Collusion: Please Comment
by ROBERTFIELD » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:34 pm
That's right, dude, I saw that nasty stuff you wrote about me. lol
- ROBERTFIELD
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Minoso Express » Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:53 pm
It's more like "Measure for Measure," Petrosian. Except that we've yet to cast the Duke of dark corners.
In the sense that this is just a [i:eb1ee8b59d]game[/i:eb1ee8b59d], you're right. Breaking the rules of the game (and it is breaking a Strat rule to collude, which, interestingly, seems to bother few here) is relatively trivial when personal entertainment and enjoyment is the only thing at stake. But consider that most of us pay to play this game and when you ante up, there's always an expectation of a reasonably level playing field-- which is the only thing we can expect a set of rules here to provide.
When you're riding a double-or-nothing bet at a blackjack table and you're the only one who sees an ace fall out of some bozo's sleeve when he sneezes, is your immediate thought, "oh my, he's a good player, maybe he intended something different with that ace!" or "gee, I better have a private word with him and ask him not to do that again." Hell, no. You alert the pit boss and the big guy with the tattoos to your right.
Though I expect to be paying for my games for the rest of my Strat life, for those who win rings and get to the finals here, credits are up for grab. That's not trivial when these games cost $25 bucks a pop and most of us are running multiple teams simultaneously.
What's clear from this thread is that there are quite a few decent, compassionate, stand-up managers who want to see the "good" in every situation. But there's no real "good" in this one.
Neither trade, no matter the deal, would have benefitted BOTH players in the SAME league. This is why King Olav's use of the word "lopsided" is entirely appropriate. It has nothing to do with dollar value and everything to do with intent to defraud the other competitors in that pennant race. Had that manager's proposal been met with enthusiasm from King Olav, we'd all have lost. Even should those trades have bombed for both teams in question.
Ultimately, I believe this kind of trade is far more insidious than whatever frivolous, boneheaded trade offers are sent out in the leagues because the managers who make those offers are clueless. Whoever sent KO that offer was far from clueless.
I'm with Nev here. The "intent" could not be more clear.
But I guess as a far more infamous cheat might have said... "if the trade don't fit, you must acquit."
In the sense that this is just a [i:eb1ee8b59d]game[/i:eb1ee8b59d], you're right. Breaking the rules of the game (and it is breaking a Strat rule to collude, which, interestingly, seems to bother few here) is relatively trivial when personal entertainment and enjoyment is the only thing at stake. But consider that most of us pay to play this game and when you ante up, there's always an expectation of a reasonably level playing field-- which is the only thing we can expect a set of rules here to provide.
When you're riding a double-or-nothing bet at a blackjack table and you're the only one who sees an ace fall out of some bozo's sleeve when he sneezes, is your immediate thought, "oh my, he's a good player, maybe he intended something different with that ace!" or "gee, I better have a private word with him and ask him not to do that again." Hell, no. You alert the pit boss and the big guy with the tattoos to your right.
Though I expect to be paying for my games for the rest of my Strat life, for those who win rings and get to the finals here, credits are up for grab. That's not trivial when these games cost $25 bucks a pop and most of us are running multiple teams simultaneously.
What's clear from this thread is that there are quite a few decent, compassionate, stand-up managers who want to see the "good" in every situation. But there's no real "good" in this one.
Neither trade, no matter the deal, would have benefitted BOTH players in the SAME league. This is why King Olav's use of the word "lopsided" is entirely appropriate. It has nothing to do with dollar value and everything to do with intent to defraud the other competitors in that pennant race. Had that manager's proposal been met with enthusiasm from King Olav, we'd all have lost. Even should those trades have bombed for both teams in question.
Ultimately, I believe this kind of trade is far more insidious than whatever frivolous, boneheaded trade offers are sent out in the leagues because the managers who make those offers are clueless. Whoever sent KO that offer was far from clueless.
I'm with Nev here. The "intent" could not be more clear.
But I guess as a far more infamous cheat might have said... "if the trade don't fit, you must acquit."
- Minoso Express
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Hakmusic » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:02 pm
I've gotta agree with Nev here because I think the intent is fairly clear in the league mail. Trading Mays for Snider is not "I help you here and you help me there" Just as odd $$ trades can be fair, even $$ trades can be extremely lopsided. Ty Cobb and Pete Fox for Pankovitz, Gainey, and Office. Or even Greenberg and a $2 million nobody for Mays.
Take any of the guys that are always available on the FA wire: Greenberg, Luzinski, Wilson, Schmidt, etc. and trade them for somone who never is: Yount, Mays, Cobb, Banks, etc. And it is an unfair trade.
sooo, the intent, as I read it is something to the effect of: You trade me a Stud for a dud here and I will trade you a stud for a dud there. If it were someone like Mays for Snider, there would be no reason to say anything about I'll help you in a league where you are contending.
I think that sentence, coupled with the fact that you have a team in contention and one out of contention in each league, makes it very clear. I just don't see how that sentense could be viewed differently. In a fair trade, that sentence would not be needed.
Take any of the guys that are always available on the FA wire: Greenberg, Luzinski, Wilson, Schmidt, etc. and trade them for somone who never is: Yount, Mays, Cobb, Banks, etc. And it is an unfair trade.
sooo, the intent, as I read it is something to the effect of: You trade me a Stud for a dud here and I will trade you a stud for a dud there. If it were someone like Mays for Snider, there would be no reason to say anything about I'll help you in a league where you are contending.
I think that sentence, coupled with the fact that you have a team in contention and one out of contention in each league, makes it very clear. I just don't see how that sentense could be viewed differently. In a fair trade, that sentence would not be needed.
- Hakmusic
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by harry lime » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:14 pm
Well, I can see other meanings in that post. Butit's prettyhard to see when it's proceeded by the words "lopsided trade".
I guess I just don't see why this neede to be brought to the public when nothing wrong was done. There was an implication that something dirty may have been planned, sure. But why not confront the owner privatley. See for sure what their real intent was and then act on it.
I agree that his intent was probably to collude across leagues. But I would want to be more sure before I called him out on it publicly. And to KO's credit he did not name names.
[quote:2a3b8fa290]When you're riding a double-or-nothing bet at a blackjack table and you're the only one who sees an ace fall out of some bozo's sleeve when he sneezes, is your immediate thought, "oh my, he's a good player, maybe he intended something different with that ace!" or "gee, I better have a private word with him and ask him not to do that again." Hell, no. You alert the pit boss and the big guy with the tattoos to your right.[/quote:2a3b8fa290]
See I don't think this guy showed an ace dropping from his sleeve. I think a better analogy would be the guy next you whispering " I wouldn't bet that, I may have an ace up my sleeve." He may be joikng, he may be a crackpot. He may be a real cheater. But I don't think that's enough info to call the pit boss over.
I guess I just don't see why this neede to be brought to the public when nothing wrong was done. There was an implication that something dirty may have been planned, sure. But why not confront the owner privatley. See for sure what their real intent was and then act on it.
I agree that his intent was probably to collude across leagues. But I would want to be more sure before I called him out on it publicly. And to KO's credit he did not name names.
[quote:2a3b8fa290]When you're riding a double-or-nothing bet at a blackjack table and you're the only one who sees an ace fall out of some bozo's sleeve when he sneezes, is your immediate thought, "oh my, he's a good player, maybe he intended something different with that ace!" or "gee, I better have a private word with him and ask him not to do that again." Hell, no. You alert the pit boss and the big guy with the tattoos to your right.[/quote:2a3b8fa290]
See I don't think this guy showed an ace dropping from his sleeve. I think a better analogy would be the guy next you whispering " I wouldn't bet that, I may have an ace up my sleeve." He may be joikng, he may be a crackpot. He may be a real cheater. But I don't think that's enough info to call the pit boss over.
- harry lime
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by harry lime » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:21 pm
[quote:e60ce3729b]
I've gotta agree with Nev here because I think the intent is fairly clear in the league mail. Trading Mays for Snider is not "I help you here and you help me there" Just as odd $$ trades can be fair, even $$ trades can be extremely lopsided. Ty Cobb and Pete Fox for Pankovitz, Gainey, and Office. Or even Greenberg and a $2 million nobody for Mays.
Take any of the guys that are always available on the FA wire: Greenberg, Luzinski, Wilson, Schmidt, etc. and trade them for somone who never is: Yount, Mays, Cobb, Banks, etc. And it is an unfair trade[/quote:e60ce3729b]
Yes, i think we all understand how various trades can be lopsided. But the point is -- he made no such trade offer. We don't know what the offer would have been.
I've gotta agree with Nev here because I think the intent is fairly clear in the league mail. Trading Mays for Snider is not "I help you here and you help me there" Just as odd $$ trades can be fair, even $$ trades can be extremely lopsided. Ty Cobb and Pete Fox for Pankovitz, Gainey, and Office. Or even Greenberg and a $2 million nobody for Mays.
Take any of the guys that are always available on the FA wire: Greenberg, Luzinski, Wilson, Schmidt, etc. and trade them for somone who never is: Yount, Mays, Cobb, Banks, etc. And it is an unfair trade[/quote:e60ce3729b]
Yes, i think we all understand how various trades can be lopsided. But the point is -- he made no such trade offer. We don't know what the offer would have been.
- harry lime
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball: All-Time Greats
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests