I find it so funny that owners tip their hand so readily. An owner will say 'this guy won't sign back with me. :(' means I know who to look out for in free agency.

A few years ago I wasn't doing anything in free agency and an owner says 'wow. No one is bidding in free agency.' So I went out and signed a few good players really cheap. If I had found that out, I would have kept it to myself

Was that me?

Lol the second point may have been but I think someone else mentioned it first and then you agreed. No sense denying it when it's already out there.

The big one that got me was a few years ago when Derek Rose was going to be a free agent and JS made a post before the previous season was over. By doing that everyone can set their budgets accordingly.

Now, saying that, I feel there is value in letting information 'slip'. If I wanted less IFA competition and people to spend their money, I would say there are cheap free agents too. Or if I had a type A or B free agent I had no intention of signing I may say that.

I remember exactly when I did that and why.  First, I had already spent all my FA money and my roster was full.  Second, I knew our world had gone IFA porn wacky so I deliberately tried to stimulate the FA market.  Just stirring the pot.

That's why I publicly let everyone in our world know Maybin and Peters will be free agents next year. I can't afford em anymore. Let everyone else duke it out.

Interesting. So I trade chatted the offender in NQ and he responded to me, responded, to the league, and changed his staff. I guess "harassment" works...

I'm going to ask some questions as someone who has played HBD a lot but does not consider himself an expert. It's clear in this thread that many have very strong opinions against "tanking" and that the examples provided are mostly agreed upon as truly such. However, the thread has not even come close to answering the question of what is and what is not considered tanking. The way I see it, the game is meant to mimic real life baseball leagues, is it not? Some of the practices listed here as tanking are indeed used in baseball. Players are often kept in the minors even when they are ML ready so that the franchise has control of them longer into their careers, and to be honest to lose more games and get a better draft position. Worse players are brought up to fill holes while potential studs stay in the minors because the franchise feels their time to win is still at least one season away. This is common practice in small market teams. As far as shrinking payroll to go for more IFA prospects, what is wrong with that? Owners don't have control of a lot of things, including injuries, FA signings (which are nothing like in real life), etc. But money is one thing they do have control over. Why should it be further limited? I think the flaw in the IFA system is that too many studs appear internationally, while fewer appear in the draft. But that's another issue.
The way I see it, tanking tactics are things that would never happen in real life, such as:

David Ortiz would never play RF
A pitcher would not start a game after starting two days in a row - 0(0)
My best ML pitcher would not be used as a mop up for 90% of the season.

If WIS really wanted to get rid of tanking, they would vary available funds as a function of ticket attendance, and nobody wants to pay to watch a terrible team (except for maybe Cubs fans!). You win more games, your available funds go up some next season. Not a lot, but some. And maybe include a luxury tax for the really high payroll teams to give everyone a chance to compete. Then the incentive is pretty much just like it is in MLB and you can get rid of your MWRs.

But the game is the game and until WIS changes it, it is what it is. The goal is to win as many World Series as possible. While I certainly agree that private worlds can have whatever additional rules they want, I wonder if maybe this anti-tanking cause has gone too far, so far as to scare off owners, almost to the point that there are only a few anti-tanking zealots (exaggerating here, don't flame me) but a whole lot of empty worlds. I wonder if we relax on the anti-tanking crusade, if more players would play and then get better..hence producing more good owners. Strict anti-tanking worlds are fine, but maybe there are simply too many at this point.

Just an opinion. As far as I know, maybe I'm a tanker in the eyes of many. But I welcome any comments.

More funds/less funds for winning/losing would never work.   Uneven playing field and no one likes that.   If I go to join a world and find, because the team stunk, I have 180m while my divisionmates have 190m, I'm looking elsewhere.   And, before you say "New owners start at 185m", I'll say that promotes alaises and I'd still be at a 5m disadvantage.
 
MLB teams do hold players back.   And, when they do, said players file for FA as soon as they can.   That does not happen in HBD.   We get 3 min salary years(4 if you play the hold back for 20 games deal), 2 arb and then the player will sign for 5 seasons.    If HBD players started filing for FA after being held back, it would mimic MLB.

Strict anti-tanking worlds are filling.   Maybe there are too few.

I know Mike has said this a number of times, but I think it bears repeating.

If you don't care about tanking, play in a world where no one else does either.  If you do, find a world where everyone else agrees on anti tanking rules.  Either way, the worlds need to be on the same page.  Conflict arises where the owners are not of similar minds.

There's no right or wrong if everyone agrees on what those things are.

Good point on the free agency thing when players are held back, hadn't thought of that. But I guess I'll have to respectfully disagree in terms of funds. Also on the idea that strong antitanking worlds are filling up as I see all the worlds having issues, no matter how strict their rules are. thanks for your response, even if it read a bit harsh, I'll assume it wasn't meant to be so.

No, it wasn't meant to be.   I don't even think it reads harsh. 

Would you join a division that had 3 teams with 190m if you only got 180m?

One of the biggest disagreements in HBD is over the use of cash in trade.    That's because the team getting cash has a budgeting advantage.

Ok, cool. I really just wanted to fully understand the discussion. And to answer your question, yes I think I would. It would mean I have a better draft pick to start and can work my way up to winning. As my team improved and started winning, I would be rewarded with additional funds. Good teams can't stay good teams forever, especially with the crappy players available in the late rounds. I certainly see your point, but I'm just not convinced yet the concept or some other version of the concept couldn't work. It's less harsh to punish a team by taking away money than to just kick them out of the league. And if they leave, they leave. The new owner gets a shot with full funds to start as you said.

If the objective is to retain owners, and have them be somewhat competitive, "if they leave, they leave" is a poor concept.   As you know, there are hundreds of teams to choose from.    Many of those teams are likely bad.    To take a bad team and accept a smaller budget doesn't make much sense when you have so many choices.