where is this "1000 miles rule was created to protect users" thing coming from??

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/9/2013 10:00:00 AM (view original):
where is this "1000 miles rule was created to protect users" thing coming from??

Assume that all coaches are behaving honestly (without colluding or taking advantage of multiple teams in a world to obtain a recruiting advantage).  Now look at it from WIS's point of view.  WIS deputized all coaches to complain about abuse of multiple IDs by other users.  How could you possibly explain to the complaining coach that the user with multiple IDs had not abused their multiple teams if those teams constantly recruit the same states?  

So, the 1000 mile rule is a safe-harbor provision for users with multiple teams in a world.  If the teams are more than 1000 miles apart and don't actually collude, then WIS will be able to review and dismiss complaints relatively easily.  No possibility of that, if the teams typically recruit from the same pool and compete against the same teams.  [killbatman makes a good point, and certainly has a better feel for national recruiting at D3 than I do, but it would still remain an obligation of a user with multiple IDs to not recruit the state(s) of their separate ID or be subject to penalty after a complaint is made.]

My point is that you have to view this rule as an attempt by WIS to create an administratively simple way of coping with the complaints about abuse of multiple IDs, while still allowing users to have multiple teams in a world.   I think that WIS would like to have simply banned individuals from having multiple teams in the same world, but the reality is that they couldn't enforce that rule if they wanted.   Does the 1000 mile rule prevent cheating?  Of course not.   Is collusion as rampant as the length of this forum would suggest?   I seriously doubt it.  But, if someone really wants to have multiple IDs for a collusive purpose, then it will be very difficult to prevent them.  Maybe they can be caught after the fact, but that's probably about it.  If WIS had some method of enforcing a ban on multiple IDs in a world, then I have no earthly idea why they wouldn't just do that.      

WIS should have reserved the right to grant waivers of the rule down to at most 750 miles separation, with publication of such waivers in a pinned forum.  I have no doubt that those, like yourself, that felt they weren't being compensated for forced removal without fault on their own part, would be angry about it and not really believe that the concept behind the rule was to benefit them.   If WIS had some method of enforcing a ban on multiple IDs in a world, then I have no earthly idea why they wouldn't just do that.

"My point is that you have to view this rule as an attempt by WIS to create an administratively simple way of coping with the complaints about abuse of multiple IDs"

That's a very reasonable contention.  I have no idea what was actually in WIS's mind when the rule was issued.  It could have been "Hey, let's **** with our customers!"  My argument is that the 1000 mile rule (or at least some distance separation) can be justified on the basis of WIS's choice of enforcement.

The basic rules are clear: sharing of information obtained through any recruiting action (FSS, scouting trips, etc.), whether with 2 distinct end-users or 1 with 2 IDs, is not permitted.  WIS chose (I suspect because there was no real option to outright ban multiple IDs) to deputize all WIS users to initiate a complaint.  The safe harbor is from the complaining deputy.  

Let's call him Barney Fife.  If CS decides there's no basis for Barney's complaint, or at least no reason to take any action, they've still got to explain it to Barney.  If the two schools that are operated by one user are constantly recruiting the same state(s), then there's just no way that Barney's going to buy it.    CS will end up either taking action against an innocent party or risk losing Barney.   Like colonels implied, Barney will not believe that a person in control of 2 teams will FSS the same state under each ID.   Even if they did!

If you want to argue that it provides a ready excuse for CS, rather than a safe-harbor for the multi-ID user, then I'd agree, but it amounts to the same thing.