Is Collusion Ok?

My lord, Niners. I'll say it again, the rules you highlighted in red don't support your argument because they are unnecessary to establishing ganging up. They are just two other things you are not supposed to do. If you don't get that, read this passage again. It explains why you didn't make your argument:

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. Come on, Niners...I do believe in your reading comprehension...

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

I don't "feel" ganged up on. LMBombers is trying to persuade other managers to conspire with him to team up on me. Big difference.

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

The second definition is irrelevant and useless. The first one partially applies. LMBombers was working towards a fraudulent purpose, but SOM's rules on collusion say nothing about agreement. As my earlier examples showed you, spoken or written agreement isn't needed for collusion.

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. I

I didn't need to show that LM was working with anyone. As my examples I will repost after this show, such proof isn't necessary to show collusion. Also, the Collusion rule says nothing about "effecting the outcomes of games. You need to get over that. And you're saying "all he's done is urge the league to try their best" to beat me when he didn't even use those words show you are defending your buddy. You not only are arguing he's not colluding, you're now saying encouraging teams to gang up on another is just fine...and that sucks.

And finally, you never addressed the other forms of collusion I mentioned that would be ok under your interpretation of SOM collusion. If you're ok with them, you're ok with all player taking such actions. If you're not, then your views on LMBombers collusive posts are hypocritical. Here they are again. I look forward to your views on them:

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.

So, are they ok or not?

Visick,

L. Strether, I can see your side in this matter.

That's a start. I was beginning to lose faith in the veteran managers. I know you, too, have played leagues with LMBombers, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

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.

This is my break, so I don't enjoy playing the English teacher for free, but your "interpretation" is based on your syntactical misreading of the rules. The rules list three things you cannot do: conspiring with another manager by making trades to achieve any sort of anti-competitive goal, conspiring with another manager by changing your team settings to achieve any anti-competitive goal, and conspiring with another manager to gang up on another team. The final taboo is not predicated on the others. Making trades and changing settings are far from the only ways to gang up on another team. Please tell me if you actually think they are.

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.

You're right that he hasn't done either. However, he still has actively encouraged other managers to gang up on my team, which does go against the SOM rules of collusion. If you and other veteran managers actually think this is just "rallying the troops" and are completely ok with this, then the SOM rules of fair play are worthless. And lord help a player in a league with veterans who know each other and feel as you do. Because if he is doing well, any player can just "rally the troops against him"...and that would truly suck.

All five of these following activities would also be ok under your interpretation of the collusion rule. Considering you should be fine with them, I look forward to hearing what you think of them:

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.

What do you think, Visick? These actions are all legal under your and Niners' interpretations of the rules...and they're all scary.

Blue Turtle,

Is collusion OK? No.

You're right.

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?

This isn't a criminal court and we're not discussing issues of reasonable doubt. If making trades or anything "affecting the outcome of the game" were prerequisites for ganging up, then your point would be relevant. They're not; so i'ts not.
There are many ways for "ganging up" without making trades. You know that as well as I do. So, you're saying that all other ways of ganging up are ok. That's not just inaccurate, it's unfortunate. Ganging up with those things "entails" collusion, and that's terrible for the game.

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'm surprised you would have to ask that. Wouldn't you like to see it discourage further such collusion in other leagues? Maybe you're not against teams ganging up on other teams, but I am. If this makes it clear to other managers this isn't ok, such collusion is less likely to happen. If every manager says such collusion is ok, then I and other managers know there are many more tactics we can now use to win.

P.s. Check the list I gave Visick and Niners for examples of ganging up without making trades or changing lineups. They're unsettling.

I did misread the rules as Strat posted, my bad.

So Strat does outline 3 ways in which collusion occurs, in their eyes. I agree with you as there are other ways to collude, but Strat only mentions 3.

Is it possible that the term "gang up on another manager" isn't clearly defined by Strat? How else, besides verbally, can managers in an online game "gang up" on another manager?

My interpretation is my interpretation. It just seems that Strat has defined collusion 3 ways. My interpretation of "ganging up" on another manager, would be trading with another manager to try and beat a team.

Rallying the troops is giving a "pep" talk to the other managers to try and knock you off. I don't think there were any moves taken by LMBombers or any other manager to try and knock you off.

I wouldn't be fine with the 5 things you posted because they clearly outline steps to be taken to "gang up" on another team. In my eyes, there's a BIG difference between "Let's go get 'em boys" and "Psst... Team A is mostly a right handed lineup so u should start that hard RH'er that you have."

I wouldn't be fine with the 5 things you posted because they clearly outline steps to be taken to "gang up" on another team. In my eyes, there's a BIG difference between "Let's go get 'em boys" and "Psst... Team A is mostly a right handed lineup so u should start that hard RH'er that you have."

Whether or not you are "fine" with the 5 things I posted is irrelevant. They would still be legal under your and Niners' interpretation of the rules of collusion. This was your definition of collusion and "ganging up":

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.

So, according to you, it's not collusion or ganging up unless you "make trades" or "change your team settings." So, all of these five actions would be ok under your interpretation of the rules. You may say there's a "big difference," but your interpretation makes them legal. Here they are again. If you think your interpretation makes them illegal, please show me how:

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.

These are unsettling, but perfectly legal according to you. They all entail only words; no trades or changing of settings. Considering you're perfectly fine with "rallying the troops" against me, I might have to try one of these tactics in a league with you sometime...

I am not a friend of LM Bombers (nor am I particularly fond of him) and it looks like his statement may have been in poor taste but it is not even close to being proof of collusion. I don't like to pile on people when they are down but I have to agree with every other poster, that LM's comments may have been in poor taste but they alone do not amount to collusion. Good luck in that league I.Strether!

I'm not taking sides here. I'm just trying to analyze what has transpired.

I've been in many leagues with LMBombers. I do know that in these leagues there can be plenty of trash talk. There are times when most of us will "rally the troops" or give someone the "Kiss of Death".

I.strether, we're in a league together now. I think at one point, a manager gave another manager the Kiss of Death.

I put myself in your shoes after reading your initial post. Like I said, I can see your point of view. But with what was posted, I don't see this as collusion.

I'm not taking sides here. I'm just trying to analyze what has transpired.

I've been in many leagues with LMBombers. I do know that in these leagues there can be plenty of trash talk. There are times when most of us will "rally the troops" or give someone the "Kiss of Death".

I.strether, we're in a league together now. I think at one point, a manager gave another manager the Kiss of Death.

I put myself in your shoes after reading your initial post. Like I said, I can see your point of view. But with what was posted, I don't see this as collusion.

I don't either. And I have nothing else to say.

I've been in many leagues with LMBombers. I do know that in these leagues there can be plenty of trash talk. There are times when most of us will "rally the troops" or give someone the "Kiss of Death".

I.strether, we're in a league together now. I think at one point, a manager gave another manager the Kiss of Death

Visick,

You didn't address this part of my last post. It does point out the contradictions in your arguments, so I can see why. But I'll still post it again:

"So, according to you, it's not collusion or ganging up unless you "make trades" or "change your team settings." So, all of these five actions would be ok under your interpretation of the rules. You may say there's a "big difference," but your interpretation makes them legal. Here they are again. If you think your interpretation makes them illegal, please show me how:

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."

If you and Niners are correct (and you're not), and you need to "make trades" or 'change your settings" to collude against or "gang up" on a team, then all of the 5 above actions are legitimate. They would be perfectly legal under your interpretation of the rules. So we can end by agreeing that these actions are all legal, and I and all other managers are free to use them in every league. I have no more interest in convincing you otherwise.

P.s. Such a "Kiss of Death" against a willing participant is good fun. Such a "Kiss of Death" against an unwilling one would be "ganging up," collusion, and uncool. Ganging up is collusion.

P.p.s. Radagast, you know you're my buddy, but could you at least try to back up your arguments against me with evidence and logical reasoning sometime?...

Gee, I wonder why l. stretcher got chosen out of the entire league to be the disliked team?

You asked opinions, you got them. We can't always agree on topics. Just have to accept that fact and move on. All of your detailed analysis is not going to change anyone's opinion. I agree that it was in poor taste but not the team manipulation that I would expect in a potential collusion violation.

However, the only opinion that matters is the Strat reply.