All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > I will miss Old Warrior/Iguana
5/26/2013 9:10 AM
Posted by supersloth33 on 5/25/2013 9:55:00 PM (view original):
isack, I don't know what my profile tells you other than I haven't been here for an extended period of time. I'm not shouting from the rooftops that all violators should be tied to the stake. I've said it before, if I'm good enough, I can compete against anyone, regardless if they may be cheating or not. I may not be a world beater, but I am more than holding my own. I'm sorry that there was an unwritten/unspoken rule which now seems to have been renegged upon. All I'm saying is that there is a written rule about not having two teams within 1000 miles in the same world. That this rule is suddenly being enforced, for whatever reason, shouldn't shock anyone. At the very least, it had to be a thought in the back of everyone's mind that this could eventually happen. I'm just sick of the mud flinging from both sides.
angmar, I don't know what the solution is to your question. Perhaps credits for a new team in another world, or even seeing if that team is occupied in another world and if it isn't, transfer the entire team to that world. I don't know exactly what it would be. Whatever it is, it won't satisfy everyone. As far as being fair, we all know life isn't fair, so why assume the answer to this would be either?
this is a pretty good post i think. i pretty much agree that the argument over the issue is probably causing more harm than good (ok, definitely). i suppose for a while i tried to drop out of it, but its hard, when stuff like this happens. iguana is one of the only guys i havent really played with that i had great respect for, he was a veteran when i started and his posts were always helpful to me. further, he had a level of class to his posting, going for the positive only and never the negative, that i have mentioned a number of times, i wish i could emulate better. seeing him drop all his teams is a pretty big blow, the reality is this game is not that meaningful to me, for 4 years ive said the only part of the game i like anymore is talking about it. take away the coaches whose posts i enjoy most, and you ruin the game for me, completely. recently i had a resurgence in enjoyment of the game itself, due to trying something new (fastbreak offense), but that is wearing off quickly, so it goes back to the same point.

anyway, it was in the back of everyone's mind that this issue could blow up. i figured some day it had to. the problem is that seble doesnt have a clue what its like to coach this game, none of his teams are competitive, hes never experienced the game as a player. it shows consistently in his updates, it always has. this rule change has the same problem and the same potential for disaster than the "new engine" release did (dropping a third of all d1 teams over about 6 seasons). he has a good habit of wanting to listen to customers, but a bad habit about just taking what a small group says and running with it. he really lacks the context to effectively analyze the comments of your users. anyone with the slightest business sense knows you dont just listen to customers and do exactly what they say. its YOUR job as the owner to look deeper, understand the source of problems, and engineer a solution. what a customer gives you in a moment of frustration is great, but its not a solution. period. if seble could figure that out some day, hed be much better off for it.

i do know where you guys are coming from on the rules should be enforced thing, but i also question if you guys realize that most of the teams are coached by people with multiple IDs. i dont mean in the same world, but in general, and a significant % of that is multiple teams in the same world. i havent paid much attention to these things for a pretty long but when i did play hard in tark, knew all teh coaches around me, enforcement of this rule (true enforcement, for everybody) would have decimated the tark landscape. tark may have had the most multiple IDs in the same world, as the only 2/day world for so long, but still, it would have almost killed the tark world, at least at one point. maybe the incidence has reduced some but i know for sure its still very common.

just to make one thing clear, i totally sympathize with the people against multiple teams. building a sim engine has long been a side project of mine, and in the design i have, multiple teams are not allowed in the same division. i appreciate the issues on both sides and my desired solution is to have no overlap. i would allow multiple teams in different divisions but its different, my sets of recruits do not overlap across divisions. there are a number of differences to make the rule more palatable to people who would want multiple teams in a world - particularly multiple worlds on the same cycle schedule (allowing recruiting multiple d1 teams on the same schedule like some people like to do), and being able to pick up your team on the same ID under a new resume when you move up (as a built in option, no chance of someone else snagging it over you). so i definitely appreciate this desire for no multiple teams, and for the rule to be enforced. the problem is the system is not conducive to a graceful transition. you cant just change **** like this on people when they've played multiple teams in a world for so many years, and do *nothing* to mediate the situation. its so much more about the way its handled, than the actual rule itself. regardless of the variations on the rule, handling it this way is going to lead to lots of hurt feelings and ****** off customers. 
5/26/2013 12:34 PM (edited)
Although Gill and I have had our differences (and may of them at that), this post pretty well sums up my feelings on this whole debacle.  What I really wish would happen is that guys like Hughes and Stine would coach at a school for 60+ seasons, put all that time and money into staying at that school, and then have it arbitrarily ripped out from under them.  Then, and probably only then, would they understand why the oldtimers are upset.  Until that happens though, they'll never see the forest, only a few trees.
5/26/2013 1:13 PM
i could even deal with that if seble would just do something sensible, its like they just throw **** at the wall and see what sticks, and then just go with it. if hed have addressed the situation up front by trying to set something up to deal with people in the situation, made any effort of any kind, it would have went a long way. you cant just post that the fair play guidelines were updated and thats it. they didnt even say what changed, just here, new guidelines. 
5/26/2013 1:21 PM
I for one would much prefer more Iguana's/emy's/gill's in my conferences than hughes' and stinenavy's, that's for sure.  Hell, they could have 3 teams in that world for all I care.  

Most rules are developed because of that whole "1 bad apple spoils the bunch" thing.  But in this case, you're keeping the bad apples and throwing out the good ones. HD has no interest in finding secret 2nd aliases that are actually used for cheating.  But the ones that have proven time and again to be beyond reproach?  Yeah, let's make them give up teams.  That'll teach em.
5/26/2013 1:30 PM
Disclaimer here: have two D3 schools in Crum (one in California; the other in NY) and two in Rupp (a low D1 in Montana and a D2 in the Deep South) because I wanted to consolidate the recruiting some, rather than seemingly always be involved in recruiting.  If HD suddenly decided the 1,000-mile limit still allowed chicanery, and said, no multiple teams in the same world, period, I would say, catch me.  There are some that use their aliases to cheat.  But gee, BillyG/alias whoever doesn't do it to conceal the fact.  His AKA's are rather transparent.  Whoever turned him in--and it is lost in some earlier thread--did it out of, as I remember, an extreme hypothetical.  Had BillyG used CoachK, or TheTexasKid, or WilliamsportWalt, or some such--but he didn't.  He used easily-identifiable handles.  Yet some sanctimonious coach ratted him out, drumming up some pretext to justify it in his own mind.  Gee, you learn in the schoolyard that you don't rat people out unless there is a compelling need to do so.  There wasn't, and am sure the same thing happened to Iguana.  These are guys that have studied the game, have shared their findings on this board (I have several legal-pad sheets full of stuff gleaned from Iguana and BillyG).  If they really wanted to gain an edge, they would keep that stuff to themselves, rather than sharing.  What have those that ratted them out contributed?  Maybe they got a sense of self-satisfaction for doing so. 
5/26/2013 2:20 PM (edited)
lets address proper other conduct where you have two teams in a world, 1000+ miles apart - some are easy - some are less clear at least to me

1. you dont schedule games against each other

2. when you meet in postseason - do you (a) leave neutral settings? (b) game plan for each blind of what you do for the other? (c) pick a winner and adjust to decide the result? (rather clear to me that (c) is wrong - dont know for sure between (a) and (b) - I think (a) is the best course - just neutral settings and the let SIM run

3. you dont recruit near the other school - whether or not you use FSS, better not to do so

4. you dont use FSS or eval results from one for the other

5. you dont use one school to compete against a third school that is competing against the other school where you coach

6. for international recruits, do you (a) have each school recruit blindly pursuing international recruits that may be of interest or (b) do you divide international recruits between the two schools and have each pursue a different set - neither of these is a great answer, overlaps are bad, but so is allocating recruits

7. is it okay to schedule some common nonconference opponents - like if you want both schools to play against a SIM that will have 9 returning seniors okay for both to do so - I think so - but am I missing something?

8. you dont recruit a transfer from the other school, cause you may know his potentials when others cant

9. you dont post on forums as if you were different people - disagreeing or agreeing with each other

other opinions?  other items that should be thought of as part of what is fair play?



5/26/2013 2:43 PM
Posted by udm_mike on 5/26/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):
I for one would much prefer more Iguana's/emy's/gill's in my conferences than hughes' and stinenavy's, that's for sure.  Hell, they could have 3 teams in that world for all I care.  

Most rules are developed because of that whole "1 bad apple spoils the bunch" thing.  But in this case, you're keeping the bad apples and throwing out the good ones. HD has no interest in finding secret 2nd aliases that are actually used for cheating.  But the ones that have proven time and again to be beyond reproach?  Yeah, let's make them give up teams.  That'll teach em.
it will teach us not to pay for this stupid game at least
5/26/2013 2:54 PM (edited)
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...

5/26/2013 3:02 PM
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?
5/26/2013 3:11 PM
Posted by mamxet on 5/26/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):
lets address proper other conduct where you have two teams in a world, 1000+ miles apart - some are easy - some are less clear at least to me

1. you dont schedule games against each other

2. when you meet in postseason - do you (a) leave neutral settings? (b) game plan for each blind of what you do for the other? (c) pick a winner and adjust to decide the result? (rather clear to me that (c) is wrong - dont know for sure between (a) and (b) - I think (a) is the best course - just neutral settings and the let SIM run

3. you dont recruit near the other school - whether or not you use FSS, better not to do so

4. you dont use FSS or eval results from one for the other

5. you dont use one school to compete against a third school that is competing against the other school where you coach

6. for international recruits, do you (a) have each school recruit blindly pursuing international recruits that may be of interest or (b) do you divide international recruits between the two schools and have each pursue a different set - neither of these is a great answer, overlaps are bad, but so is allocating recruits

7. is it okay to schedule some common nonconference opponents - like if you want both schools to play against a SIM that will have 9 returning seniors okay for both to do so - I think so - but am I missing something?

8. you dont recruit a transfer from the other school, cause you may know his potentials when others cant

9. you dont post on forums as if you were different people - disagreeing or agreeing with each other

other opinions?  other items that should be thought of as part of what is fair play?



1.  I think exhibitions games are okay.  There have been plenty of times when I've extended invitations, got no response, was running out of time, and chose to play against my other team instead of a Sim (different division teams though).  Games against yourself in the regular season would be a no-no, I think.

2.   I actually had a matchup between two of my D2 teams in the Final Four in Allen (Holy Family and Charleston) many, many moons ago (not as glamorous as Vandydave meeting himself in the title game, but close).  I just put everything at a neutral setting, distro same as it had been all season (no changes), and let the engine decide.  As it turned out, what I would have considered the weaker of the two teams won, and I ended up losing in the final.  Had it been the other team, I would have had a really good chance to have won the championship.  Oh well, only fair way I could think to do it.  In the end, it probably backfired on me, but how else was it supposed to be done?  I also remeber Lostmyth having to play himself in the NT in Tark after he was just barely into his HD career.  Let's just say that he didn't use neutral settings and the community let him know how they felt after the game simmed.  Hint, hint, it wasn't real nice.

3.  Define near, I guess.

4.  Agreed.

5.  A definite no-no.  Collusion, if you ask me and most certainly flat-out wrong.

6.  Tough question.  If the teams are in different divisions, it makes this question so much easier.  Schools in the same division, you'd almost have to separate I think.

7.  I think this would be fine, just not a regular season game against yourself. 

8.  Not sure about this one, especially if another school is willing to battle you for the recruit.

9.  Where's the fun in that?
5/26/2013 3:16 PM
CBG, unfortunately it appears that there are some who live in a black and white world with no shades of grey (or gray, if you prefer).  I'm certainly glad that everyone doesn't see things in just black or white because if that were the case, what a screwed up world we'd live in.
5/26/2013 3:29 PM
Posted by emy1013 on 5/26/2013 3:16:00 PM (view original):
CBG, unfortunately it appears that there are some who live in a black and white world with no shades of grey (or gray, if you prefer).  I'm certainly glad that everyone doesn't see things in just black or white because if that were the case, what a screwed up world we'd live in.
i think thats why the world was messed up for so long. how can people who see shades of gray support feudalism (serfdom), slavery, not letting anyone but white males who can read vote (and all the variations between then and now)? finally with mass media and the speed of news, its like the majority who can see issues are complex have a chance against those with the power who choose not to see it. and those who just cant see it (with those in power seeing things in such a 1 sided manner, i think its usually out of convenience). not to say the world doesnt still have the same problem, we definitely do, just in different contexts, often with less severity. what is going to slow down human progression is not technology, but the selfishness and closed mindedness of so many people (especially those in power).
5/26/2013 3:55 PM
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.

5/26/2013 3:59 PM
Posted by mamxet on 5/26/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):
lets address proper other conduct where you have two teams in a world, 1000+ miles apart - some are easy - some are less clear at least to me

1. you dont schedule games against each other

2. when you meet in postseason - do you (a) leave neutral settings? (b) game plan for each blind of what you do for the other? (c) pick a winner and adjust to decide the result? (rather clear to me that (c) is wrong - dont know for sure between (a) and (b) - I think (a) is the best course - just neutral settings and the let SIM run

3. you dont recruit near the other school - whether or not you use FSS, better not to do so

4. you dont use FSS or eval results from one for the other

5. you dont use one school to compete against a third school that is competing against the other school where you coach

6. for international recruits, do you (a) have each school recruit blindly pursuing international recruits that may be of interest or (b) do you divide international recruits between the two schools and have each pursue a different set - neither of these is a great answer, overlaps are bad, but so is allocating recruits

7. is it okay to schedule some common nonconference opponents - like if you want both schools to play against a SIM that will have 9 returning seniors okay for both to do so - I think so - but am I missing something?

8. you dont recruit a transfer from the other school, cause you may know his potentials when others cant

9. you dont post on forums as if you were different people - disagreeing or agreeing with each other

other opinions?  other items that should be thought of as part of what is fair play?



1) i really dont see a problem with it, its just for fun. i guess you could really use it to try to analyze something, but its just one game. i dont know, i see the conflict, and am fine going along with that as a rule - i just tend to think its not important enough to stop people from doing what they would naturally do for fun if you didnt restrict them.

2) my opinion on this is two fold. first, having been in the situation, while its kind of cool to play yourself, it also kind of sucks. i dont know about the rest of you, but id much rather have two teams in the final four and them NOT play each other, than play each other. to me, the possibility (and its happened to me a few times) of playing yourself in the NT is just one of those negatives you have to deal with (there are a lot of them, another point lost in this debate). 

anyway, i totally agree you cannot pick the winner. my approach has always been to start with my generic setup, and then if there is super obvious **** you basically would have to do, to do it. i had two teams play once where it was clearly beneficial to one to play my normal +/- and tempo with both. so i decided i would go with the 1 minute game plan for both guys - capturing the really obvious important **** (like playing a +2 instead of a -1, it was something like that). i didnt want to get in the complexities of trying to fully game plan both without knowing both, but at the time if i played only my default, i felt id be favoring one team. i hadnt really thought of a system before getting in the situation, which always makes it more difficult.

fundamentally, it sucks in the first place, so im not too concerned about how people try to be fair about it, as long as they try to be fair. if you want to use your base settings, fine, just do it again next time. if you want to use the 1 minute game plan off the default setup, fine. just be consistent.

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.

5) absolutely. it doesnt matter if you legitimately want to battle the same school on both schools. ive had that happen, just a price of having multiple teams. i actually try not to battle core rivals with another school either. i recently battled a pac10 school pretty far from USC in the pac10 (it was washington state), with south carolina, for an international - and didnt even think about it at the time. in retrospect, i was a bit concerned about it, hoping it couldnt be seen as using 1 team to affect a rival. i mean, in the eyes of that coach. i know sebles not going to say anything. my concern is always this - its a for fun game, and having 2 teams in the same world is basically fine until you ruin the fun of someone else. if that coach really felt slighted, i would feel pretty badly. but with it being an international and us not being direct rivals, i think its fine. i would be concerned about battling UCLA for a recruit with south carolina, assuming i was able to keep them... id probably do it, just because i know the coach is a reasonable guy and would realize there are just so few a+ prestige quality internationals, it was a likely coincidence and nothing more. but in general, i have concerns about doing it. i definitely would not battle a d2 rival with my d1 school or anything, i think having a huge upper hand makes it much more questionable. battling and a+ d1 school for an international when i am an a+ d1 school, thats one thing (although the more i think about it, i worry id know too much if i was watching them with the other school. if i knew they were weak from the other school nearby, i definitely wouldnt. if it was like last season where i paid no attention and had no damn clue what they were doing, that would be different - but i worry about what the other coach would think. in general, with the real coach of UCLA, i would probably not be as worried. but in general, its definitely something to stop and think about. im actually curious what people think about this one. i remember oldresorter convincing me once to drop my 2nd d1 team because i could use information from 1 team to benefit the other even if i didnt mean to - but further - even if i didnt, would that make the nearby coach uncomfortable? as long as they have a legitimate reason to be upset, thats enough to make it not OK, to me. its all about keeping the game fun. but then later on i paid so little attention to my teams, and only recruited in 360 miles, i figured it wasnt a big deal - but its still something im pretty torn about). anyway... dont want to go on about this one forever, but i really am curious what others think, was actually going to start a thread to get opinions after it happened, but i just never got around to it.

6) i dont know. this is one of the toughest one. national recruits are a lot easier. i prefer not to have two d1 schools at the same level, when i had UK and CSUN, i thought it was 100% ok, even when OR convinced me there was a problem. i kept them until they made the elite 8 with a decent shot of winning it all, and got up to a B+ or something. i thought the potential for overlap because significant and didnt want to make anyone in the area uncomfortable. i remember him using as an example, when emy had UCLA as a top team and was a major competitor with me for top spots in d1 tark each year, we had by far the 2 best teams one season when i won my 2nd at coloardo and played his outstanding UCLA squad in the final 4. anyway, OR was like, how does emy know you arent just building a team in california to knock him down a peg? now, being emy, im sure he would think that ;) just kidding, im pretty sure he wouldnt. but if i wasnt familiar with the coach, and ended up battling them a bunch, i would definitely worry they might think that and be made to feel uncomfortable. 

anyway even when i had texas a&m and UK in the new engine and both were top teams in tark, briefly, i never had this happen, which is when i usually figure out my stance. a&m had so much going on in state, battling jj @ texas every single season (well, we were all in against each other probably 6 out of 8 seasons), i had no opportunity to find internationals :) i think its a small enough set of recruits, with usually about 3 guys being both someone you'd consider taking and someone you have a chance of getting. so, i never was too worried about it, but i have no good answer. i suppose an ideal solution would be to look at local recruits first with both teams, not glancing at internationals, and then based on team needs, open scholarships, etc, and local recruits, decide who gets to go after internationals. that is, if the teams are on the same level. even a b+ to a+ d1, there is almost no overlap. 

7) i think so. someone raised this issue when i played stanford in the NT with south carolina after playing them twice in the pac10. today, i dont game plan in the regular season, maybe 3% of games get a 2 minute game plan, so it was a non issue there. back in the day when i game planned super hard on my 2 main teams, i definitely would not have wanted them at the same level for that reason. but i think you REALLY have to game plan. if you spend 2m game planning for an opponent and then play them on another team in the NT... do you really remember that much? do you really remember anything substantial enough to be useful? especially for game planning with a totally different team? i dont think its a big deal myself, but am curious what others think. in general, im OK with it, ESPECIALLY if your two teams are not on the same level that season (for example, if one is #5 and one is #25, thats far apart enough its useless. but if you have 2 of the top 5 teams, then it might be a concern. even if you have 2 #50 teams, i dont think it matters. but if it possibly materially affect who wins a championship, because both teams are championship contenders, and end up playing another championship contender on both, that could be an issue, i guess. still seems hard to really take advantage of the first situation, there is so much randomness in a game simulation).

8) i agree with this, in all cases.

9) i agree with this too, although if you are just messing around, its ok, i guess. if you are doing something like posting incorrect info and using alts to give it support, that is clearly not OK.

10) other items... i think you pretty much summed it up. obviously, the really explicit **** like, using one school to punish someone who poached you on another last season, thats not OK. but hopefully that goes without saying. 
5/26/2013 4:17 PM
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.
of 11
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > I will miss Old Warrior/Iguana

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.