm pretty sure it was never talked about in a developer chat or release note.

FWIW the new fair-play guidelines were introduced (there was a notification on every coaches corner in every world with a link - for those who weren't here yet and didn't see it) sometime in very late June or early July of 2012. I know this because I had a question about how the new wording regarding collusive behavior and the exchange of information about recruits/recruiting would impact mentor/mentee relationships and I sent in a ticket to discuss it on July 3, 2012.

No way. So nachopuzzle might be wrong. No...no...no!!!!! Everything I believe is collapsing on itself.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/28/2013 12:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/28/2013 12:44:00 AM (view original):
years? theres no years, its maybe a year since the cross division thing came into play. the bottom line is when seble changed the rule and put a lot of good customers in violation, without them doing anything wrong, he had an obligation to do something - address the situation. by not doing anything to help transition, not even providing any direction (actually they did - the direction being not to worry about it, they never intended to really go out and enforce it - which you seem to ignore, for some reason) - they set up for a really negative situation if they did start enforcing it. it makes no sense how it was handled, and by giving people the idea they didnt really care about the issue, what do you expect people to do? i should not have to pay 15 seasons to build back up to replace a team i paid 15 seasons to get somewhere. that is absolute bullshit and that cannot be ignored. WIS has a responsibility to do something there and they failed to do so. its not just the 15 seasons but the 1-2 years it takes to go through those seasons.

haha, I think you're being overly generous to your own cause when you say "maybe a year". On release notes/developer chats for the past year & a half I couldn't find anything...but don't worry, recruiting in Smith starts tomorrow so I'll have plenty of time to look that up for you, boo.
 

i was actually being generous to yours when i said maybe a year. it was maybe its been a year already at most, not at least. it definitely wasnt a year ago when this blew up a month ago.

Posted by dacj501 on 5/28/2013 8:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 5/28/2013 8:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/28/2013 12:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/28/2013 12:44:00 AM (view original):
years? theres no years, its maybe a year since the cross division thing came into play. the bottom line is when seble changed the rule and put a lot of good customers in violation, without them doing anything wrong, he had an obligation to do something - address the situation. by not doing anything to help transition, not even providing any direction (actually they did - the direction being not to worry about it, they never intended to really go out and enforce it - which you seem to ignore, for some reason) - they set up for a really negative situation if they did start enforcing it. it makes no sense how it was handled, and by giving people the idea they didnt really care about the issue, what do you expect people to do? i should not have to pay 15 seasons to build back up to replace a team i paid 15 seasons to get somewhere. that is absolute bullshit and that cannot be ignored. WIS has a responsibility to do something there and they failed to do so. its not just the 15 seasons but the 1-2 years it takes to go through those seasons.

haha, I think you're being overly generous to your own cause when you say "maybe a year". On release notes/developer chats for the past year & a half I couldn't find anything...but don't worry, recruiting in Smith starts tomorrow so I'll have plenty of time to look that up for you, boo.
 

Well I'm pretty sure it was never talked about in a developer chat or release note.

FWIW the new fair-play guidelines were introduced (there was a notification on every coaches corner in every world with a link - for those who weren't here yet and didn't see it) sometime in very late June or early July of 2012. I know this because I had a question about how the new wording regarding collusive behavior and the exchange of information about recruits/recruiting would impact mentor/mentee relationships and I sent in a ticket to discuss it on July 3, 2012.

oh... yeah. thanks. i feel like i tried to look it up and somehow dated it myself, back when this started, but i cant remember how. i dont think i was able to find the exact answer either. good thing that 15 word conference chat post made everything so clear, right?

I remember the 1,000-mile rule being placed on the conference board, not in any release note, aboutr a RL year ago.  Those that say HD is really uninterested in endorcement, unless someone rats out a person in violatrion of a rule established long after they had their teams are correct.  The same thing happened when a few people complained because their teams had been beaten by a lesser opponent, forgetting that even in RL, lots of upsets happen.  HD made it harder for that to happen, because a few people complained loudly.  Same with guys with multiple teams closer than 1K away.  There are probably lots of them, left over from when it was legal, and from guys that say, post-1K rule, well, if they are not going to enforce it unless somebody rats me out, why not try it?  Worst that can happen is I lose a team, and my rep goes down for a few seasons.  But when somebody complains--like whoever ratted out Billy G and Iguana, they take action.   Happened to a friend--he lost a team, and his rep in his other alias took a major hit.  But some other guy--no rep hit; just had to give up one of his teams at the end of the year.  Selective enforcement and unequal punishment--if you have criticized HD, ever,  you will probably get a harsher penalty.   In the minds of the holier-than-thou guys that ratted out BillyG and Iguana--whoever they were--appearance meant reality.  If they violated a sacrosanct rule, they must be punished, because obviously, they were using it to their advantage.  People, there is a reason new laws are not applied retroactively.  If we decide to up the property tax, we don't go back and sue taxpayers for back taxes under the new rule.
     Still maintain collusion is a zillion times more of a threat to competition.  Guys more or less dividing up recruits, and agreeing to savage any school challenging any of them.  Have a friend that has written several tickets on this matter, and HD, though officially frowning on such practices, cannot do much about it, especially if the collaborators use email, vice site mail.  If it were me colluding, would NEVER, EVER use site mail.

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/27/2013 9:12:00 PM (view original):

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.

Well, in his game, it was player-elected, which is the way to avoid yes men. Although I don't know how we'd set up a player election in HD, I like the idea in principle. 

Posted by tedlukacs on 5/28/2013 11:02:00 AM (view original):
I remember the 1,000-mile rule being placed on the conference board, not in any release note, aboutr a RL year ago.  Those that say HD is really uninterested in endorcement, unless someone rats out a person in violatrion of a rule established long after they had their teams are correct.  The same thing happened when a few people complained because their teams had been beaten by a lesser opponent, forgetting that even in RL, lots of upsets happen.  HD made it harder for that to happen, because a few people complained loudly.  Same with guys with multiple teams closer than 1K away.  There are probably lots of them, left over from when it was legal, and from guys that say, post-1K rule, well, if they are not going to enforce it unless somebody rats me out, why not try it?  Worst that can happen is I lose a team, and my rep goes down for a few seasons.  But when somebody complains--like whoever ratted out Billy G and Iguana, they take action.   Happened to a friend--he lost a team, and his rep in his other alias took a major hit.  But some other guy--no rep hit; just had to give up one of his teams at the end of the year.  Selective enforcement and unequal punishment--if you have criticized HD, ever,  you will probably get a harsher penalty.   In the minds of the holier-than-thou guys that ratted out BillyG and Iguana--whoever they were--appearance meant reality.  If they violated a sacrosanct rule, they must be punished, because obviously, they were using it to their advantage.  People, there is a reason new laws are not applied retroactively.  If we decide to up the property tax, we don't go back and sue taxpayers for back taxes under the new rule.
     Still maintain collusion is a zillion times more of a threat to competition.  Guys more or less dividing up recruits, and agreeing to savage any school challenging any of them.  Have a friend that has written several tickets on this matter, and HD, though officially frowning on such practices, cannot do much about it, especially if the collaborators use email, vice site mail.  If it were me colluding, would NEVER, EVER use site mail.

I wasn't aware that some coaches had their in game reputation affected by the 1000 mile moves. That is ridiculous, especially if the teams were at one point in compliance.

I too respect iguana/oldwarrior, but I won't hesitate to admit that I have a problem with the BCS team signing the D2 from the conference rival thing. Even taking him at his word that it was 100% unintentional it is the kind of thing that just can't happen when you have 2 teams, and to me the most compelling argument in favor of a rule prohibiting it entirely... (as many have pointed out the 1000 miles wouldn't have been an issue - it still could have happened/could happen again (by any coach with multiple teams, not necessarily ow) regardless of the distance involved).  As others have pointed out it is as much (or more) the appearance of impropriety as it is actual cheating, which most would agree is something that if engaged in would be better accomplished in many other ways (not having public aliases, using free teams to send scouting evals, etc.)

seble has generally been decent to me in tickets, but I do think that he lacks any support from his corporate overlords. I, too, wish that there was a better process, better leadership from admins and more support from the owners, but like most of you I am still here because there is nothing that does this better, and I hope for a change in practices, but since I also think that the whole HD product is just a tiny line item on some big department's budget and not something more than a small number of people at corporate care very much about, I'm not going to hold my breath or anything...

Posted by dacj501 on 5/28/2013 8:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 5/28/2013 8:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 5/28/2013 12:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/28/2013 12:44:00 AM (view original):
years? theres no years, its maybe a year since the cross division thing came into play. the bottom line is when seble changed the rule and put a lot of good customers in violation, without them doing anything wrong, he had an obligation to do something - address the situation. by not doing anything to help transition, not even providing any direction (actually they did - the direction being not to worry about it, they never intended to really go out and enforce it - which you seem to ignore, for some reason) - they set up for a really negative situation if they did start enforcing it. it makes no sense how it was handled, and by giving people the idea they didnt really care about the issue, what do you expect people to do? i should not have to pay 15 seasons to build back up to replace a team i paid 15 seasons to get somewhere. that is absolute bullshit and that cannot be ignored. WIS has a responsibility to do something there and they failed to do so. its not just the 15 seasons but the 1-2 years it takes to go through those seasons.

haha, I think you're being overly generous to your own cause when you say "maybe a year". On release notes/developer chats for the past year & a half I couldn't find anything...but don't worry, recruiting in Smith starts tomorrow so I'll have plenty of time to look that up for you, boo.
 

Well I'm pretty sure it was never talked about in a developer chat or release note.

FWIW the new fair-play guidelines were introduced (there was a notification on every coaches corner in every world with a link - for those who weren't here yet and didn't see it) sometime in very late June or early July of 2012. I know this because I had a question about how the new wording regarding collusive behavior and the exchange of information about recruits/recruiting would impact mentor/mentee relationships and I sent in a ticket to discuss it on July 3, 2012.

I signed up for my first team in June 2012, and I don't remember this. Which should give an impression to anyone more recent about how big of a deal WIS was making it. 

I stand by the statement I've been making, which I think echoes what billyg and OW/Iguana have been making: when the rule was instituted, it was 100% necessity to have a strategy to handle coaches who were not previously in violation but who were put in violation of the new rule. Two ideas that have been thrown out by me or others are (1) being compensated with a couple free seasons or (2) transferring a resume intact to another world. There was the suggestion of grandfathering, but that wasn't the only option. The point is there needed to be some strategy. If there wasn't, this was destined for disaster. 

billyg.. Try looking at the last page in adding seasons .  It specifically says that you agree with the site's "terms of service" when you click the sign up button.  

If you actually click that link, it says you will follow the fair play guidelines. 

So if you add a season, paid for or free.. You are agreeing to abide by the guidelines. 

Instead, you are purposely lying, because you have no intentions of following that rule. That is the bottom line. 

If you don't care to play be the rules, then you are a cheater. 

If you want to be a cheater, then blame yourself for the problems.