Is Collusion Ok?

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.

I don't know you, Stoney. At this point, you're only someone without an argument who thinks like Geekor. Wait a minute, that means I don't want to know you or care what you think at all. So, good day.

P.s. See what I wrote to Geekor about "what the majority think." If I'm right, it doesn't matter what the majority think; I'm not surprised that eludes you. And if the majority think like you and Geekor, I hope they never stop disagreeing with me...

Still didn't answer the question:

HOW

DID

HIS

POST

AFFECT

THE

OUTCOME

OF

GAMES

AND/OR

YOUR

TEAM

LOL

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.

NOW WHERE IS THAT LIKE BUTTON!!!!

l.strether, the only people that can really evaluate your complaint are the good folks at strat, since they are the only people that have full access to your opposition's strategy settings from game to game. You should email them with your complaint, and let them evaluate it. No-one else on this forum is going to be able to do that for you, since they don't have access to the opposing managers' strategy settings.

While I am the moderator on this forum, my role is advisory only. About once every 6 months I will make a recommendation to strat, and they are good about responding to me, in terms of getting back to me. But the outcome is strictly up to them.

My own opinion is that this thread has gone on long enough. The meaning of collusion has had a vigorous debate. Going further will not accomplish much more than it has. Like I said, only strat can determine that.

I also wish to point out that LMBombers is a former moderator himself, on the old TSN site, if my memory is correct. I've played in many leagues with him. This is the only time I've ever heard anything like what you've quoted, coming from LMBombers. So, given that he was a former moderator at the TSN site, and usually a very well-respected gamer online, I'm not rushing to any conclusions. (Indeed, I hope that I don't ever rush to a conclusion about "collusion", as it is a fairly serious thing to say).

I don't want to rehash the comments that have already been made on this thread. Please feel free to PM me privately if there are more aspects of this that you want to bring to my attention, especially any specific "in game" examples, or attempts to stack a particular roster, or sub-optimizing lineups. But most importantly, please bring the complaint directly to strat, and let them sort it out, since they have access to strategy settings, and since it's their "call" in the end.

Thanks,
Geoff Brookes, moderator, 200X

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?

Don't pay attention to BJ, he's a bit enthralled with me, as evidenced by his three posts to me without one supported argument. When he posts to me again, that enthrallment will be ensured. As to personal attacks, anyone is free to look at any of my posts for them. They won't find any. Some of Badjam's girlfriends did make some attacks on me, but since they've been removed, I can't show them. However, if anyone wants to see what our engagement looked like, check out the Strat and TSN post on thread on the ATG site that was posted on May 28, 2014, 6:38. It's an interesting thread, and I stand by every post. Unlike BJ, I support my arguments.

I will gladly discuss why I am leaving the keeper league after this discussion--which nobody wants to end--is over. However, BJ, if you want to make a case of it as cheating, knock yourself out.

Still didn't answer the question:

HOW

DID

HIS

POST

AFFECT

THE

OUTCOME

OF

GAMES

AND/OR

YOUR

TEAM

He has already stated that LMBombers alleged post and actions had no impact on any games but that it is irrelevant to his statement.

This could have been a useful discussion if it wasn't so heavy in condescension. Sort of reminds me of The Bullpen days from the TSN boards.

Thank you, Blue Turtle. I also elaborated further on the matter in my response to Geekor. Now, I myself, have tried to end this discussion long ago with my summary statement that gibed with Niners and Visicks interpretations of the rules. Since nobody has disagreed with me on it, I will post it again and leave it at that...after my final responses to Geeko:

According to Visick's and Niners', 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 anybody on this or disputing this. I accept that encouraging other teams to gang up on another--as lousy as it is--is legal. I also accept that all these actions--as lousy as they are--are also legal. Hopefully, we can now move on.

Now, can we move on?

P.s. GBrookes, the fact that LMBombers has been a moderator in the past should have no bearing on any decision of yours. Any bias in that direction would give past moderators or veterans you know greater leeway than other players. I'm sure you're aware that would be unethical, and you would never do it.

Geekor,

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

No, I don't know what you mean. What's your point? All you did was post my quote and say "see what you mean?' Does anybody in your life respond when you do that? They have my sympathy. I appropriately mentioned syntax because Visick, as he admitted, got the syntax of the rules wrong. Go read the post again.

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.

Again, your reading is terrible. The passage above had nothing at all with what you said. It had to do with Niners' misreading of the rules. If you're going to make an argument about a passage, you actually need to read the passage, G. Try it some time.

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.

I didn't post "snippets" or "cherry-pick" my answers at all. If I did so, show me how. The passage above is an extensive passage that makes all my points. If you don't think so, tell me how and give evidence. Otherwise, you're just whining as you have often done.

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.

Who said anything about taking a 20% hit and why does it matter?

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?

Again, who said anything about a taking a 20% hit or that he is the only team they are playing? Are you even reading these?

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 no idea why you printed these. I never advocated these actions or argued they would work. I simply stated they would be legal under Visick and Niners' interpretations of the rules. You obviously didn't read many of my posts.

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 have been here from the start. After these ridiculous, moronic posts of yours, I don't care what you think.

I don't know you, Stoney. At this point, you're only someone without an argument who thinks like Geekor. Wait a minute, that means I don't want to know you or care what you think at all. So, good day.

Works for me

You missed the question again. It is not WHY you are leaving, it is about your keeper related strategy that is happening now that you are leaving. What exactly are your actions involving keepers that caused the potential collusion you speak of? Also, I what way have you been damaged by your collusion claim? What was Strats reply?

Your quotes "As to personal attacks, anyone is free to look at any of my posts for them. They won't find any."

"And your memory is as dim as the rest of your brain" "You've been a moronic ass" "Don't keep continually crying about it like a tot." "You're just being delusional" "We've established you're not very bright"

Very abusive. Not sure why you can't just simply accept that people don't agree with you this time. Must be some sort of trigger that sets you off into this abusive type of dialog whenever a person has a different opinion than yours.

I could find probably thirty of forty more of these type of quotes that l.stretcher forgot about but this gives people an idea why Strat deletes and/or locks his posts.