Cheating Owners/Dishonest Owners

Jason · 02-24-2003, 05:32 PM

First, let's not mention ANY names in this thread. This thread should be a discussion among commissioners and players regarding how you should deal with situations.

First, the "cheating" owners.

1. If you don't have any solid evidence that the owner is cheating, how do you justify taking actions against them?

2. If you have solid evidence, do you expose them to everyone or do you allow them the chance to leave quietly?

Second, the "dishonest" owners.

1. You have an owner in the league who looks for loopholes in the league constitution in order to exploit them to their advantage. Do you allow them to continue and just patch the holes later or do you take action against that owner?

2. You have an owner who verbally and electronically harasses other owners into deals that benefit the first owner. When you as commissioner ask him to stop badgering other owners he refuses. What do you do?

Finally, in all the cases above, do you ever let that owner back into the league?

I've been in many leagues where these situations come up and I know that each one can be unique and different. Just general opinions are expected here.

I know in the case of a owner who harassed other owners we suspended him for one year and allowed him to reapply for admission. There are things you have to take into account and the biggest for me can be age. If it's a 12 year old kid it's easier to forgive cheating than a 39 year old guy...

D Love · 02-24-2003, 06:42 PM

A league owner tipped me off to the fact that at least 3 "owners" in the league had emails originating from the same IP (and all 3 had made VERY shady deals with one another). I publicly confronted him. He denied it all, of course.

The guy came back about 2 years later wanting to join up. I was nice enough to say he could if he admitted to cheating. He still wouldn't.

jaymac89 · 02-24-2003, 07:01 PM

Quote:

The guy came back about 2 years later wanting to join up. I was nice enough to say he could if he admitted to cheating. He still wouldn't.

So you kicked Pete Rose out of your league, too, eh?

rangers85 · 02-24-2003, 07:13 PM

First, let me say that I only run a sim hockey league, but I'm sure the same general rules would apply.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dale And Eli's Dad
First, let's not mention ANY names in this thread. This thread should be a discussion among commissioners and players regarding how you should deal with situations.

First, the "cheating" owners.

1. If you don't have any solid evidence that the owner is cheating, how do you justify taking actions against them?

I would say, confront them about it. If they deny, well, you don't have anything to back it up, but if they are cheating, they'll know you're watching them and that might be enough to scare them to not cheat.

Quote:

2. If you have solid evidence, do you expose them to everyone or do you allow them the chance to leave quietly?

I give them the chance. If they refuse, then I expose it, if they do choose it, I just say they have resigned from the league.

Second, the "dishonest" owners.

Quote:

1. You have an owner in the league who looks for loopholes in the league constitution in order to exploit them to their advantage. Do you allow them to continue and just patch the holes later or do you take action against that owner?

Myself, I have a provision in my league rulebook that helps close this. It reads as follows:

Quote:

16. Situations Not Covered

If a situation comes up that is not covered in this document, the Commissioner has the right to make a decision on it. Should a rule be unclear, contact the commissioner about it and the rule will be explained further and if needed, re-worded within the rulebook.

Basically, this allows that if a rule isn't clear or is not covered, the commish has the right to decide whether it is a legal move or not. Therefore, anything not covered explicitly in the rules can be left up to a decision by you as the commish. Basically, this is a good out for loopholes.

Quote:

2. You have an owner who verbally and electronically harasses other owners into deals that benefit the first owner. When you as commissioner ask him to stop badgering other owners he refuses. What do you do?

I would say, give him the choice to either quit, or you will fire him from the league. Normally that can calm them down, but not always, and if they choose the firing, at least you gave them the choice.

Quote:

Finally, in all the cases above, do you ever let that owner back into the league?

Me, it's a case by case type deal. Although, on the cheating part, generally I bar them from rejoining. But on the loophole thing, I wouldn't really fire them for it, due to the way I have my rules set up. On the badgering of other owners, to me it's pretty case by case. I'll usually do a bit of a study on those and see if they've improved, or still the same. On my league's application form, I have a field that asks how many leagues you're in. On cases like this, I'd ask for a list of leagues with addresses and can do a study by asking the commish, or if there are GMs in that league I know, just ask them directly.

LivnLegend · 02-24-2003, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dale And Eli's Dad
1. If you don't have any solid evidence that the owner is cheating, how do you justify taking actions against them?

2. If you have solid evidence, do you expose them to everyone or do you allow them the chance to leave quietly?

It has not happened to me but I think if I found out it was happening in the USBA I'd kick them out of the league and just give the explanation that so-and-so "is no longer with us". If I saw the same person popping up in other leagues or looking to join new ones, I'd mention to the other commissioners what transpired.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dale And Eli's Dad
Second, the "dishonest" owners.
1. You have an owner in the league who looks for loopholes in the league constitution in order to exploit them to their advantage. Do you allow them to continue and just patch the holes later or do you take action against that owner?

I have not seen this. A couple of times I have had owners approach me with the attitude of "Hey is this allowed? The rules don't specifically say it is but it could be controversial." It gives us the opportunity to examine rules not already built into the league constitution or flesh out gray areas. It probably says a lot for the maturity of the team owners in the USBA since I have not had a single instance of someone trying to disrupt the good of the overall league for his own short-term gain.

Quote:

2. You have an owner who verbally and electronically harasses other owners into deals that benefit the first owner. When you as commissioner ask him to stop badgering other owners he refuses. What do you do?

Again, I have not seen this in my league although I did see it once in another (real player) league. The owner in question than followed it up with some other dubious habits that got him kicked out of the league. A guy that does this will probably do more to find a way to get his rear booted.

Quote:

Finally, in all the cases above, do you ever let that owner back into the league?

Never let them back in. There are far too many quality owners out there (and there will be an influx with the release of OOTP5) to allow numnuts into your league.

Quote:

I've been in many leagues where these situations come up and I know that each one can be unique and different. Just general opinions are expected here.

I never see this. However, all but one of my leagues are fictional. I know I have said this before but fictional and historical leagues are far less likely to attract the kind of half-wits that you are describing.

themoguler · 02-24-2003, 09:23 PM

What do you do about some owners that always have a "me first" attitude as a GM. They worry about any rule change that might adversely affect their team even if such rule change would benefit the league as a whole?

Another question. What do you do about Owners who frequently rape other teams in unfair deals. I'm sure it is easier when the commish doesn't have a team, but what if he does? How would you deal with a situation like that?

Scott Vibert · 02-24-2003, 09:57 PM

read

JML · 02-24-2003, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scott Vibert
read

Ohhhh.... now I get it.

webspinnre · 02-25-2003, 04:05 AM

Well, in the leagues I've been in, we have committees to review trades if they're lopsided. If a team makes too many lopsided trades that need to be overruled, then that owner usually gets replaced.

With our BBSC leagues, this hasnt been a problem, as the trades have all been pretty reasonable. As far as other cheating, if anything became known, and depending on the gravity, they would probably be first warned, then kicked out. If kicked out, I doubt they'd be let back in.

An owner who badgered other owners wouldnt last long in our leagues. He'd reform or he'd be gone.

obaslg · 02-25-2003, 02:05 PM

A1. I do my best to trap them, which can take some work. This works best on IM, preferably with "both" owners on at once. In a couple of cases I've said very nicely that I wasn't completely sure, and that I was sorry if I was wrong, but I needed phone numbers or else. I've never thought someone was cheating and failed to have it eventually confirmed for sure.
A2. I let it be known, but that's partially b/c our league is a democracy.
B1. We (again, a democracy) just patch the rule. I think the elastic clause mentioned above is a much better solution for a "dictator" league.
B2. Hasn't happened.

Later questions:
1. Nothing. It's usually made obvious in the discussions.
2. Nothing. We take a laissez-faire attitude toward trading in the absence of collusion. The one exception is in the case of new owners, who are "protected" for their first few trades. I wouldn't want to be in a league (and certainly wouldn't want to commish one) in which the owners had to justify every trade. We're in competition, and the trading is one of the main ways in which we compete.

Henry · 02-25-2003, 02:25 PM

For what it's worth...

Although I have not yet ran an OOTP online league (will soon with the NABC), I've had years of experience as Commissioner in both early tabletop leagues and some early computer simulations such as Earl Weaver, and one in HighHeat.

First choice was always to try and resolve the issue one-on-one with the individual. If that failed, then a clause in the league rules required the issue to be brought before the owners. The Commissioner would write out a 500 word max document on what the problem was - and the "accused" was allowed a 500 word response. The owners voted, and a 2/3rds vote removed him from the league.

The idea behind this was that the other owners are the ones hurt by the actions - whatever they are - and should have the authority to remove one of their own based on how serious they feel the offense is.

The system worked very well - and it also made owners think twice since there was only one chance to defend themselves.

Henry

02-24-2003, 05:32 PM	#1
Jason Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,855	Cheating Owners/Dishonest Owners First, let's not mention ANY names in this thread. This thread should be a discussion among commissioners and players regarding how you should deal with situations. First, the "cheating" owners. 1. If you don't have any solid evidence that the owner is cheating, how do you justify taking actions against them? 2. If you have solid evidence, do you expose them to everyone or do you allow them the chance to leave quietly? Second, the "dishonest" owners. 1. You have an owner in the league who looks for loopholes in the league constitution in order to exploit them to their advantage. Do you allow them to continue and just patch the holes later or do you take action against that owner? 2. You have an owner who verbally and electronically harasses other owners into deals that benefit the first owner. When you as commissioner ask him to stop badgering other owners he refuses. What do you do? Finally, in all the cases above, do you ever let that owner back into the league? I've been in many leagues where these situations come up and I know that each one can be unique and different. Just general opinions are expected here. I know in the case of a owner who harassed other owners we suspended him for one year and allowed him to reapply for admission. There are things you have to take into account and the biggest for me can be age. If it's a 12 year old kid it's easier to forgive cheating than a 39 year old guy...

02-25-2003, 02:05 PM	#10
obaslg All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 887	A1. I do my best to trap them, which can take some work. This works best on IM, preferably with "both" owners on at once. In a couple of cases I've said very nicely that I wasn't completely sure, and that I was sorry if I was wrong, but I needed phone numbers or else. I've never thought someone was cheating and failed to have it eventually confirmed for sure. A2. I let it be known, but that's partially b/c our league is a democracy. B1. We (again, a democracy) just patch the rule. I think the elastic clause mentioned above is a much better solution for a "dictator" league. B2. Hasn't happened. Later questions: 1. Nothing. It's usually made obvious in the discussions. 2. Nothing. We take a laissez-faire attitude toward trading in the absence of collusion. The one exception is in the case of new owners, who are "protected" for their first few trades. I wouldn't want to be in a league (and certainly wouldn't want to commish one) in which the owners had to justify every trade. We're in competition, and the trading is one of the main ways in which we compete. __________________ Realy good musition of many insterments, including the hyperbolic vitriol.

02-24-2003, 06:42 PM	#2
D Love All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 904	A league owner tipped me off to the fact that at least 3 "owners" in the league had emails originating from the same IP (and all 3 had made VERY shady deals with one another). I publicly confronted him. He denied it all, of course. The guy came back about 2 years later wanting to join up. I was nice enough to say he could if he admitted to cheating. He still wouldn't.

02-24-2003, 09:23 PM	#6
themoguler Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 47	What do you do about some owners that always have a "me first" attitude as a GM. They worry about any rule change that might adversely affect their team even if such rule change would benefit the league as a whole? Another question. What do you do about Owners who frequently rape other teams in unfair deals. I'm sure it is easier when the commish doesn't have a team, but what if he does? How would you deal with a situation like that?

02-24-2003, 09:57 PM	#7
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,266	read

02-25-2003, 04:05 AM	#9
webspinnre Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Spokane, WA - At School Posts: 59	Well, in the leagues I've been in, we have committees to review trades if they're lopsided. If a team makes too many lopsided trades that need to be overruled, then that owner usually gets replaced. With our BBSC leagues, this hasnt been a problem, as the trades have all been pretty reasonable. As far as other cheating, if anything became known, and depending on the gravity, they would probably be first warned, then kicked out. If kicked out, I doubt they'd be let back in. An owner who badgered other owners wouldnt last long in our leagues. He'd reform or he'd be gone.

02-25-2003, 02:25 PM	#11
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	For what it's worth... Although I have not yet ran an OOTP online league (will soon with the NABC), I've had years of experience as Commissioner in both early tabletop leagues and some early computer simulations such as Earl Weaver, and one in HighHeat. First choice was always to try and resolve the issue one-on-one with the individual. If that failed, then a clause in the league rules required the issue to be brought before the owners. The Commissioner would write out a 500 word max document on what the problem was - and the "accused" was allowed a 500 word response. The owners voted, and a 2/3rds vote removed him from the league. The idea behind this was that the other owners are the ones hurt by the actions - whatever they are - and should have the authority to remove one of their own based on how serious they feel the offense is. The system worked very well - and it also made owners think twice since there was only one chance to defend themselves. Henry