In my OP, I stated that I did not think he committed collusion. However, this wlak down memory lane made me rediscover this oldie between guggendr and me where he got me banned in 2015 for "Threatening to Collude." I think WIS has some 'spalining to do. If an implied threat is bannable, what is implied sharing of recruiting tactics among all major boards in my recruiting area?
| 12/17/2015 5:38 PM |
ermackey |
I just received this sitemail. How is this collusion. Everyone had completed their signings and no recruits were mentioned. Under your definition, "Collusion includes any act that supports bad, deceitful or illegal behavior agreed upon by two or more users or attempted by a single user." What did I do that supported "bad, deceitful or illegal behavior agreed upon by two or more users or attempted by a single user?" My comments did not alter the recruiting at all. Everyone had finished their signings and no harm was done. We simply let the other player know that his recruiting tactics were not appreciated and that we would be aware of them in the future. That is not collusion.
Did I make "certain transactions made solely to impede other owners?" NO
Did my messages support "bad, deceitful or illegal behavior agreed upon by two or more users or attempted by a single user." No. In fact, they were a recognition that he was using a loophole to try to snipe players rather than competing fairly through the recruiting process.
Did I discuss the pursuit of a recruit with another coach, including who is pursuing him and money that might have been spent? No. I said I was sniped in an earlier season. Acknowledging that players tactic is not collusion under your definition above.
Did I "focus on recruits a particular coach is pursuing in order to steal them or force the coach to overspend? No. In fact, that is what guggen did to us which is what my posts were discussing.
Did I "attempt to persuade another user to participate in a collusive effort?" Negative. No. Not at all. You can check my private messages even. I never attempted to "persuade" anyone to any action. I merely observed that several people in that thread had witnessed his tactics and that we would not be surprised again. I did not encourage retribution, nor encourage others.
Frankly, I am stunned at the sitemail I received today. Collusion takes a coordinated effort. There was no coordination. If you are going to call this type of discussion collusion, you need to shut down the message boards. Frankly, guggen got butt-hurt because his deceitful tactics were acknowledged and complained to WIS and you guys knee-jerked into a sitemail response that did not even reflect the situation. Nobody deserved a warning. What guggen did was legal, even if unethical. Likewise, what I and others did was legal AND ethical. If we can't complain, just shut down the boards. Otherwise EVERYONE IS COLLUDING!
I want to know exactly what I said that meets the definition of collusion. I want it posted so that not only I, but everyone is aware of the rule. Right now, I still do not know what I did that was "collusion" and me and every other player really need to know because it is NOT in the rules you cited. |
| 12/18/2015 10:48 AM |
Customer Support |
Emil,
You have threatened to collude in the future, which is a violation. That is why you received the warning.
Thank you. |
| 12/18/2015 12:50 PM |
ermackey |
| Please cite the threat. I have searched for a threat and do not see it. I never intended and do not think such a threat was made. It was simply a complaint about guggendr's recruiting tactics. |
| 12/18/2015 1:47 PM |
Customer Support |
tnjay615:
"So guggen, you like sims? If you jump on my players late again ill make sure you have way more than 4 of them in your next class!"
You in response:
"Ditto from Michigan"
"You can do it next year if you want, but we are aware and I expect your success rate will not be as high."
This appears to us like you are teaming up with tnjay615 to collude against guggendr.
Thanks. |
| 12/18/2015 2:04 PM |
ermackey |
Why did you leave off the last sentence? "This is not a threat, but FYI. Do with it what you wish and happy hunting." Seriously?
The message was simply stating that I was prepared. Guggendr sniped me last year and other coaches this year. All I was saying was that I will be sure to have a reserve left to ward him off. And I will.
If I wrote, "Get ready to be sniped next year. What comes around goes around", I would get your point. But you are taking a phrase in a larger paragraph where I explicitly state that it is not a threat and just FYI as a threat and interpreting it as a threat.
Look, guggendr poached/sniped me two recruiting seasons ago. If I wanted to retaliate, I would have done it THIS recruiting cycle. I did not. You have essentially banned me for saying I was prepared for his sniping next year and reading it as a threat.
Furthermore, we now know guggendr is a staff member of WIS. I mean this seriously. Are you guggendr? If not, are you responding to his complaints differently because he is a fellow staff member?
If you thought it was a threat, why not ask me? I feel like you guys adjudicated a judgment ignoring a VERY important phrase in the same paragraph that got me banned. |
| 12/18/2015 2:23 PM |
Customer Support |
Emil,
Yes this was brought to our attention by guggendr, who yes, is site staff, but we are not acting any different towards the situation as we would if it were another owner who isn't site staff.
It is not permitted to issue threats of collusion. Tnjay615 issued the threat, and you agreed to it. In our eyes, we see that as a threat to the user as cooperative collusion.
Your ban came due to your language used in the conference chat. You should be aware that "owners are to act polite and gracious" due to your past warnings/posting bans.
Thank you. |
| 12/18/2015 3:29 PM |
ermackey |
I am not happy about this at all. There was no threat of collusion. You are manipulating my post by excluding the latter part of it.
If you were to say, "Hitler was right of Chancellor Bismark in the Parade," you are not racist if someone shortens your quote to be "Hitler was right."
What you are doing is wrong. There is no threat and I believe you know that. At this point, I believe that you are attempting to justify a rash decision made through a misinterpretation (and augmentation) of my quote. Worse, you are threatening me and other owners with sanctions for your actions through the misinterpretation and continued manipulation of my post to shape the meaning you intend and not what I actually said.
Look. I do not want to elevate this issue. I am being respectful. Given the evidence presented, you should have every reason to reconsider the issue. I ask that you do that. I do not want to elevate this issue when I do not have to. However, you have served notice that I can be permanently banned with no refunds for an action I did not commit. I respectfully recommend you reconsider the evidence and the reaction WIS took on this issue. |
| 12/18/2015 3:39 PM |
ermackey |
I am not happy about this at all. There was no threat of collusion. You are manipulating my post by excluding the latter part of it. You are doing the same with the posts of tnjay615. The entire thread is edited to reshape the entire message.
If you were to say, "Hitler was right of Chancellor Bismark in the Parade," you are not racist if someone shortens your quote to be "Hitler was right." However, that is what you have effectively done by shortening my post from "There is a HUGE difference between coming-in late because you have more cash than expected and are trying to upgrade. It is another to use it as a recruiting strategy to wait and snipe teams as your primary strategy. You did it to me last year. did it to others this year. You can do it next year if you want, but we are aware and I expect your success rate will not be as high. This is not a threat, but FYI. Do with it what you wish and happy hunting." to simply ""You can do it next year if you want, but we are aware and I expect your success rate will not be as high."
For the record, the "ditto from Michigan" referred to tnjay615's sentence that said "Way to many sim coverd players out there for you to play dirty like that! You want them jump on them early!! And lets battle like men!" Once again, not a threat.
What you are doing is wrong. There is no threat and I believe you know that. At this point, I believe that you are attempting to justify a rash decision made through a misinterpretation (and augmentation) of my quote. Worse, you are threatening me and other owners with sanctions for your actions through the misinterpretation and continued manipulation of my post to shape the meaning you intend and not what I actually said.
Look. I do not want to elevate this issue. I am being respectful. Given the evidence presented, you should have every reason to reconsider the issue. I ask that you do that. I do not want to elevate this issue when I do not have to. However, you have served notice that I can be permanently banned with no refunds for an action I did not commit. I respectfully recommend you reconsider the evidence and the reaction WIS took on this issue. |
| 12/18/2015 3:46 PM |
ermackey |
I am not happy about this at all. There was no threat of collusion. You are manipulating my post by excluding the latter part of it. You are doing the same with the posts of tnjay615. The entire thread is edited to reshape the entire message.
If you were to say, "Hitler was right of Chancellor Bismark in the Parade," you are not racist if someone shortens your quote to be "Hitler was right." However, that is what you have effectively done by shortening my post from "There is a HUGE difference between coming-in late because you have more cash than expected and are trying to upgrade. It is another to use it as a recruiting strategy to wait and snipe teams as your primary strategy. You did it to me last year. did it to others this year. You can do it next year if you want, but we are aware and I expect your success rate will not be as high. This is not a threat, but FYI. Do with it what you wish and happy hunting." to simply ""You can do it next year if you want, but we are aware and I expect your success rate will not be as high."
For the record, the "ditto from Michigan" referred to tnjay615's sentence that said "Way to many sim coverd players out there for you to play dirty like that! You want them jump on them early!! And lets battle like men!" Once again, not a threat.
What you are doing is wrong. There is no threat and I believe you know that. At this point, I believe that you are attempting to justify a rash decision made through a misinterpretation (and augmentation) of my quote. Worse, you are threatening me and other owners with sanctions for your actions through the misinterpretation and continued manipulation of my post to shape the meaning you intend and not what I actually said. Worse, you have guggendr on your staff where he can justify and make his case to you. We do not have that access. Why did you simply take his complaint and run with it? Why did you not at least ask us what we meant? Why did you not just apply the post as written rather than paraphrased? There is a real issue here of potential favoritism and conflict of interest due to guggendr and his relationship to WIS and the staff implementing the sanctions. The fact that you are changing my quote to reshape the context to fit a "threat" accusation is also disturbing.
Look. I do not want to elevate this issue. I am being respectful. Given the evidence presented, you should have every reason to reconsider the issue. I respectfully ask that you do that. I do not want to elevate this issue when I do not have to. However, you have served notice that I can be permanently banned with no refunds for an action I did not commit. You conducted an investigation and implemented a sanction without interviewing the people involved. We all make mistakes. I respectfully recommend you reconsider the evidence and the reaction WIS took on this issue. |
| 12/18/2015 3:48 PM |
ermackey |
I am not happy about this at all. There was no threat of collusion. You are manipulating my post by excluding the latter part of it. You are doing the same with the posts of tnjay615. The entire thread is edited to reshape the entire message.
If you were to say, "Hitler was right of Chancellor Bismark in the Parade," you are not racist if someone shortens your quote to be "Hitler was right." However, that is what you have effectively done by shortening my post from "There is a HUGE difference between coming-in late because you have more cash than expected and are trying to upgrade. It is another to use it as a recruiting strategy to wait and snipe teams as your primary strategy. You did it to me last year. did it to others this year. You can do it next year if you want, but we are aware and I expect your success rate will not be as high. This is not a threat, but FYI. Do with it what you wish and happy hunting." to simply ""You can do it next year if you want, but we are aware and I expect your success rate will not be as high."
For the record, the "ditto from Michigan" referred to tnjay615's sentence that said "Way to many sim coverd players out there for you to play dirty like that! You want them jump on them early!! And lets battle like men!" Once again, not a threat.
What you are doing is wrong. There is no threat and I believe you know that. At this point, I believe that you are attempting to justify a rash decision made through a misinterpretation (and augmentation) of my quote. Worse, you are threatening me and other owners with sanctions for your actions through the misinterpretation and continued manipulation of my post to shape the meaning you intend and not what I actually said. Worse, you have guggendr on your staff where he can justify and make his case to you. We do not have that access. Why did you simply take his complaint and run with it? Why did you not at least ask us what we meant? Why did you not just apply the post as written rather than paraphrased? There is a real issue here of potential favoritism and conflict of interest due to guggendr and his relationship to WIS and the staff implementing the sanctions. The fact that you are changing my quote to reshape the context to fit a "threat" accusation is also disturbing.
Look. I do not want to elevate this issue. I am being respectful. Given the evidence presented, you should have every reason to reconsider the issue. I respectfully ask that you do that. I do not want to elevate this issue when I do not have to. However, you have served notice that I can be permanently banned with no refunds for an action I did not commit. You conducted an investigation and implemented a sanction without interviewing the people involved. We all make mistakes. I respectfully recommend you reconsider the evidence and the reaction WIS took on this issue. |
| 12/19/2015 3:42 AM |
Customer Support |
Emil,
We think that you may be over-looking the fact that this was just a simple warning, and within that warning we stated possible punishment that Could be taken, if necessary, if and only if you actually committed next season. We commonly include a blurp like that in our warnings to try to direct people to the rest of the Fair Play Guidelines.
And again, the temporary posting ban was a result from your choice of words and not in any way related to the warning sent by us.
We hope that this helps resolve the situation and answers your questions. Thank you. |