Here's the current text

Collusive transactions

Collusion includes any act that supports bad, deceitful or illegal behavior agreed upon by two or more users or attempted by a single user. Here are a few examples:

• Discussing the pursuit of a recruit with another coach, including who is pursuing him and money that might have been spent.
• Sharing Future Stars Scouting (FSS) information between multiple teams
• Scheduling a non-conference game against an alias team (i.e. team owned by same owner in a different conference and more than 1,000 miles away). Exhibition games are permitted in this situation, however.
• Any clear throwing of a game (normally indicated by massive lineup changes or settings changes)
• Specifically targeting another coach is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, focusing on recruits a particular coach is pursuing in order to steal them or force the coach to overspend.
• Attempting to persuade another user to participate in a collusive effort (only the initiator would be at fault unless agreed upon by other user)

I have some thoughts on how to improve this (I'll post them later) but I wanted to hear your thoughts.

Yes, but I would also include this portion to be rewritten:

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

More than one team in the same world

One person (regardless of account used) cannot control more than one team in the same world within the same conference or within 1,000 miles or less of one another. Violation of this rule will lead to a forced relocation or removal from one of the teams.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

By the way, point number one of the Collusion rule completely encompasses dividing up recruits before/during recruiting. I don't know how WIS could say this is not against their own rules. The language present above is sufficient to cover that possibility and it is unambiguous on this point.

IT. IS. NOT. ALLOWED.

Posted by vhoward415 on 2/15/2017 3:04:00 PM (view original):
By the way, point number one of the Collusion rule completely encompasses dividing up recruits before/during recruiting. I don't know how WIS could say this is not against their own rules. The language present above is sufficient to cover that possibility and it is unambiguous on this point.

IT. IS. NOT. ALLOWED.

THIS.

Not sure how it can be misinterpreted.

No, I'm just learning how to cheat, lets not change anything until I win a National Championship or two.

(Putting on the Devil's Advocate Hat)

So if I tell another coach I'm not going to do any recruiting outside my 360 radius, is that collusion?
If I tell another coach that I don't plan on signing a punter, is that collusion?
If I ask another coach if a player that is "green" for the other coach is a primary recruit or a backup option, is that collusion?
If I ask another coach which of two RB he thinks is a better talent, is that collusion?

Yes
Yes
Yes
No

What if we're both yellow on those two RB's ?

"If I ask another coach which of two RB he thinks is a better talent, is that collusion"

if this is done in the forum for everyones input I don't think this it's collusion, if it's in world chat maybe

Why rewrite them? Why not just enforce them as written?

(looking sternly at WIS staff)

"Hey Coach A, what is your recruiting strategy when it comes to kickers and punters?"

"Well Coach B, I never go after punters."

YOU JUST MADE THE LIST - of collusion. Or did you? You weren't talking about specific recruits, just punters in general.

How about this scenario?
Coach A at Chapman (D3 / NJAC, Orange California) "I'm not going to recruit the east coast, it's too expensive"
Coach B at Cortland (D3 / NJAC, Cortland NY) "I'm not going to recruit the west coast, it's too expensive"

But then what about this?
Coach A at Wisconsin-Eau-Claire (D3/WIAC) "I'm not going to recruit the east coast, it's too expensive."
Coach B at Wisconsin-Oshkosh (D3/WIAC) "I'm not going to recruit the west coast, it's too expensive"

(Just tossing out scenarios to spark the discussion.)

Bob.. it really does no good to rewrite something thats not enforced.

We go back and forth, "this is ok" and "this is not ok" or "its ok to do it in this situation"... but, we, the players, have no say. Those that are in power do nothing and, at this point, dont seem to care one way or another.

This whole episode has really hurt the integrity of our game and it will only get worse because some people are realising that the rules are not enforced and there are going to be (more of) those that really think they can push the advantage.

Posted by bhazlewood on 2/15/2017 4:34:00 PM (view original):
"Hey Coach A, what is your recruiting strategy when it comes to kickers and punters?"

"Well Coach B, I never go after punters."

YOU JUST MADE THE LIST - of collusion. Or did you? You weren't talking about specific recruits, just punters in general.

By the letter of the law, yes this is collusion. Lets make Coach A Wisconsin and Coach B Minnesota. If the Minnesota coach verbally lets the Wisconsin coach know that he never recruits a punter the Wisconsin coach now knows that when he needs one that he can go into Minnesota and snag one w/o a battle. Rather than foray into Illinois or Michigan where those guys might battle. Wisconsin saves a few K in this instance. Better for MN not to say anything. If the Wis coach is worth his weight in beans he will see this anyway but then the MN coach is clear of wrongdoing.

Posted by genuvar on 2/15/2017 5:03:00 PM (view original):
Bob.. it really does no good to rewrite something thats not enforced.

We go back and forth, "this is ok" and "this is not ok" or "its ok to do it in this situation"... but, we, the players, have no say. Those that are in power do nothing and, at this point, dont seem to care one way or another.

This whole episode has really hurt the integrity of our game and it will only get worse because some people are realising that the rules are not enforced and there are going to be (more of) those that really think they can push the advantage.

I agree with you. What's worse is that WIS has stated that it is the one who retaliates against those who don't abide by fairplay to begin with who will be punished. This could very easily become a toxic environment if WIS doesn't do right in this issue.