Is Collusion Ok?

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.

You're absolutely right and I never said otherwise. I said people were "apparently" cool with it since they were fine with the rules. If people aren't cool with those actions, but acknowledge their apparent legality, I completely understand.

Wow..... just wow

Either l.strether is a lawyer by trade (we've had them on here before) or is trying to be. Every argument is "syntax" this or "worded like this" (I'm paraphrasing don't sue me).

Can we stop treating everything in the world as a lawyer would? That is partly why America is so messed up anymore. Only here are lawyers considered scum. Use a little common sense and less "word-for-word" of what is being discussed.

Ok, details, I have them here somewhere. Oh yea, you link to a message that no one can read. Also, it's in the Terms (go read them) that you can't be posting private messages to the rest of the board (hence private). So really this should be taken up with SOM.

That said, I've seen a question asked a few times, with no response from l.strether. How could that harm you? How could him sending a message for them to beat you (something that should be pretty f**king obvious that anyone trying to win would be doing without being told) is harming you? Did he say you should pick up a certain player? Did he point out how they should adjust their lineups? Did he tell them to run more on you? Did he trade a player with them? Does that mean they were trying to lose to you? If they were trying to lose to you, that would be collusion. So .... in other words... you were colluding with them to let you win the division and LMBombers wanted them to stop and he's the bad guy? That's what it sounds like to me. Perhaps we should contact SOM.....

Wow..... just wow

Exactly what I thought when I read your post...Geekor (what exactly does that mean?).

Either l.strether is a lawyer by trade (we've had them on here before) or is trying to be. Every argument is "syntax" this or "worded like this" (I'm paraphrasing don't sue me).

I guess in Geekor-land, only lawyers make sound, supported arguments. Considering I didn't use one word of legalese, you must see "lawyers" everywhere...why am I not surprised. Now, "syntax" is a very common word denoting the grammatical structure of a sentence. I'm sorry it was so mystifying to you. I have the number of an excellent basic grammar teacher. PM me for it. And I "never" said "worded like this." You read worse than Niners.

Can we stop treating everything in the world as a lawyer would? That is partly why America is so messed up anymore. Only here are lawyers considered scum. Use a little common sense and less "word-for-word" of what is being discussed.

Now, this is just ridiculous and further affirms my suspicion you've had some bad experiences with the legal profession. Here's a tip for you, Geekor. Making sound and rational arguments using evidence is what grown-up adults do, not just the lawyers. If that bothers you, then stop bothering the grown-ups and go back to the children's forum. And if you don't think I'm using common sense, then show me where I wasn't. Otherwise, you're just yapping away.

Ok, details, I have them here somewhere. Oh yea, you link to a message that no one can read. Also, it's in the Terms (go read them) that you can't be posting private messages to the rest of the board (hence private). So really this should be taken up with SOM.

First of all, look who's acting like the lawyer, now. All your crying about "common sense" and you, yourself try to use the rules on me. Hypocrisy doesn't look good on you, G. And it wasn't a private message, it was a message to the entire league. It was accessible today, so I will re-post it. But, I'm glad your legalese shined through...

That said, I've seen a question asked a few times, with no response from l.strether. How could that harm you? How could him sending a message for them to beat you (something that should be pretty f**king obvious that anyone trying to win would be doing without being told) is harming you?

Actually, G, nobody asked me specifically how it would "harm me"--again, your reading--but I'm surprised you can't f**king see how. If even one manager joins LMBombers in his desired conspiracy, then two or more players are trying harder to make me lose then they are the others. That would put me at a disadvantage; it would be ganging up, and it would be collusion. If you can't see that, then your obsession with lawyers is the least of your worries.

Did he say you should pick up a certain player? Did he point out how they should adjust their lineups? Did he tell them to run more on you? Did he trade a player with them? Does that mean they were trying to lose to you? If they were trying to lose to you, that would be collusion.

No. No. No. and No. Again, have you even read the whole thread? I'm finding it hard to believe you have. The main disagreement has been whether or not "making trades" and "changing settings" are necessary for collusion. I have argued they are not. Niners and Visick have argued that they are. As I correctly said earlier, if Niners and Visick are correct, then these five actions are all 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 told everyone I was fine with this legality, and I would no longer fight their interpretation that makes these actions legal. For some reason, you needed to keep the debate going with your illuminating insights...

So .... in other words... you were colluding with them to let you win the division and LMBombers wanted them to stop and he's the bad guy? That's what it sounds like to me. Perhaps we should contact SOM.....

Now if your mind actually sees this bizarro logic as rational, then I have nothing but sympathy for you. It does make me think, though, that there's a bizarro Geekor out there who actually makes sound, logical arguments...

P.s. Pick up a Superman comic for the reference.

Jeez.... this is exactly what I mean my the legalize talk you are doing. You DON'T answer the actual questions that make you look bad. you just conveniently skip them. This is obviously a smear campaign against someone you don't like. Anyone who knows me, knows I use tons of sarcasm, but after my nice solid line I will refrain as you seem to be to dense to use common sense in any arguments.

your ENTIRE argument is based off the fact he used the words "gang up" which is what it uses in the collusion terminology on the site. You've NEVER once answered how him typing that sentence actually hurt your team in ANY way. All you have done is try to smear someone name in the forums.

You want to stop looking like a complete ass, if there really is collusion, post your entire conversation from beginning to end. Stop trying to answer just what is convenient to you.

___________________________________________________________________________________

I didn't send it to them yet. And words are taking action. If you work to convince other teams that they need to work harder against a certain team, then you are conspiring with other teams to gang up on that team. If you use words to help another team against another team, you are ganging up on that team.

The rules don't say anything about words vs. actions. I have no idea where you got that notion

P.s. Badjam, it's best you not give any advice at all; that's what usually gets posts deleted.

Let's look at this one. shall we? Words are taking action? Really? In what world is that?

Teams can just magically work harder. Oh my God! That's why my team isn't working, it's not working hard enough. I just haven't been willing my team to win... well I'll be damned, you sure pointed out the problem there.

Oh and your p.s. to Badjam is considered a personal attack, and reason enough (besides the opening post which is also a personal attack) to be banned.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

then we have this little back and forth:

Show me how they are ganging up on you?? ONE guy made a post asking guys in the league to try and beat you. That's all I see. See what I highlighted in red in the rules? If they've done that, then you are right, but merely posting "lets all try and beat this guy" is not collusion it's competition, where's the proof anyone ELSE has done anything???

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??

As for playing lmbombers, I'm sure I have at one point or another, but I'm not real close with him, he's not in any of my keeper leagues. I have no horse in this race, just don't like to see fingers pointed and accusations made when they seem unfounded.

Firstly, LMBombers is a regular Jeep player as well, so I would have been surprised if you didn't know him at all. I do believe you, but you have defended him quite vigorously. And, if you're truly against making unfounded accusations, then you should retract some of the things you have said about me, particularly since my "accusations" are legitimate and correct...but I don't need you to do so.

Secondly, you need to re-read the syntax of the SOM rules on collusion:
Collusion. 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 rules end with the clause "or to gang up on another team." That means that "making trades," and/or "changing settings" are not necessary for "ganging up on another team" and colluding to occur. Conspiring usually consists only of words proposing taking an action together. When LM used words to encourage other players to join him in ganging up on my team as opposed to others, he actively conspired to gang up on my team. It was no different than if I encouraged one of my division mates that he should focus on another one instead of me. If you don't think words are enough for conspiracy, then you need to look up the word.

Now, if you still disagree with me, then actually use the SOM rules to show me how I'm wrong. We've always used evidence in our past debates, so you should do so here, or acknowledge that such collusive posts as LMBombers' do go against SOM rules.

So did you answer his comments? No firstly you attacked his character. Second (break from seriousness, this is where I was mocking your legalize moves) you post the rule again, as if it's a legal contract. Then you give your definition of "ganging up on another team". You again reiterated how somehow him telling the league to beat you, somehow hurt your team. With no other facts given I'm assuming your team is doing well. Obviously if anyone want to win the league they would also need to do well versus your team. I mean, right? If you want to win it would be most beneficial to win every game you can, especially versus the teams in front of you? I mean that makes sense right, that's kinda how you win the game?

I mean we could go on post by post if you wish, but have you kinda notice not one person has backed you up? I mean this is a sports based website. Have you been to any other ones and here the banter back and forth?

For the record, going forward (post count about maximum here)

Collusion
Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement:

Oh and since at least 4 people have asked and you have YET to answer, how did this actually hurt your team in anyway?

please just answer that actual question you've dodged for over 5 pages now.

Collusion
Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement:

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

Again you see what I mean about that whole using syntax and working as an argument instead of answering the question? yea you do that a lot

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.

Actually, no, this is wrong. Someone saying let's gang up on this guy, and people actually doing it are 2 different things. I can yell out, "hey someone hit this guy" and if no one does it, how was he harmed? If someone actually hit him, then that would be collusion.

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)

Again, since you post just snippets (again, cherry-picking your responses) without anyone having the entire facts, it's just a smear campaign and nothing more. Obviously you have animosity against him, it looks as though you are bringing up posts across multiple leagues. I'm not saying that's what is happening, but that is what it looks like.

FWIW:
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.
If this happened in any league with vets they wouldn't care what you thought of their team, or they would be happy someone evaluated it and could change it up. Ain't nobody taking a 20% hit at the end just to follow a weakness for one team when you are battling 2 other ones as well.
2. Contacting another manager and giving him advice on how to beat your wild-card competitor.
Because he is the only team they are playing? Again, by saying that it means is far in the season, they would take the 20% hit to attack one team? Really?
3. Announcing to everyone the weaknesses of a player that your division rival announced he wanted to trade.
Then you better talk to the to 2 guys in ATg because they've both done that multiple time
4. Announcing to the rest of the league of your division rival's current strategy as well as its weaknesses.
Either more details, as what strategy, basher team, pitching team, SB team. There isn't a lot that can't be seen by most noobs.
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.
Again, how would they do this? You say gang up like somehow they can just will their team to do better

I have been here for over 12 years. This types of things are not collusion. These are things most veteran players can see with their own 2 eyes. Sometimes people play a certain way as they want to (I want all the A's players!) and they won't care. Many wouldn't give a rats ass about matching up for someone not in their division.

I've been following this thread all day and can't stop laughing. Fortunately, Geekor responded in a much better way than I could.

Strether, if every person here thinks your overreacting maybe you should rethink about what the real issue is. I wouldn't normally speak out like this but it seems like almost every controversy you get involved in the majority think that you are wrong.

Stretcher has a history of personal attacks as evidenced by the number of posts he has contributed to getting locked or deleted.

The details that I haven't seen yet are, what led to those rally the troops e-mails. Is stretchers exit strategy, regarding keepers, in violation of the fair play rule?

Geeko,

Jeez.... this is exactly what I mean my the legalize talk you are doing. You DON'T answer the actual questions that make you look bad. you just conveniently skip them. This is obviously a smear campaign against someone you don't like. Anyone who knows me, knows I use tons of sarcasm, but after my nice solid line I will refrain as you seem to be to dense to use common sense in any arguments.

Wow...more of that old Geekor paranoia. Now I'm running a "smear campaign." I shudder to think what you will come up with next. And I absolutely addressed every point you made, as inane and irrelevant as they all were. If you don't think so, then find one I didn't. And you actually calling someone else "dense," after all your idiotic, paranoid talk about lawyers, is nothing short of adorable. And you didn't use common sense in a single one of your neo-arguments. If you did, please show me how...Geekor.

your ENTIRE argument is based off the fact he used the words "gang up" which is what it uses in the collusion terminology on the site. You've NEVER once answered how him typing that sentence actually hurt your team in ANY way. All you have done is try to smear someone name in the forums.

No it is not, I based my argument on many facts and factors. You obviously haven't read the entire thread, so go back and look them up. I know thinking before you speak is tough on you, but give it a try. Visick and Niners may have disagreed with me. But, unlike you, they at least addressed the arguments I made...remember what I said about "grown-up" arguments... And your memory is as dim as the rest of your brain. I answered the question about how teaming up on my team would hurt my team in my last freaking post to you:

"If even one manager joins LMBombers in his desired conspiracy, then two or more players are trying harder to make me lose then they are the others. That would put me at a disadvantage; it would be ganging up, and it would be collusion. If you can't see that, then your obsession with lawyers is the least of your worries." So, wake up, G. Angry, forgetful, and stupid is no way to go through life. And let the hyperbolic word "smear" go, it makes you look like a drama queen.

You want to stop looking like a complete ass, if there really is collusion, post your entire conversation from beginning to end. Stop trying to answer just what is convenient to you.

I've never looked like one from the beginning. However, if I ever do, I'll know to consult you, Geeko. You've been a moronic ass on these boards for years, so you're an expert on assdom. Your last post was a particularly marvelous example of it. And, again, tell me like a big boy what I didn't address. Don't keep continually crying about it like a tot.

___________________________________________________________________________________

I didn't send it to them yet. And words are taking action. If you work to convince other teams that they need to work harder against a certain team, then you are conspiring with other teams to gang up on that team. If you use words to help another team against another team, you are ganging up on that team.

The rules don't say anything about words vs. actions. I have no idea where you got that notion

P.s. Badjam, it's best you not give any advice at all; that's what usually gets posts deleted.

Let's look at this one. shall we? Words are taking action? Really? In what world is that?

You are truly mentally challenged, G. Can you even read? I said "The rules don't say anything about words vs. actions." It's right freaking above you. How you got "Words are taking action" from that is beyond me. But, to answer your misguided question, words are actions. Anyone convicted on false testimony will easily tell you that the false testifier took significant action against them. Slander and libel are actions, too. Open your mind, big guy. There's a whole truthful world outside your middling grey matter.

Teams can just magically work harder. Oh my God! That's why my team isn't working, it's not working hard enough. I just haven't been willing my team to win... well I'll be damned, you sure pointed out the problem there.

I never said anything like this, G. You're just being delusional, and I am honestly worried for you now. However, teams can try harder or less hard. If you can't grasp that concept, even a grade schooler could help you.

Oh and your p.s. to Badjam is considered a personal attack, and reason enough (besides the opening post which is also a personal attack) to be banned.

You erroneously call me "dense" and an "ass," and you have the gall to say I made a personal attack. My post to Badjam wasn't a personal attack at all. It may have been pointed, and it probably hurt his feelings, but it was an entirely appropriate response to his post to me. If you think it was a personal attack, then tell me how. You still have a problem with that whole "backing-your-argument" thing.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

then we have this little back and forth:

Show me how they are ganging up on you?? ONE guy made a post asking guys in the league to try and beat you. That's all I see. See what I highlighted in red in the rules? If they've done that, then you are right, but merely posting "lets all try and beat this guy" is not collusion it's competition, where's the proof anyone ELSE has done anything???

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??

As for playing lmbombers, I'm sure I have at one point or another, but I'm not real close with him, he's not in any of my keeper leagues. I have no horse in this race, just don't like to see fingers pointed and accusations made when they seem unfounded.

Firstly, LMBombers is a regular Jeep player as well, so I would have been surprised if you didn't know him at all. I do believe you, but you have defended him quite vigorously. And, if you're truly against making unfounded accusations, then you should retract some of the things you have said about me, particularly since my "accusations" are legitimate and correct...but I don't need you to do so.

Secondly, you need to re-read the syntax of the SOM rules on collusion:
Collusion. 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 rules end with the clause "or to gang up on another team." That means that "making trades," and/or "changing settings" are not necessary for "ganging up on another team" and colluding to occur. Conspiring usually consists only of words proposing taking an action together. When LM used words to encourage other players to join him in ganging up on my team as opposed to others, he actively conspired to gang up on my team. It was no different than if I encouraged one of my division mates that he should focus on another one instead of me. If you don't think words are enough for conspiracy, then you need to look up the word.

Now, if you still disagree with me, then actually use the SOM rules to show me how I'm wrong. We've always used evidence in our past debates, so you should do so here, or acknowledge that such collusive posts as LMBombers' do go against SOM rules.

So did you answer his comments? No firstly you attacked his character. Second (break from seriousness, this is where I was mocking your legalize moves) you post the rule again, as if it's a legal contract. Then you give your definition of "ganging up on another team". You again reiterated how somehow him telling the league to beat you, somehow hurt your team. With no other facts given I'm assuming your team is doing well. Obviously if anyone want to win the league they would also need to do well versus your team. I mean, right? If you want to win it would be most beneficial to win every game you can, especially versus the teams in front of you? I mean that makes sense right, that's kinda how you win the game?

Yes, I answered his comments. My answers are right above you; go read them. And I didn't "attack" his character at all. If I did, show me where. Otherwise, you're just whining as you have been doing in this whole post. And you say I'm making it like a "legal contract" doesn't make that so. You, really are paranoid about lawyers and legal matters. I was, as anyone else would do, arguing how the rules support my claim. That's what you do in any argument involving rules...Got that? And, considering these are paid leagues, with people paid to keep the league fair, legality is involved. With "prizes" awarded, even moreso. If you don't believe me, ask a lawyer who doesn't frighten you so... And doing everything within the realm of fair play to win is fine. Doing more to do so is not. Go check those 5 actions your interpretation of the rules would allow again. You obviously think they're ok, but Visick and Niners don't agree with you.

I mean we could go on post by post if you wish, but have you kinda notice not one person has backed you up? I mean this is a sports based website. Have you been to any other ones and here the banter back and forth?

Who cares? If I'm right, I'm right. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If I'm wrong and 50,000 people agree with me, I'm still wrong. If I'm right, and nobody agrees with me, I'm still right. It's not a popularity contest. We've established you're not very bright, so I'm not surprised you didn't figure that out

Collusion
Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement

Yeah, Niners already posted definitions three pages ago, and I already addressed them and their relevance. You really need to read the whole thread before you speak. And here's a final tip, when dictionaries give more than one definition for a word, one definition doesn't exhaust its meaning. Wrap your head around that; I know you can do it, G...

Still didn't answer the question:

HOW

DID

HIS

POST

AFFECT

THE

OUTCOME

OF

GAMES

AND/OR

YOUR

TEAM