Posted by hughesjr on 5/22/2013 9:56:00 PM (view original):
If they are going to have a rule they need to enforce it.

If they don't want to enforce it then abolish the rule.

I am sorry to see someone quit, but rules are rules and they should be enforced ... consistently.

I don't expect WIS to spend their days LOOKING for people who are within 1000 miles ... but if they are informed of the situation then I do think they need to address it.

Easily could have grandfathered people in without ruining ongoing consistency.

But oh well, now we lost arguably the best coach in Allen history. No big deal.

Posted by hughesjr on 5/22/2013 9:56:00 PM (view original):
If they are going to have a rule they need to enforce it.

If they don't want to enforce it then abolish the rule.

I am sorry to see someone quit, but rules are rules and they should be enforced ... consistently.

I don't expect WIS to spend their days LOOKING for people who are within 1000 miles ... but if they are informed of the situation then I do think they need to address it.

And what of the people that had two teams in accordance with the rules in place, only to have those rules changed later.  Initially, coaches WERE abiding by the rules in place at that time.  The rules then changed, making those teams now not in accordance with the the rules.  How is this the coach's fault when he WAS within the rules initially?

I gave up a pretty damn good team in Tark recently just to get far enough away to keep my D2 team, the first D2 team I ever had.  I've had teams under both of those ID's since the second season in that world (going on close to eight calendar years, I'd say.  Maybe seven, I can't remember).  The rules back then said that a coach couldn't have two teams in the same CONFERENCE, NOTHING about same division or any certain mileage apart.  Nothing.  I moved voluntarily this offseason, just so I wouldn't have to hear someone whining about my situation, but I'll tell you, it still sucks.  And to answer before some smartass asks, I have two teams in that world because at the time it was the ONLY two-a-day world and I happen to like the faster paced game.  By the time the next turbo world opened, I had many seasons invested in those two teams and had no desire to flush all that time and money down the toilet.  So sue me.

Posted by emy1013 on 5/23/2013 1:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 5/22/2013 9:56:00 PM (view original):
If they are going to have a rule they need to enforce it.

If they don't want to enforce it then abolish the rule.

I am sorry to see someone quit, but rules are rules and they should be enforced ... consistently.

I don't expect WIS to spend their days LOOKING for people who are within 1000 miles ... but if they are informed of the situation then I do think they need to address it.

And what of the people that had two teams in accordance with the rules in place, only to have those rules changed later.  Initially, coaches WERE abiding by the rules in place at that time.  The rules then changed, making those teams now not in accordance with the the rules.  How is this the coach's fault when he WAS within the rules initially?

I gave up a pretty damn good team in Tark recently just to get far enough away to keep my D2 team, the first D2 team I ever had.  I've had teams under both of those ID's since the second season in that world (going on close to eight calendar years, I'd say.  Maybe seven, I can't remember).  The rules back then said that a coach couldn't have two teams in the same CONFERENCE, NOTHING about same division or any certain mileage apart.  Nothing.  I moved voluntarily this offseason, just so I wouldn't have to hear someone whining about my situation, but I'll tell you, it still sucks.  And to answer before some smartass asks, I have two teams in that world because at the time it was the ONLY two-a-day world and I happen to like the faster paced game.  By the time the next turbo world opened, I had many seasons invested in those two teams and had no desire to flush all that time and money down the toilet.  So sue me.

Well then, they should follow the rules NOW ... or they should quit.

The rules are the rules ... follow them. We don't need to follow the rules from 5 years ago or the ones that will be in place five years from now ... we need to follow the rules for now. This is a game, it has rules, they need to be followed.

At any level except Div-1, you should be able to take any team and turn them into a perennial contender in 4-5 seasons maximum. By contender, I mean top 25 rating.

There are some places, like Alaska, Hawaii or the Puerto Rico schools where it might be difficult to get them up to that level ... but just about any other Div-2 or Div-3 school should be doable in less than 5 seasons.

Posted by hughesjr on 5/23/2013 3:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 5/23/2013 1:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 5/22/2013 9:56:00 PM (view original):
If they are going to have a rule they need to enforce it.

If they don't want to enforce it then abolish the rule.

I am sorry to see someone quit, but rules are rules and they should be enforced ... consistently.

I don't expect WIS to spend their days LOOKING for people who are within 1000 miles ... but if they are informed of the situation then I do think they need to address it.

And what of the people that had two teams in accordance with the rules in place, only to have those rules changed later.  Initially, coaches WERE abiding by the rules in place at that time.  The rules then changed, making those teams now not in accordance with the the rules.  How is this the coach's fault when he WAS within the rules initially?

I gave up a pretty damn good team in Tark recently just to get far enough away to keep my D2 team, the first D2 team I ever had.  I've had teams under both of those ID's since the second season in that world (going on close to eight calendar years, I'd say.  Maybe seven, I can't remember).  The rules back then said that a coach couldn't have two teams in the same CONFERENCE, NOTHING about same division or any certain mileage apart.  Nothing.  I moved voluntarily this offseason, just so I wouldn't have to hear someone whining about my situation, but I'll tell you, it still sucks.  And to answer before some smartass asks, I have two teams in that world because at the time it was the ONLY two-a-day world and I happen to like the faster paced game.  By the time the next turbo world opened, I had many seasons invested in those two teams and had no desire to flush all that time and money down the toilet.  So sue me.

Well then, they should follow the rules NOW ... or they should quit.

The rules are the rules ... follow them. We don't need to follow the rules from 5 years ago or the ones that will be in place five years from now ... we need to follow the rules for now. This is a game, it has rules, they need to be followed.

At any level except Div-1, you should be able to take any team and turn them into a perennial contender in 4-5 seasons maximum. By contender, I mean top 25 rating.

There are some places, like Alaska, Hawaii or the Puerto Rico schools where it might be difficult to get them up to that level ... but just about any other Div-2 or Div-3 school should be doable in less than 5 seasons.

and, after having recently earned the repeal of my personal blocking of his posts, this one sends hughesjr back into the abyss. 

I realize nobody cares but me, but there it is... 

Posted by hughesjr on 5/23/2013 3:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 5/23/2013 1:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 5/22/2013 9:56:00 PM (view original):
If they are going to have a rule they need to enforce it.

If they don't want to enforce it then abolish the rule.

I am sorry to see someone quit, but rules are rules and they should be enforced ... consistently.

I don't expect WIS to spend their days LOOKING for people who are within 1000 miles ... but if they are informed of the situation then I do think they need to address it.

And what of the people that had two teams in accordance with the rules in place, only to have those rules changed later.  Initially, coaches WERE abiding by the rules in place at that time.  The rules then changed, making those teams now not in accordance with the the rules.  How is this the coach's fault when he WAS within the rules initially?

I gave up a pretty damn good team in Tark recently just to get far enough away to keep my D2 team, the first D2 team I ever had.  I've had teams under both of those ID's since the second season in that world (going on close to eight calendar years, I'd say.  Maybe seven, I can't remember).  The rules back then said that a coach couldn't have two teams in the same CONFERENCE, NOTHING about same division or any certain mileage apart.  Nothing.  I moved voluntarily this offseason, just so I wouldn't have to hear someone whining about my situation, but I'll tell you, it still sucks.  And to answer before some smartass asks, I have two teams in that world because at the time it was the ONLY two-a-day world and I happen to like the faster paced game.  By the time the next turbo world opened, I had many seasons invested in those two teams and had no desire to flush all that time and money down the toilet.  So sue me.

Well then, they should follow the rules NOW ... or they should quit.

The rules are the rules ... follow them. We don't need to follow the rules from 5 years ago or the ones that will be in place five years from now ... we need to follow the rules for now. This is a game, it has rules, they need to be followed.

At any level except Div-1, you should be able to take any team and turn them into a perennial contender in 4-5 seasons maximum. By contender, I mean top 25 rating.

There are some places, like Alaska, Hawaii or the Puerto Rico schools where it might be difficult to get them up to that level ... but just about any other Div-2 or Div-3 school should be doable in less than 5 seasons.

Sure, you can develop a team in 4-5 seasons. But you do have to leave a team that you've possibly developed emotional attachment to. And 4-5 seasons do cost money--more than staying for 4-5 seasons at the school that you've already built into a power. So there's emotional cost and financial cost. Are both small, compared to what we put into this game? Sure. But that doesn't mean we should ignore them. 

Should you follow the new rules? Yes. Should WIS, without any compensation, make new rules that ban non-harmful behavior undergone by many veteran coaches? No. Sure, make a new rule that you feel will help the game and prevent the possibility of abuse. I got no problem with that. But if you're going to make emy, or billyg, or oldwarrior, etc. get rid of their teams, toss them twenty bucks in HD credits to offset the added cost of building up a new team. Is it minor, in the grand scheme of years of playing?  Yes. But it's just as minor from HD's end as it is from the player's end. Can you spare twenty bucks to keep a loyal customer spending a good deal more than that? Absolutely. It's just good business. 

And I have no dog in this fight. 

Posted by tarvolon on 5/22/2013 4:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kmasonbx on 5/22/2013 2:41:00 PM (view original):
The one problem with that rule is that before FSS there was little conflict with having teams relatively close to each other. And there are plenty of coaches who have had two teams less than 1000 miles apart since those days. So it's obvious they don't have teams close by in order to cheat. 

But they could, in principle, be now used to cheat. So I understand making the rule. But WIS understands that the two teams weren't acquired for the purpose of cheating (as you say), so they should give some sort of credit to offset the loss of a long-standing team. JMO

why wouldnt that same coach just pick up a couple free HD teams and use evals to find the sub potentials of anybody they were interested in? seems like a much bigger advantage than using some FSS data from another team.

i still cant see why seble is so opposed to a grandfather clause. he says they cant be seen to give veterans unfair treatment, unfair advantages. but when you make a new rule and grandfather people in compliance with existing rules, you are making the same rule for everybody. it just hits different people different ways, like almost every rule we have in america - it makes sense, when people are in different situations. just because the penalty for a DUI is higher if you've already had a couple, than if its your first, doesnt mean you are unfairly abusing those who have had a few DUIs. there are just different situations. now, saying, any long time vet can just ignore this rule, and pick up new teams AFTER the rule change - that would be bullshit. but a grandfather clause is nothing like that. i wish seble had a bit more common sense, and a bit more experience actually playing HD at a competent level. i think he lacks the ability to sympathize because he has such a different experience than those of us who have actually played...

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/23/2013 8:28:00 PM (view original):
i still cant see why seble is so opposed to a grandfather clause. he says they cant be seen to give veterans unfair treatment, unfair advantages. but when you make a new rule and grandfather people in compliance with existing rules, you are making the same rule for everybody. it just hits different people different ways, like almost every rule we have in america - it makes sense, when people are in different situations. just because the penalty for a DUI is higher if you've already had a couple, than if its your first, doesnt mean you are unfairly abusing those who have had a few DUIs. there are just different situations. now, saying, any long time vet can just ignore this rule, and pick up new teams AFTER the rule change - that would be bullshit. but a grandfather clause is nothing like that. i wish seble had a bit more common sense, and a bit more experience actually playing HD at a competent level. i think he lacks the ability to sympathize because he has such a different experience than those of us who have actually played...

Yes, at the very least, especially since there was no "crackdown" when the rule was created/implemented...to "crackdown" 2 or so years after the fact...it's just not kosher.

I'd love to know who ratted him out by the way, or do you guys think that WIS found this on their own?

Posted by hughesjr on 5/23/2013 3:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 5/23/2013 1:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 5/22/2013 9:56:00 PM (view original):
If they are going to have a rule they need to enforce it.

If they don't want to enforce it then abolish the rule.

I am sorry to see someone quit, but rules are rules and they should be enforced ... consistently.

I don't expect WIS to spend their days LOOKING for people who are within 1000 miles ... but if they are informed of the situation then I do think they need to address it.

And what of the people that had two teams in accordance with the rules in place, only to have those rules changed later.  Initially, coaches WERE abiding by the rules in place at that time.  The rules then changed, making those teams now not in accordance with the the rules.  How is this the coach's fault when he WAS within the rules initially?

I gave up a pretty damn good team in Tark recently just to get far enough away to keep my D2 team, the first D2 team I ever had.  I've had teams under both of those ID's since the second season in that world (going on close to eight calendar years, I'd say.  Maybe seven, I can't remember).  The rules back then said that a coach couldn't have two teams in the same CONFERENCE, NOTHING about same division or any certain mileage apart.  Nothing.  I moved voluntarily this offseason, just so I wouldn't have to hear someone whining about my situation, but I'll tell you, it still sucks.  And to answer before some smartass asks, I have two teams in that world because at the time it was the ONLY two-a-day world and I happen to like the faster paced game.  By the time the next turbo world opened, I had many seasons invested in those two teams and had no desire to flush all that time and money down the toilet.  So sue me.

Well then, they should follow the rules NOW ... or they should quit.

The rules are the rules ... follow them. We don't need to follow the rules from 5 years ago or the ones that will be in place five years from now ... we need to follow the rules for now. This is a game, it has rules, they need to be followed.

At any level except Div-1, you should be able to take any team and turn them into a perennial contender in 4-5 seasons maximum. By contender, I mean top 25 rating.

There are some places, like Alaska, Hawaii or the Puerto Rico schools where it might be difficult to get them up to that level ... but just about any other Div-2 or Div-3 school should be doable in less than 5 seasons.

What does being able to be good again have to do with anything?  Well for one, that's 4-5 seasons worth of money down the drain when you've already spent years (literally in some cases) building up a program. But the cost for many is more than the money.  The time spent building a "Dynasty" that's the real cost.  Now, looking at your history Hughs, I can see that's of no value to you.  some people like to bounce around.  To each their own.  But that doesn't mean it's not value lost for others.

Edit:  I should have read all the way down.  Tarvalon covered everything I said.

I skimmed through the thread where the fair play guidelines were discussed.

www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx

I saw no mention of anyone having an issue with the 1000 mile rule. Numerous people ignored the rule, and now that some people are being reported as cheaters this is apparently the worst thing ever.

Posted by stinenavy on 5/24/2013 12:50:00 PM (view original):
I skimmed through the thread where the fair play guidelines were discussed.

www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx

I saw no mention of anyone having an issue with the 1000 mile rule. Numerous people ignored the rule, and now that some people are being reported as cheaters this is apparently the worst thing ever.

This should've been taken care of when the rule was instituted. When you put the rule on the books, either grandfather people in or enforce it immediately (and provide some compensation, as I argued earlier). If you're going to do neither of those things, people are going to complain about inconsistency. 

Posted by hughesjr on 5/24/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ll316 on 5/23/2013 11:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 5/23/2013 3:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 5/23/2013 1:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 5/22/2013 9:56:00 PM (view original):
If they are going to have a rule they need to enforce it.

If they don't want to enforce it then abolish the rule.

I am sorry to see someone quit, but rules are rules and they should be enforced ... consistently.

I don't expect WIS to spend their days LOOKING for people who are within 1000 miles ... but if they are informed of the situation then I do think they need to address it.

And what of the people that had two teams in accordance with the rules in place, only to have those rules changed later.  Initially, coaches WERE abiding by the rules in place at that time.  The rules then changed, making those teams now not in accordance with the the rules.  How is this the coach's fault when he WAS within the rules initially?

I gave up a pretty damn good team in Tark recently just to get far enough away to keep my D2 team, the first D2 team I ever had.  I've had teams under both of those ID's since the second season in that world (going on close to eight calendar years, I'd say.  Maybe seven, I can't remember).  The rules back then said that a coach couldn't have two teams in the same CONFERENCE, NOTHING about same division or any certain mileage apart.  Nothing.  I moved voluntarily this offseason, just so I wouldn't have to hear someone whining about my situation, but I'll tell you, it still sucks.  And to answer before some smartass asks, I have two teams in that world because at the time it was the ONLY two-a-day world and I happen to like the faster paced game.  By the time the next turbo world opened, I had many seasons invested in those two teams and had no desire to flush all that time and money down the toilet.  So sue me.

Well then, they should follow the rules NOW ... or they should quit.

The rules are the rules ... follow them. We don't need to follow the rules from 5 years ago or the ones that will be in place five years from now ... we need to follow the rules for now. This is a game, it has rules, they need to be followed.

At any level except Div-1, you should be able to take any team and turn them into a perennial contender in 4-5 seasons maximum. By contender, I mean top 25 rating.

There are some places, like Alaska, Hawaii or the Puerto Rico schools where it might be difficult to get them up to that level ... but just about any other Div-2 or Div-3 school should be doable in less than 5 seasons.

What does being able to be good again have to do with anything?  Well for one, that's 4-5 seasons worth of money down the drain when you've already spent years (literally in some cases) building up a program. But the cost for many is more than the money.  The time spent building a "Dynasty" that's the real cost.  Now, looking at your history Hughs, I can see that's of no value to you.  some people like to bounce around.  To each their own.  But that doesn't mean it's not value lost for others.

Edit:  I should have read all the way down.  Tarvalon covered everything I said.

Well ... I'm sorry but violating the fair play guidelines is cheating (else, why have fair play guidelines in the first place)... it is against the f!@#ing rules.  If you are going to let anyone do it then you have to let everyone do it.

If you can't play a game by the rules then you should be banned.

Why have rules if you are not going to enforce them?

If you'd quit being so damned hardheaded and step back and look at the situation without your blinders on, you'd probably see this in a bit different of a light.  The only reason that some coaches were "violating" the f!@#ing rules is because those rules were put in place AFTER they already had their teams.  There was a rule changed AFTER coaches had already been abiding by the rules in place AT THE TIME THEY PICKED UP THEIR TEAMS.  You're making it out like these coaches picked up teams AFTER the new rule was put in place, when in fact, they had their teams WELL BEFORE the new rule was put on the books.

Extreme example, but picture this.  There's a place where you're allowed to have two kids but only if there not twins (teams in the same conference).  This place suddenly decides that two kids are still okay to have, as long as they aren't the same gender (teams in the same division).  Okay, the kids are boy and girl, so you're fine for now.  Well, out of nowhere, this place decides that you can't have two kids within a certain numbers of years of each other (1000 miles apart).  Well guess what Mr. Hughes, your kids are too close together in age and now you have to give one up to foster care, never to see them again.  How do you think that would make you feel, especially if you had raised that kid for, say, six or seven years?  You'd feel like s%^& that someone had changed the rules after the fact and caused you to lose your kid, wouldn't you?  Same situation here.  Exactly.  Except you with your "abide by the rules at all times no matter what" attitude are blind to the fact that this has happened to several coaches who have had to give up long term teams, despite the fact that those teams were chosen within the rules in place at that time.  Hundreds of hours and dollars "invested" in those teams, only to be told that all that time and money was essentially being flushed down the toilet because of a couple of pathetic whiners (no need to name names, we all know who they are). 

***Edit***  Removed the last two sentences due to them being unnecessary to this debate.***