Definition of collusion

1. : secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

The key to the definition is the SECRET part. Open discussion in a public forum is not collusion, per se. It can be against the rules of fair play. If, in open forum, some coaches divide up the recruit pool, this has to be joined in by EVERY coach in order to be even remotely acceptable. It has to be a published thing and everyone has to agree on the "rules".

Posted by harriswb3 on 2/15/2017 5:43:00 PM (view original):
The key to the definition is the SECRET part. Open discussion in a public forum is not collusion, per se. It can be against the rules of fair play. If, in open forum, some coaches divide up the recruit pool, this has to be joined in by EVERY coach in order to be even remotely acceptable. It has to be a published thing and everyone has to agree on the "rules".

Can we all just agree that I get to have DJ Lance in the Yo Gabba Gabba Dynasty draft?

(to borrow a response from ddingo way back in the day)

As a newbie to GD but an educated person as to the English language, I can say that part of the problem is WIS’s improper and inaccurate use of the phrase “Collusive transactions.” Here are some brief definitions of “collusion:”

1. secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others
2. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy
3. An often secret action taken by two or more parties to achieve an illegal or improper purpose
4. An agreement between two or more people to defraud a person of his or her rights or to obtain something that is prohibited by law.

A key and necessary element of collusion is the active involvement of more than one person. A second key element is secrecy. A third element is some sort of benefit to the colluding parties.

WIS guidelines under the heading of “Collusive transactions” go substantially beyond anything that can reasonably considered “collusion,” as they include one-party actions, actions with no secrecy and actions that may benefit no one except as to legitimate educational purposes (e.g. mentoring).

WIS would have been better served had they referenced “Prohibited Behaviors” rather than “Collusive transactions.” Cleaning up their own language might be an important first step in creating enforceable fair play guidelines.

Posted by bhazlewood on 2/15/2017 4:02:00 PM (view original):
(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?

No.

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.

No.

Posted by bhazlewood on 2/15/2017 5:15:00 PM (view original):
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.)

No.

Posted by harriswb3 on 2/15/2017 5:40:00 PM (view original):

Definition of collusion

1. : secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

+1

Posted by l80r20 on 2/15/2017 8:48:00 PM (view original):
As a newbie to GD but an educated person as to the English language, I can say that part of the problem is WIS’s improper and inaccurate use of the phrase “Collusive transactions.” Here are some brief definitions of “collusion:”

1. secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others
2. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy
3. An often secret action taken by two or more parties to achieve an illegal or improper purpose
4. An agreement between two or more people to defraud a person of his or her rights or to obtain something that is prohibited by law.

A key and necessary element of collusion is the active involvement of more than one person. A second key element is secrecy. A third element is some sort of benefit to the colluding parties.

WIS guidelines under the heading of “Collusive transactions” go substantially beyond anything that can reasonably considered “collusion,” as they include one-party actions, actions with no secrecy and actions that may benefit no one except as to legitimate educational purposes (e.g. mentoring).

WIS would have been better served had they referenced “Prohibited Behaviors” rather than “Collusive transactions.” Cleaning up their own language might be an important first step in creating enforceable fair play guidelines.

+1

I know people aren't seeing it, but there *is* a loophole in the bullet point about sharing info on recruits. I can't really explain the loophole, because I gave my word that I wouldn't pass it along when it was explained to me.

But an easy way to fix it is to change the language.

Coaches may not have private discussions about unsigned recruits, either specifically or in general, nor may they discuss potential recruiting activities (or lack thereof.)

I specified private discussions, so that Conference Chat messages along the lines of "That QB Lauren Arfman has the worst GI I have ever seen" would be allowed. I suppose someone could say in public "Hey ND, if you stay away from K Joe Conte, I'll stay away from P Oriole_Fan." although a public statement like that would only tell other coaches what is going on. There may be some loopholes there still, so feel free to pick away at it.

Posted by hypnotoad on 2/15/2017 2:51:00 PM (view original):
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.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Frankly I would rather they limit it so that no person can have more than one team in a world, period.

I can see where you are going.. because that option makes it impossible for somoene to use another account to their advantage.

However, if the rule is generally enforced the way it is written, then there shouldnt be any issues with someone having more then 1 account in the same world. You could even make this slightly more stringent and say that the accounts must play at different divisions (not just conference), if anything.

Everyone has their own opinions. Especially the holier than thou crowd. Hell, even WIS doesn't really know what the rules are. So depending on the situation, yes, I will send or receive pms. Hasn't happened in quite a while, but if I need a QB and see a team has 3 committed to him ? I have sent a pm asking which QB he has rated #3 ...and that's the one I will target. Same thing has happened the other way where I have the 3 QBs committed to me.

I don't see the big deal with that. Others will be appalled.

I do see a big deal with 2 teams in same division. Others may not.

If WIS was really concerned about it, they would disable PMs

It's all perspective at that point

I don't understand why you guys are running scenarios to fit the rules. Simply don't discuss recruiting. It actually is that simple.