Is Collusion Ok?

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.

THIS NEEDS A LIKE BUTTON, THUMBS UP!

so I don't enjoy playing the English teacher for free

WOW

It's not according to me, it was according to what Strat is calling collusion.

They didn't define "ganging up."

Technically they are Strat's words, NOT mine. I'm not giving you my opinion. Just trying to use their words.

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.

BJ, your reading is as flimsy as your "arguments" you fail to support. I said clearly why LM singled me out: it was because he didn't like my leaving our league. Go back to the first post, little guy...you'll find it. And thanks for your cute little platitudes irrelevant as they are. However, if you had read my post (again), you would have seen that I did move on. Since you're having such a hard time, though, I'll post it for you again:

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.

See, BJ, I explicitly said here that we should all move on. Somehow, your big, bright mind failed to grasp it...

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."

No, not "unsettling." D^ck moves, every one of them. I'd feel sorry for someone who is so driven to win an online game that they would resort to these actions. I would report them to SOM for investigation and discipline.

But, unless one gets creative with the interpretation of the sentence "Please be respectful of your league-mates throughout the season so that all may have a pleasant environment in which to play" (and I would be so creative if I ran SOM and any of those occurred in a league), then all the actions you listed are legal in the Fair Play Policy. That statement doesn't imply I condone any of those behaviors.

Visick,

It's not according to me, it was according to what Strat is calling collusion.
They didn't define "ganging up."
Technically they are Strat's words, NOT mine. I'm not giving you my opinion. Just trying to use their words.

But you are still the one who is making this interpretation of the SOM rules on collusion:

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.

According to this interpretation of yours, collusion or ganging up on a team is legal if "trades" or "changing of team settings" don't occur. If that is true, then all these 5 unsettling actions are legal:

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.

I am not debating with you on this or disputing this. According to your interpretation of the rules, these are all legal, and I'm fine with that. If you're not, you need to re-think your interpretation of the rules of Collusion.

Now, can we move on?

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."

No, not "unsettling." D^ck moves, every one of them. I'd feel sorry for someone who is so driven to win an online game that they would resort to these actions. I would report them to SOM for investigation and discipline.

But, unless one gets creative with the interpretation of the sentence "Please be respectful of your league-mates throughout the season so that all may have a pleasant environment in which to play" (and I would be so creative if I ran SOM and any of those occurred in a league), then all the actions you listed are legal in the Fair Play Policy. That statement doesn't imply I condone any of those behaviors.

You're right, they are "Richard" moves, as is encouraging other team members to team up on another member who has angered you. However, according to Niners' and Visick's interpretation of SOM's collusion rules, they are all legal ones...as you acknowledged. And if everyone agrees with Niners and Visick, then nobody could ever successfully report any of those actions, because they'd be legal. People on this thread are apparently cool with that, so I am, too.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I was " cool with" your five examples.
You posted a thread that asked if collusion was ok. I believe everyone believes it's not. You post your issue / problem/ example which, to a man, everyone feels is not collusion. Your examples or far more egregious and are obviously at the very least poor sportsmanship. But they have no bearing on what you are going through. You at taking things to an extreme to prop up your position.

I guess it's like nude pictures and pornography not All nude pictures are pornographic but I know porn when I see it. Not all post against a manger are collusion but I know it when I see it and in your case, I do not see it.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I was " cool with" your five examples.
You posted a thread that asked if collusion was ok. I believe everyone believes it's not. You post your issue / problem/ example which, to a man, everyone feels is not collusion. Your examples or far more egregious and are obviously at the very least poor sportsmanship. But they have no bearing on what you are going through. You at taking things to an extreme to prop up your position.

I guess it's like nude pictures and pornography not All nude pictures are pornographic but I know porn when I see it. Not all post against a manger are collusion but I know it when I see it and in your case, I do not see it.

I didn't put a single "word" in your mouth. And I never said "you," personally were cool with anything. It's really not your reading day.

What I said was dead-on true. I wasn't taking anything "to an extreme." You explicitly gave these requirements for "ganging up" and collusion:

Two have collusion, you have to have two parties working together.

Have they made trades, changed lineups, done anything to effect the outcome of games, as spelled out clearly in the rules??

Niners didn't mention needing "two," but he agreed with you on the other requirements. Therefore, according to your and Niners' interpretation of the rules of collusion, all five of these actions are perfectly legal, and are not collusion:

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.

Whether you consider these actions "egregious" or "poor sportsmanship" is irrelevant. I consider encouraging other teams to team up on another one egregious and poor sportsmanship as well. However, your interpretation of the rules makes them all legal. As I said, I'm not fighting this or your interpretation any further. We'll just have to live with these unfortunate but legal (to you) actions, and move on.

P.s. Try to lose that cliché about "knowing porn when (you) see it." Just try telling a judge you know legality or illegality when you see it; he will be quite amused...

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."

No, not "unsettling." D^ck moves, every one of them. I'd feel sorry for someone who is so driven to win an online game that they would resort to these actions. I would report them to SOM for investigation and discipline.

But, unless one gets creative with the interpretation of the sentence "Please be respectful of your league-mates throughout the season so that all may have a pleasant environment in which to play" (and I would be so creative if I ran SOM and any of those occurred in a league), then all the actions you listed are legal in the Fair Play Policy. That statement doesn't imply I condone any of those behaviors.

You're right, they are "Richard" moves, as is encouraging other team members to team up on another member who has angered you. However, according to Niners' and Visick's interpretation of SOM's collusion rules, they are all legal ones...as you acknowledged. And if everyone agrees with Niners and Visick, then nobody could ever successfully report any of those actions, because they'd be legal. People on this thread are apparently cool with that, so I am, too.

Not speaking for anyone else on this thread, but for me a person knowing/believing something is legal does not imply that the person is cool with it.