Is Collusion Ok?

I have often sent a message to a fellow manager to give his players a pep talk I need them to sweep. Is that collusion?
I agree you seem a bit sensitive which I have accused being on numerous times in my life. Remember talk is cheap keeping winning and that will shut them up.
just my 7 cents (inflation)

You didn't just use the rules. As I showed you earlier, you used them incorrectly. You really need to pay attention to syntax...

You asked this erroneous question: "Have they made trades, changed lineups, done anything to effect the outcome of games, as spelled out clearly in the rules??". The problem with this is the rules don't say anything about "making trades," or "changed lineups," or "anything effecting the outcome of the game" being necessary for "ganging up" on a team to occur. If fact, it doesn't say anything about "effecting the outcome of the game at all." It lists "ganging up" after "making trades" and "changed lineups." So, ganging up can occur without trades being made, or lineups changed, or games being affected. So, try again, Niners. The collusion is still there in your buddy's post.

And collusion to conspire can exist if one manager makes a persuasive argument to one or more managers to gang up on another manager. LMBombers did that here: " Come on eastern teams. He has an advantage in that he doesn't have to consider keeping under performing players that he wants to keep for the 70s like the rest of us have to consider...Oh well, lets just work on keeping him out of the playoffs in the 60s and just move on with the league." LM makes an argument directly meant to persuade other teams to gang up on mine. That's collusion. Agreement is no more needed here than when another player gives advice to another manager against another manager without receiving response.

If as you say, this is not the case, and two managers speakingare needed for collusion to gang up, then all of these unfortunate actions are alright:

1. Posting the weaknesses of another team to everybody else. Since nobody need respond, this (and the rest) couldn't be collusion to gang up.
2. Contacting another manager and giving him advice on how to beat your wild-card competitor.
3. Announcing to everyone the weaknesses of a player that your division rival announced he wanted to trade.
4. Announcing to the rest of the league of your division rival's current strategy as well as its weaknesses.
5. Sending a message only to your two division rivals persuasively arguing why the other division rival is the strongest and should be ganged up upon.

Using your misinterpretation of conspiracy, collusion, and "ganging up," all five (and more) of these activities would be legit...and that would suck. However, since you're ok with them, perhaps I should give them a try sometime.

P.s. I don't feel "ganged up" on at all, although I'm touched by your concern. The commissioner of our league actually posted this: "I don't think it right to signal out a player just becuase you do not agree with his strategy. I will try to knock out those in my division and look forward to palying whomever makes the playoffs." I fully agree with him. Unfortunately, veteran players like you and LMBombers have substantially lesser standards of fair play and player integrity...and don't take that personally...

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/te ... nt/2599642 (actual post)

Accusing LMB of collusion is inaccurate and defaming. I've competed against LMB my entire SOM Online life (almost 10 years I would guess at this point). He is an honest and enthusiastic member of the community that is very quick to help other managers and encourage people to join leagues and enjoy the game.

I completely disagree with your accusations.

I have often sent a message to a fellow manager to give his players a pep talk I need them to sweep. Is that collusion?
I agree you seem a bit sensitive which I have accused being on numerous times in my life. Remember talk is cheap keeping winning and that will shut them up.
just my 7 cents (inflation)

If you think "giving a pep talk" is the same as making a persuasive argument to all other managers to join one in ganging up on another manager, then I have nothing to say to you. You can, however, refer to my last post for my latest views on the matter and get back to me.

I also hate to do this, but people have misused the word "sensitive" twice today, and you score the correction. The official definition of "sensitive" is: "easily upset by things people that people think or say about you." I wasn't concerned about what LM said about me personally. I was concerned about what he was saying about and against my team in a collusive manner. I was correct in doing so. But if you thought I wasn't, then you should have used "hyper-vigilant," "over-literal," or (on the hyperbolic side) "paranoid." So brush up on your lexicon, and don't get sensitive about it...

Accusing LMB of collusion is inaccurate and defaming. I've competed against LMB my entire SOM Online life (almost 10 years I would guess at this point). He is an honest and enthusiastic member of the community that is very quick to help other managers and encourage people to join leagues and enjoy the game.

I completely disagree with your accusations.

No it's not, but your calling my doing so, without any support, is inaccurate, defaming, and shameful

And everything you said about you and LM shows you have a complete bias on this matter, so your opinions are also biased as well and mean very little to me.

So, I'm not surprised you completely disagree with my 'accusations' without giving any support for your disagreement. I'm surprised you think your biased, unfounded opinion should mean anything to me at all. However, if you actually want to make a logically-supported argument, I'm all ears...

Accusing LMB of collusion is inaccurate and defaming. I've competed against LMB my entire SOM Online life (almost 10 years I would guess at this point). He is an honest and enthusiastic member of the community that is very quick to help other managers and encourage people to join leagues and enjoy the game.

I completely disagree with your accusations.

No it's not, but your calling my doing so, without any support, is inaccurate, defaming, and shameful

And everything you said about you and LM shows you have a complete bias on this matter, so your opinions are also biased as well and mean very little to me.

So, I'm not surprised you completely disagree with my 'accusations' without giving any support for your disagreement. I'm surprised you think your biased, unfounded opinion should mean anything to me at all. However, if you actually want to make a logically-supported argument, I'm all ears.

You're funny! And it's time to ping the moderators..DING DING!

And you're funny, too, Rob...even when you're telling jokes...

You didn't just use the rules. As I showed you earlier, you used them incorrectly. You really need to pay attention to syntax...

You asked this erroneous question: "Have they made trades, changed lineups, done anything to effect the outcome of games, as spelled out clearly in the rules??". The problem with this is the rules don't say anything about "making trades," or "changed lineups," or "anything effecting the outcome of the game" being necessary for "ganging up" on a team to occur. If fact, it doesn't say anything about "effecting the outcome of the game at all." It lists "ganging up" after "making trades" and "changed lineups." So, ganging up can occur without trades being made, or lineups changed, or games being affected. So, try again, Niners. The collusion is still there in your buddy's post.

And collusion to conspire can exist if one manager makes a persuasive argument to one or more managers to gang up on another manager. LMBombers did that here: " Come on eastern teams. He has an advantage in that he doesn't have to consider keeping under performing players that he wants to keep for the 70s like the rest of us have to consider...Oh well, lets just work on keeping him out of the playoffs in the 60s and just move on with the league." LM makes an argument directly meant to persuade other teams to gang up on mine. That's collusion. Agreement is no more needed here than when another player gives advice to another manager against another manager without receiving response.

If as you say, this is not the case, and two managers speakingare needed for collusion to gang up, then all of these unfortunate actions are alright:

1. Posting the weaknesses of another team to everybody else. Since nobody need respond, this (and the rest) couldn't be collusion to gang up.
2. Contacting another manager and giving him advice on how to beat your wild-card competitor.
3. Announcing to everyone the weaknesses of a player that your division rival announced he wanted to trade.
4. Announcing to the rest of the league of your division rival's current strategy as well as its weaknesses.
5. Sending a message only to your two division rivals persuasively arguing why the other division rival is the strongest and should be ganged up upon.

Using your misinterpretation of conspiracy, collusion, and "ganging up," all five (and more) of these activities would be legit...and that would suck. However, since you're ok with them, perhaps I should give them a try sometime.

P.s. I don't feel "ganged up" on at all, although I'm touched by your concern. The commissioner of our league actually posted this: "I don't think it right to signal out a player just becuase you do not agree with his strategy. I will try to knock out those in my division and look forward to palying whomever makes the playoffs." I fully agree with him. Unfortunately, veteran players like you and LMBombers have substantially lesser standards of fair play and player integrity...and don't take that personally...

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/te ... nt/2599642 (actual post)

You posted the rules and I highlighted in red, that portion of them that support my argument, but I'll post it again:

You may not conspire with another manager, by making trades or by changing your team settings when playing against that team, to achieve any sort of anti-competitive goal, e.g. to help a team win, or to gang up on another team.



Further, if you don't feel ganged up on, which is also spelled out in the rules, then what are you complaining about??

Dictionary definition of collusion- a secret agreement for fraudulent or illegal purpose: conspiracy

Dictionary definition of conspire 1. to plan together secretly especiallyu to commit a crime 2. to work together to a single end

You failed to show lmbombers is working with anyone, all hes done is urge the league to try their best to beat you. There's no seceret, there's no agreement and most of all there are no other actions EFFECTING THE OUTCOMES OF GAMES.


Take it to strat I bet they tell you the same thing.

Is collusion OK? No.

Do I think the post re-printed here is collusion? Well, if I were on a criminal court jury, I would say there was reasonable doubt that it is not collusion. Maybe an attempt to collude, but I tend to think collusion is like dancing--you need two to tango. If "ganging up" has nothing to do about changing lineups, making trades or anything affecting the outcome of the game, then what does it mean or entail?

I guess I am curious or I wouldn't ask: What is the goal here? If everyone responded with "You're right, it is collusion," what would that achieve?

I.strether,
I can see your side in this matter. However, rules can be interpreted a few ways.

From the Strat rules..."You may not conspire with another manager, by making trades or by changing your team settings when playing against that team, to achieve any sort of anti-competitive goal, e.g. to help a team win, or to gang up on another team. "

The way I interpret the rules are as follows: Strat only gives 2 ways collusion takes place. The first way is by making trades and the second is to change your team settings. Both ways to achieve some competitive edge, to help a team win OR to gang up on a team.

Now, from what you posted, it seems to me LMBombers HASN'T done either. He hasn't made any trades or changed his team settings.

I see it as LMBombers rallying the troops, trying to beat you. In a way, it can be construed as "ganging up on another team", however, since he didn't break the 2 things that constitute collusion, it cannot be considered collusion.