It should never ever ever be on the user to determine what the developer's intent was. Never, in case you missed that first one. If seble was dense, he should have been less dense and listened better. And as with many of the glitches, loopholes and bugs coming out of the 3.0 rollout, this very well could have been caught out of the gate had beta not been abbreviated and rollout rushed - and then seble rushed right out the door immediately after.

I can see a user noticing that inform of no redshirt gives some recruiting benefit, and assuming that's intended - you are promising not to redshirt the player. Clunky because you have to inform of redshirt first, but there are a lot of clunky mechanics that are definitely intended in this game. That's a reasonable assumption, especially if it's just right there, pressing buttons right in front of you. Presumption here lies with user, not with the developer, up until the point where users start using the tactic to collude with each other. That's why I'm still ambivalent on the A10 group - if there's evidence they were colluding (and from what's shown in this thread, and from what I saw in Smith, I would believe it) - then the ban was appropriate. If not, it was a terrible call.

Swenske's ban was brain-dead stupid.

Posted by hughesjr on 12/8/2022 9:36:00 AM (view original):
I get that, but IF telling a recruit you won't red shirt him had that benefit when put in the code base, and if that is what the coaches thought they were doing AND if they thought that is why it was added to the code base by the developer. Then the recent update fixed that bad thought process and programming.

Again, this is not something I ever did and I don't care one way or the other. But that was in the game and it seems to me it was added on purpose to the code, otherwise why would the code have it be different for different prestige?

I am not saying the change to take it out was bad, the game is better without it.

I just have a bad taste in my mouth that we call people cheaters for using something that existed inside the game and even SEEMS to be programmed in the code base on purpose. Not in any way saying it should have been put in there, just that it was.

I am not particularly fond of -5, slow down effect where underdogs win games .. but it is in the code base and I dang sure use it if I am a huge dog.

I do understand that you’re not personally invested in it. I get that. I just feel there’s a common sense factor that gets overlooked with things like that. As it’s been stated a hundred times (and probably somewhere in this thread), as coaches WE need to police the game basically. For the better of everyone playing. There will always be kinks and there’s probably more out there. As Benis was getting at, just because it’s in the game doesn’t mean it’s right ‘all the time’.

all the things you mentioned regarding ‘could it be possible the coaches thought…..”, sure, all that could be possible for the right person. But after finding out that players could be unlocked at a rapid pace without even spending a single AP, elite veteran coaches KNOW that it’s not something normal. There’s no denying that. If someone from CS told me in a ticket response that targeting every player from a state would magically unlock all players from another state, there’s no way I’d accept that to be normal. And instead of just doing it over and over, I’d come here and start a thread like ‘uh, listen how goofy this is….’

Not everyone needs to make a thread. But not everyone needs to abuse a loophole either

I agree that we don't want that mechanism to be used to unlock players for no AP. Just that it was in the game and the mechanism seems to be intentional even though the end result was not. I am a software engineer and have been since the early 80's. I just do not see any way that result could be accidental.

I have absolutely no problem with the patch to change the behavior and I even agree with it 100%.

I don't think it is collusion to discuss how recruiting works or how game planning works in a group (like your conference, or on the forums or on discord). I don't think it is collusion to explain as a mentor how to recruit and maybe walk them through how you would figure who you would take for their team in a one on one communication. It would be collusion to plan with other conference mates which recruits you all should take and split them up, etc.

So, if the conference described that bad mechanism, I don't think that is collusion. As in, did you know you get credit for removing a red shirt.

I have told people in my conference the mechanism I use to gameplan to decide what + or - to play on defense and when I would use 3-2 or 2-3 in a zone, etc. (when asked). I don't think that it is collusion to explain how you think game calculations are done, etc.

I have a recruiting sheet .. it uses colors and letters that you see when you scout and this table to figure out Max attributes:

A+	88
A	82
A-	76
B+	71
B	66
B-	60
C+	55
C	50
C-	44
D+	39
D	34
D-	28
F+	23
F	18
F-	10

for potential it uses:

Very High	High	Average	Low	Very Low
32	24	14	5	2

So if you had a 'very high', 'B-' at level 3 .. the spreadsheet would show 32+60=92 as that predicted score.

I don't think that is collusion, it is just math.

Both cubcub and I have sheets that help you look at your team and compare stats to your opponent. I don't consider those collusion, just a different way to look at data.

Posted by hughesjr on 12/8/2022 9:46:00 AM (view original):
So, to the best of my ability to understand this issue. If you 'remove inform a redshirt', it 'gave' you some benefit. We now know the absolute value of that benefit could be at most 80 AP. But that this benefit was variable based on prestige. The user had no idea of the absolute benefit, just that there was a benefit.

Is it possible that the coaches who chose it THOUGHT that they were promising NOT to redshirt a recruit?

Is it possible that this was actually intended to be in the programming when it was put in (those coders who wrote it are now gone)? The only reason removing the 'inform of a red shirt' option SHOULD provide any benefit based on prestige (or vary in any way and be called out specifically) is if it was intentionally put into the code. There would be no reason to do anything variable to it if you were just taking it away. Just reset the negative benefit (or reset some of it, like they have now) and be done with it. They did not do that when it was initially added to the code. They specifcally called out this condition .. they specifically based it on prestige .. they specifically gave benefit in different amounts to different teams.

Is it possible that benefit was put into the code on purpose because if you told a recruit that you might red shirt him, then you said later .. you know what, we won't red shirt you after all. Does that situation depend on prestige because that situation means more if Duke does it than of Coastal Carolina does it? I'm just spit balling here as to why someone might think this benefit is OK .. I can see this being something that a recruit might appreciate.

i doubt it was capped at 80 ap, what gives you that impression?

also, a lot of this redshirting and promise issue stuff relates to seble wanting to support real-time recruiting across 3 divisions with the ability to both cancel and withdraw actions. he put a lot of complexity in to try to make that work before bailing because it was too broken. there are lots of weird cases like putting on a promise on a playing with 'wants to play' preference, and then withdrawing. trying to make that all work left things kinda clunky.

i agree with you that stepping back, inform of no-redshirt tells the recruit he won't be redshirted, and that this could be plausibly perceived to be an intentional benefit. i think once the rubber hits the road, well-informed coaches using the tool extensively should recognize there's a disconnect.

Posted by shoe3 on 12/8/2022 11:19:00 AM (view original):
It should never ever ever be on the user to determine what the developer's intent was. Never, in case you missed that first one. If seble was dense, he should have been less dense and listened better. And as with many of the glitches, loopholes and bugs coming out of the 3.0 rollout, this very well could have been caught out of the gate had beta not been abbreviated and rollout rushed - and then seble rushed right out the door immediately after.

I can see a user noticing that inform of no redshirt gives some recruiting benefit, and assuming that's intended - you are promising not to redshirt the player. Clunky because you have to inform of redshirt first, but there are a lot of clunky mechanics that are definitely intended in this game. That's a reasonable assumption, especially if it's just right there, pressing buttons right in front of you. Presumption here lies with user, not with the developer, up until the point where users start using the tactic to collude with each other. That's why I'm still ambivalent on the A10 group - if there's evidence they were colluding (and from what's shown in this thread, and from what I saw in Smith, I would believe it) - then the ban was appropriate. If not, it was a terrible call.

Swenske's ban was brain-dead stupid.

on both sides, the pitchfork-wielding side, and this side, i can't get behind the nevers and alwayses.

are you suggesting here, that if as a coach, i found a way through the UI to get infinite effort on as many players as i wanted, that i would be in the clear to use that because its NEVER on me to determine whether the developers intended for me to have infinite effort?

gil,

Cobb said in his initial post:

Before:
(low rating) inform redshirt, take away redshirt end result: -1700AP
(high rating) inform redshirt, take away redshirt end result: +80AP

After:
(low rating) inform redshirt, take away redshirt end result: -30AP
(high rating) inform redshirt, take away redshirt end result: -30AP

That would be per recruit, of course. So if you added and removed a RS, at max it gave you 80 AP for that recruit. I assume it would have been less of you did not have an A+ prestige.

Link

Posted by hughesjr on 12/8/2022 12:02:00 PM (view original):
I agree that we don't want that mechanism to be used to unlock players for no AP. Just that it was in the game and the mechanism seems to be intentional even though the end result was not. I am a software engineer and have been since the early 80's. I just do not see any way that result could be accidental.

I have absolutely no problem with the patch to change the behavior and I even agree with it 100%.

I don't think it is collusion to discuss how recruiting works or how game planning works in a group (like your conference, or on the forums or on discord). I don't think it is collusion to explain as a mentor how to recruit and maybe walk them through how you would figure who you would take for their team in a one on one communication. It would be collusion to plan with other conference mates which recruits you all should take and split them up, etc.

So, if the conference described that bad mechanism, I don't think that is collusion. As in, did you know you get credit for removing a red shirt.

I have told people in my conference the mechanism I use to gameplan to decide what + or - to play on defense and when I would use 3-2 or 2-3 in a zone, etc. (when asked). I don't think that it is collusion to explain how you think game calculations are done, etc.

I have a recruiting sheet .. it uses colors and letters that you see when you scout and this table to figure out Max attributes:

A+	88
A	82
A-	76
B+	71
B	66
B-	60
C+	55
C	50
C-	44
D+	39
D	34
D-	28
F+	23
F	18
F-	10

for potential it uses:

Very High	High	Average	Low	Very Low
32	24	14	5	2

So if you had a 'very high', 'B-' at level 3 .. the spreadsheet would show 32+60=92 as that predicted score.

I don't think that is collusion, it is just math.

Both cubcub and I have sheets that help you look at your team and compare stats to your opponent. I don't consider those collusion, just a different way to look at data.

how do you figure VH from level 3?

Posted by gillispie on 12/8/2022 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/8/2022 11:19:00 AM (view original):
It should never ever ever be on the user to determine what the developer's intent was. Never, in case you missed that first one. If seble was dense, he should have been less dense and listened better. And as with many of the glitches, loopholes and bugs coming out of the 3.0 rollout, this very well could have been caught out of the gate had beta not been abbreviated and rollout rushed - and then seble rushed right out the door immediately after.

I can see a user noticing that inform of no redshirt gives some recruiting benefit, and assuming that's intended - you are promising not to redshirt the player. Clunky because you have to inform of redshirt first, but there are a lot of clunky mechanics that are definitely intended in this game. That's a reasonable assumption, especially if it's just right there, pressing buttons right in front of you. Presumption here lies with user, not with the developer, up until the point where users start using the tactic to collude with each other. That's why I'm still ambivalent on the A10 group - if there's evidence they were colluding (and from what's shown in this thread, and from what I saw in Smith, I would believe it) - then the ban was appropriate. If not, it was a terrible call.

Swenske's ban was brain-dead stupid.

on both sides, the pitchfork-wielding side, and this side, i can't get behind the nevers and alwayses.

are you suggesting here, that if as a coach, i found a way through the UI to get infinite effort on as many players as i wanted, that i would be in the clear to use that because its NEVER on me to determine whether the developers intended for me to have infinite effort?

Essentially yes, that is what I’m saying. "In the clear" to use it until they explicitly told you not to or changed the design. Though in this case, we’re not talking about “infinite effort on as many players” as you want. An issue that egregious -infinite effort - would not likely be missed or left for so long, right? And when it’s brought to their attention, it’s not likely to be met with “huh, I guess that’s possible, let us know if that happens again.”

Posted by digitalv on 12/8/2022 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 12/8/2022 12:02:00 PM (view original):
I agree that we don't want that mechanism to be used to unlock players for no AP. Just that it was in the game and the mechanism seems to be intentional even though the end result was not. I am a software engineer and have been since the early 80's. I just do not see any way that result could be accidental.

I have absolutely no problem with the patch to change the behavior and I even agree with it 100%.

I don't think it is collusion to discuss how recruiting works or how game planning works in a group (like your conference, or on the forums or on discord). I don't think it is collusion to explain as a mentor how to recruit and maybe walk them through how you would figure who you would take for their team in a one on one communication. It would be collusion to plan with other conference mates which recruits you all should take and split them up, etc.

So, if the conference described that bad mechanism, I don't think that is collusion. As in, did you know you get credit for removing a red shirt.

I have told people in my conference the mechanism I use to gameplan to decide what + or - to play on defense and when I would use 3-2 or 2-3 in a zone, etc. (when asked). I don't think that it is collusion to explain how you think game calculations are done, etc.

I have a recruiting sheet .. it uses colors and letters that you see when you scout and this table to figure out Max attributes:

A+	88
A	82
A-	76
B+	71
B	66
B-	60
C+	55
C	50
C-	44
D+	39
D	34
D-	28
F+	23
F	18
F-	10

for potential it uses:

Very High	High	Average	Low	Very Low
32	24	14	5	2

So if you had a 'very high', 'B-' at level 3 .. the spreadsheet would show 32+60=92 as that predicted score.

I don't think that is collusion, it is just math.

Both cubcub and I have sheets that help you look at your team and compare stats to your opponent. I don't consider those collusion, just a different way to look at data.

how do you figure VH from level 3?

Bad example .. they only have 3 colors at level 3 , high and +24 instead. :)

Posted by shoe3 on 12/8/2022 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 12/8/2022 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/8/2022 11:19:00 AM (view original):
It should never ever ever be on the user to determine what the developer's intent was. Never, in case you missed that first one. If seble was dense, he should have been less dense and listened better. And as with many of the glitches, loopholes and bugs coming out of the 3.0 rollout, this very well could have been caught out of the gate had beta not been abbreviated and rollout rushed - and then seble rushed right out the door immediately after.

I can see a user noticing that inform of no redshirt gives some recruiting benefit, and assuming that's intended - you are promising not to redshirt the player. Clunky because you have to inform of redshirt first, but there are a lot of clunky mechanics that are definitely intended in this game. That's a reasonable assumption, especially if it's just right there, pressing buttons right in front of you. Presumption here lies with user, not with the developer, up until the point where users start using the tactic to collude with each other. That's why I'm still ambivalent on the A10 group - if there's evidence they were colluding (and from what's shown in this thread, and from what I saw in Smith, I would believe it) - then the ban was appropriate. If not, it was a terrible call.

Swenske's ban was brain-dead stupid.

on both sides, the pitchfork-wielding side, and this side, i can't get behind the nevers and alwayses.

are you suggesting here, that if as a coach, i found a way through the UI to get infinite effort on as many players as i wanted, that i would be in the clear to use that because its NEVER on me to determine whether the developers intended for me to have infinite effort?

Essentially yes, that is what I’m saying. "In the clear" to use it until they explicitly told you not to or changed the design. Though in this case, we’re not talking about “infinite effort on as many players” as you want. An issue that egregious -infinite effort - would not likely be missed or left for so long, right? And when it’s brought to their attention, it’s not likely to be met with “huh, I guess that’s possible, let us know if that happens again.”

i don't know, if i hadn't intervened substantailly, almost certainly infinite effort glitches would have made it to 3.0. regardless, i have found significant, but not infinite, free effort glitches in both 2.0 and 3.0. the 2.0 free effort glitch was probably in there for a decade or longer. the 3.0 free effort was in there almost surely for all of 3.0 until i came back, being retired for the first 3+ years of the existence of 3.0.

there are significant free effort glitches that were patched with the redshirt-no redshirt bug here, that go well beyond the 80 AP or so severity. i am 90% sure i ran into this myself on a player back in august, it was a crazy situation that made no sense but i walked away thinking most likely, there were issues vastly beyond the 80 AP range. i think the dev post on this issue effectively confirms as much, so this example here is a great counter point to the idea that serious issues would have been found and fixed earlier.

so the idea that egregious effort bugs would not be in the game for very long, i think is off-base, because they have been there essentially the entire time. i do agree those would be fixed upon reporting, perhaps assuming the coach was persistent enough to get past level 1 support to get the point across.

but your claim, if i understand it, is that i am really under no obligation - as far as cheating is concerned - to have reported such issues when i found them. that i could use that free effort and should be protected from any consequences. granted, over-abuse might get me 'caught' and the issue fixed, but otherwise i could use free effort glitches forever and you'd argue i should face zero consequences, right?

its OK if you think that, which is sounds like you do, but i also think that the vast, vast majority of users would not find this view reasonable, and would not tolerate such an approach from providers. which has to be part of the equation.

I do think for something huge and egregious that is obviously over the top, like you describe, people should and likely would report it.

But not actually knowing the absolute value of this error, it seems reasonable to me that in this particular case they just thought it was a promise not to RS .. and that it COULD provide some benefit. it should not allow you unlimited early unlocks, however. I mean, any way you slice it, they should not have thought that was absolutely normal. I don't think it is normal either. I do think it was designed to give that benefit (80 AP if you take that away and tyou are an A+ team), seble just did not expect it to be used on everyone at the beginning of recruiting like it was.

Posted by hughesjr on 12/8/2022 2:51:00 PM (view original):
I do think for something huge and egregious that is obviously over the top, like you describe, people should and likely would report it.

But not actually knowing the absolute value of this error, it seems reasonable to me that in this particular case they just thought it was a promise not to RS .. and that it COLD provide some benefit. it should not allow you unlimited early unlocks, however. I mean, any way you slice it, they should not have thought that was absolutely normal. I don't think it is normal either. I do think it was designed to give that benefit (80 AP if you take that away and tyou are an A+ team), seble just did not expect it to be used on everyone at the beginning of recruiting like it was.

i generally agree with you here, especially now with the recognition of the shades of gray in play. i have generally been more-cautious than the average coach in calling for these guys to get banned and stuff. i don't believe in 'sides' on this issue so to speak, we are all on the same side here wanting fair play and consistent enforcement. but if there were sides, we'd probably be on the same one :)

anyway, FWIW, i don't read the redshirt no-redshirt the same way. there's an intent by seble to make redshirting and promises work in the context of preferences and in the context of d3 schools recruiting d1, d1 schools recruiting d1, and even d1 schools recruiting down divisions. there's a complicated range of scenarios there. i believe the positive effort here was not to intended to give positive effort to no redshirt. i believe it was there to offset the complicated impact of removing a redshirt or promise that could have impacted the value of other effort via preferences, effort performed between the initial action (redshirt, promise) and the subsequent action (no redshirt, change in promise).

Posted by gillispie on 12/8/2022 2:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/8/2022 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie on 12/8/2022 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shoe3 on 12/8/2022 11:19:00 AM (view original):
It should never ever ever be on the user to determine what the developer's intent was. Never, in case you missed that first one. If seble was dense, he should have been less dense and listened better. And as with many of the glitches, loopholes and bugs coming out of the 3.0 rollout, this very well could have been caught out of the gate had beta not been abbreviated and rollout rushed - and then seble rushed right out the door immediately after.

I can see a user noticing that inform of no redshirt gives some recruiting benefit, and assuming that's intended - you are promising not to redshirt the player. Clunky because you have to inform of redshirt first, but there are a lot of clunky mechanics that are definitely intended in this game. That's a reasonable assumption, especially if it's just right there, pressing buttons right in front of you. Presumption here lies with user, not with the developer, up until the point where users start using the tactic to collude with each other. That's why I'm still ambivalent on the A10 group - if there's evidence they were colluding (and from what's shown in this thread, and from what I saw in Smith, I would believe it) - then the ban was appropriate. If not, it was a terrible call.

Swenske's ban was brain-dead stupid.

on both sides, the pitchfork-wielding side, and this side, i can't get behind the nevers and alwayses.

are you suggesting here, that if as a coach, i found a way through the UI to get infinite effort on as many players as i wanted, that i would be in the clear to use that because its NEVER on me to determine whether the developers intended for me to have infinite effort?

Essentially yes, that is what I’m saying. "In the clear" to use it until they explicitly told you not to or changed the design. Though in this case, we’re not talking about “infinite effort on as many players” as you want. An issue that egregious -infinite effort - would not likely be missed or left for so long, right? And when it’s brought to their attention, it’s not likely to be met with “huh, I guess that’s possible, let us know if that happens again.”

i don't know, if i hadn't intervened substantailly, almost certainly infinite effort glitches would have made it to 3.0. regardless, i have found significant, but not infinite, free effort glitches in both 2.0 and 3.0. the 2.0 free effort glitch was probably in there for a decade or longer. the 3.0 free effort was in there almost surely for all of 3.0 until i came back, being retired for the first 3+ years of the existence of 3.0.

there are significant free effort glitches that were patched with the redshirt-no redshirt bug here, that go well beyond the 80 AP or so severity. i am 90% sure i ran into this myself on a player back in august, it was a crazy situation that made no sense but i walked away thinking most likely, there were issues vastly beyond the 80 AP range. i think the dev post on this issue effectively confirms as much, so this example here is a great counter point to the idea that serious issues would have been found and fixed earlier.

so the idea that egregious effort bugs would not be in the game for very long, i think is off-base, because they have been there essentially the entire time. i do agree those would be fixed upon reporting, perhaps assuming the coach was persistent enough to get past level 1 support to get the point across.

but your claim, if i understand it, is that i am really under no obligation - as far as cheating is concerned - to have reported such issues when i found them. that i could use that free effort and should be protected from any consequences. granted, over-abuse might get me 'caught' and the issue fixed, but otherwise i could use free effort glitches forever and you'd argue i should face zero consequences, right?

its OK if you think that, which is sounds like you do, but i also think that the vast, vast majority of users would not find this view reasonable, and would not tolerate such an approach from providers. which has to be part of the equation.

Yeah I mean, when we’re using words like “cheating”, “obligation”, “punishment”, and “ban”, I definitely think the onus is always on the developer to provide a game without exploits. Now you can say that’s not realistic, and I agree - there are going to be exploits especially early on, and players who push boundaries in numerous ways. So it’s imperative to diligently watch how the system is being used. Relying on users to self-report (and report each other) in a live game that you’re charging money for is just an awful plan.

So I don’t know what kind of exploit you found, but let’s say you didn’t see a moral obligation to self-report. If you use it like Swenske used this, and it’s truly infinite effort on any player you want, Deputy Benis probably pulls you over pretty fast right? It’d have to be a lot less than even doogan used this, I would imagine, since this is really nothing like infinite effort on any players, it was a very finite amount of effort on a limited set of players. You’d have to use such an exploit pretty sparingly and judiciously to avoid suspicion and discussion. My contention is that when/if caught, instead of banning you without warning, they need to 1) fix it ASAP, and 2) clearly define it as cheating and monitor it closely until it can be fixed. Obviously I dont think providers should allow you to use a free effort glitch forever - they should fix it as soon as possible, or you know, design a game without them in the first place.

makes sense shoe, and i give you credit for being consistent!

its perhaps a perspective thing owing to my software background, which i tried to kinda express around page 3 of that original benis thread without much success (perhaps due to the high emotions at the time?)... but to me the expectation is games and software have serious glitches. its just simply the reality in which we live, software has bugs, and lots of them.

its a nice idea that developers would design a game without serious glitches, but its unrealistic for enterprise software that individual customers pay 5, 6, even 7 or 8 digit sums a year to access. its even more unrealistic for a littler piece of software like hoops dynasty.

the context i brought this up originally was more of a 'the sky is falling!' context, and i was trying to establish the premise that these kinds of issues are neither extraordinary nor indiciative of subpar performance by the HD staff. and that therefore, we should deal with such issues methodically and patiently. here, same premise, but with the conclusion that we can't expect HD staff to fully deal with issue themselves, and therefore, in part, it falls on the community (which is the case for almost all software, anywhere - most things are a spectrum though, and i think we should expect this to be the case more here in HD, than it is for say Apple with their iPhone operating system, or Oracle with their extremely expensive enterprise database software).

i do agree though that HD staff should do more to proactively monitor for fair play. it would certainly be nice if they nipped more of these issues in the bud on their own initiative. i just don't agree that because HD software has glitches, users are free to exploit those glitches without consequence, because IMO this ignores the fundamental reality that HD staff are human and HD software is software (and therefore has serious bugs). i 100% agree that users should at least get the benefit of the doubt when using the UI, and that its unreasonable to expect that all users are thinking about these issues all the time and should know the developer intent and all that. i just expect users to be... reasonably uninformed, i suppose, and reasonably ignorant of these issues, but not entirely.

Posted by hughesjr on 12/8/2022 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by digitalv on 12/8/2022 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 12/8/2022 12:02:00 PM (view original):
I agree that we don't want that mechanism to be used to unlock players for no AP. Just that it was in the game and the mechanism seems to be intentional even though the end result was not. I am a software engineer and have been since the early 80's. I just do not see any way that result could be accidental.

I have absolutely no problem with the patch to change the behavior and I even agree with it 100%.

I don't think it is collusion to discuss how recruiting works or how game planning works in a group (like your conference, or on the forums or on discord). I don't think it is collusion to explain as a mentor how to recruit and maybe walk them through how you would figure who you would take for their team in a one on one communication. It would be collusion to plan with other conference mates which recruits you all should take and split them up, etc.

So, if the conference described that bad mechanism, I don't think that is collusion. As in, did you know you get credit for removing a red shirt.

I have told people in my conference the mechanism I use to gameplan to decide what + or - to play on defense and when I would use 3-2 or 2-3 in a zone, etc. (when asked). I don't think that it is collusion to explain how you think game calculations are done, etc.

I have a recruiting sheet .. it uses colors and letters that you see when you scout and this table to figure out Max attributes:

A+	88
A	82
A-	76
B+	71
B	66
B-	60
C+	55
C	50
C-	44
D+	39
D	34
D-	28
F+	23
F	18
F-	10

for potential it uses:

Very High	High	Average	Low	Very Low
32	24	14	5	2

So if you had a 'very high', 'B-' at level 3 .. the spreadsheet would show 32+60=92 as that predicted score.

I don't think that is collusion, it is just math.

Both cubcub and I have sheets that help you look at your team and compare stats to your opponent. I don't consider those collusion, just a different way to look at data.

how do you figure VH from level 3?

Bad example .. they only have 3 colors at level 3 , high and +24 instead. :)

Ok, that makes more sense lol. Was gunna say if you can see potentials from level 3 I wanna know what programs you’ve got lol