unbelievable the stand support is taking here. Just amazed. They told me another league owner reported me as trying to ruin the team, so they acted swiftly.

And now they're trying to Comey you, I guess.

Wow...

They should suck it up and apologize and give you your team back..

Yep. Deleting the thread is practically an admission of guilt.

We should acknowledge that policing worlds is difficult. WIS does need options at its disposal outside of the death penalty that include trade reversal in particularly questionable cases. This means more dedicated effort towards this purposes, but it's worth it. We've all been in worlds with collusion and it is not fun.

That particular "infraction" could have been policed by the world. Something is amiss.

The world could/should have vetoed.

Another FUBAR. They shiuld put the shovel down.

Seriously. If the trade goes through then you complain. Who's the whiney ***** that runs to WIS when all you need to do is veto the deal? There are worlds with owners who stopped logging in but it takes forever to get rid of them. This instance is in a private world, aren't the owners allowed to police it themselves? One person cries to the higher-ups and you're removed without a chance to try and defend your actions. Then you're not even allowed to complain before the dictatorship has your thread removed. What's next, yates wakes up and finds a horse's head in bed with him? I'm all for removing cheaters and troublemakers but this is bullshit with zero reasoning.

Posted by opie100 on 5/14/2017 9:24:00 AM (view original):
We should acknowledge that policing worlds is difficult. WIS does need options at its disposal outside of the death penalty that include trade reversal in particularly questionable cases. This means more dedicated effort towards this purposes, but it's worth it. We've all been in worlds with collusion and it is not fun.

CS shouldn't have intervened at all. The trade wasn't completed so was still open to veto. This was jumped on way too quickly.

Let's just be clear, I would have objected to yates33's moves for sure. But to turn that into what looks like CS failure followed by an attempted cover-up?

yates needs to send another ticket, and even more if necessary, to get this bumped up the food chain.

From the commisioner's post in world chat regarding CS explanation.....

CS said normally they'd involve me, but because of the active, very imbalanced, trades they felt they needed to intervene quickly. Historically he's a pretty typical user, but his trade activity got weird recently and these trades were out of whack.

Where was this decisiveness years ago when I was a commissioner? I had a guy who was violating TOS and fair play five ways from Sunday once and they let him keep the team. The gist that I got was that he was leaving after the season, so no biggie.

If collusion is the reason, as was implied in the last thread, then they should have booted the other owner. If it was simply lopsided trades then they should implement some form of veto system whereby the owners in a world can proactively shoot down such trades.

What was so weird about his trade activity recently? I didn't see anything too egregious in his completed trades and I don't know how to see the vetoed ones. From the sounds of it though it was just a guy trying to dump overpaid to free up cash to sign prospects. While it sounds like he went about it in not the best manner possible, getting out from under contracts is hardly "ruining a team".

EDIT: Also, it looks like one of the guys that he has been trying to get rid of was designated for assignment prior to the deals/banishing. He's currently unassigned and has been designated for 10 days; isn't this eventually going to lead to the player's release and put this franchise in an even worse position than if the owner were not "trying to ruin" it?

They did bump up my ticket to another user I guess. I'm waiting to hear back.