Acunamatata

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

If you're not abusing the system, you won't get banned. If you create an all-yankees team or a team of all players with the letter B in their name, and you can succeed, then great.

Does this mean that there are themes that are not allowed because they are perceived to be too weak to succeed?

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

Does this mean that there are themes that are not allowed because they are perceived to be too weak to succeed?

Yeah, like the backup catcher at every position theme.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by zrog2000

Yeah, like the backup catcher at every position theme.

It also depends on the level of play too. The "all-iron" theme might work at Silver, but definitely not for Diamond level.

A simple rule of thumb, that doesn't catch every case, would be "would this team make it to this level if I started with them?" So the all-Catcher team, or the all-iron team, can probably legit be good enough to make it to Silver, but likely not past there. Obviously not the only condition at play, but if the answer to the above question is no, then I'd reconsider the rules of your team. We're not out there to ban people who enjoy having fun with the system, and who want to experiment, but we can't have teams out there throwing meatballs to the other teams.

Another rule of thumb would be "Don't be an a**". But that should just be a general rule of life

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

...but if the answer to the above question is no, then I'd reconsider the rules of your team.

My specific concern is arriving at a different answer from those making the judgement.

For example, after 2 years in Diamond with minimal upgrades and a regular season record just under .500 in both Diamond and in all league levels combined, my answer for my main team was a resounding No as well, but I still got promoted due to the luck of being in a weaker league and getting hot in time for the playoffs. Going 20-60 through 29 June reaffirmed this belief. Even though my record since has improved (though still no better than .500 at best, and likely worse if the small sample size is corrected as I believe it will eventually), I am still very wary, especially since I still see myself hemorrhaging points to my competition far too often.

It is easy to see the extreme cases. However, most people do not know where the line is. I sure don't...

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

It also depends on the level of play too. The "all-iron" theme might work at Silver, but definitely not for Diamond level.

A simple rule of thumb, that doesn't catch every case, would be "would this team make it to this level if I started with them?" So the all-Catcher team, or the all-iron team, can probably legit be good enough to make it to Silver, but likely not past there. Obviously not the only condition at play, but if the answer to the above question is no, then I'd reconsider the rules of your team. We're not out there to ban people who enjoy having fun with the system, and who want to experiment, but we can't have teams out there throwing meatballs to the other teams.

Another rule of thumb would be "Don't be an a**". But that should just be a general rule of life

I would also use the rule *if a team is .500, it's not ever going to be banned for tanking.

[BoofBonser26]

Sure - even the fact of a team losing (if it's not intentional) isn't a problem per se. It's the PP gifted to opponents in lopsided losses. So if you're .500 or even .400 but not getting blown out in your losses, I'd hope it's not a problem.

[pstrickert]

What about selective tanking? Someone could agree to help a friend (once the “friend” feature is up and running) build up some PPs in one league, while the friend returns the favor in another league, by tanking only during their matchups. Or they could trade blowout wins when facing each other in the same league. Several thousand PP for you in one game; several thousand PP for me in the next. Hardly anyone would even notice.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

What about selective tanking? Someone could agree to help a friend (once the “friend” feature is up and running) build up some PPs in one league, while the friend returns the favor in another league, by tanking only during their matchups. Or they could trade blowout wins when facing each other in the same league. Several thousand PP for you in one game; several thousand PP for me in the next. Hardly anyone would even notice.

If anyone does notice, report them, send a note to Lukas, Alex, or Jeff, and they will be banned. Selective tanking against only certain teams is a clear violation of rules.

[Kushiel]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

What about selective tanking? Someone could agree to help a friend (once the “friend” feature is up and running) build up some PPs in one league, while the friend returns the favor in another league, by tanking only during their matchups. Or they could trade blowout wins when facing each other in the same league. Several thousand PP for you in one game; several thousand PP for me in the next. Hardly anyone would even notice.

If they get found out they are cheating and deserve what they get and more. The punishment is never severe enough for cheaters. If it were up to me that would be a lifetime ban.

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

What about selective tanking? Someone could agree to help a friend (once the “friend” feature is up and running) build up some PPs in one league, while the friend returns the favor in another league, by tanking only during their matchups. Or they could trade blowout wins when facing each other in the same league. Several thousand PP for you in one game; several thousand PP for me in the next. Hardly anyone would even notice.

Jeez, You would make a good crook my friend. I would never even think of that let alone notice. 🙃

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by Zorro

Jeez, You would make a good crook my friend. I would never even think of that let alone notice. 🙃

I definitely wouldn’t notice, either. I’m too focused on my own team.

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

I definitely wouldn’t notice, either. I’m too focused on my own team.

But that was some genius thinking. 👏

[pstrickert]

Unless I’m mistaken, the PP payout for blowout-related achievements is less than it used to be. If so, then that’s a step in the right direction. Make it so the reward is not worth the risk.

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by BoofBonser26

Sure - even the fact of a team losing (if it's not intentional) isn't a problem per se. It's the PP gifted to opponents in lopsided losses. So if you're .500 or even .400 but not getting blown out in your losses, I'd hope it's not a problem.

But is it a problem if my .400 team IS getting blown out?

My concern is that I do often get blown out in my losses, especially since my ballpark is skewed towards offense and my pitching especially is not exactly up to Perfect standards (though the few recent acquisitions have specifically targeted this weakness).

I am all good with bringing down the hammer hard on cheaters. However, we first must define what is and is not cheating. We do not yet have a suitable definition. The Potter Stewart "I'll know it when I see it" standard is not sufficient.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

Unless I’m mistaken, the PP payout for blowout-related achievements is less than it used to be. If so, then that’s a step in the right direction. Make it so the reward is not worth the risk.

Not a blowout, but I did get a 5000 point gold achievement for a 100 game score. Only gave up one baserunner too, so it could have been even more. Theoretically one could game that by putting all pitchers in their lineup.

[Kushiel]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

But is it a problem if my .400 team IS getting blown out?

My concern is that I do often get blown out in my losses, especially since my ballpark is skewed towards offense and my pitching especially is not exactly up to Perfect standards (though the few recent acquisitions have specifically targeted this weakness).

I am all good with bringing down the hammer hard on cheaters. However, we first must define what is and is not cheating. We do not yet have a suitable definition. The Potter Stewart "I'll know it when I see it" standard is not sufficient.

If a manager loses on purpose for any reason he/she is tanking. If the person does not dance with the ones that brung him/her or better to the current level, he/she is tanking to lose. Higher leagues are no place to start dismantling a team. By not playing the team that got the person as high as they are and allowing some teams a smorgasbord of PP, the person is cheating everybody else. I thought Matt was pretty clear.

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by Kushiel

If a manager loses on purpose for any reason he/she is tanking. If the person does not dance with the ones that brung him/her or better to the current level, he/she is tanking to lose. Higher leagues are no place to start dismantling a team. By not playing the team that got the person as high as they are and allowing some teams a smorgasbord of PP, the person is cheating everybody else. I thought Matt was pretty clear.

Even this is not clear. One interpretation is that a team would be required to obtain a new card prior to replacing an old card, and that selling a card to get the points to eventually upgrade is not allowed. I doubt this is meant to be an example, but it is a textbook example of not dancing with the ones that brought me and dismantling a team partially to make alterations that are hopefully (though not guaranteed to be) an improvement.

Also, there's the problematic fact that the devs themselves have said on these very forums that losing on purpose is acceptable under certain conditions. Some example strategies they cited as appropriate included playing cards out of position to gain defensive experience, though they did not say if there was a limit to what was acceptable (such as the extreme example of the all-catcher team).


The standards we have are neither clear nor consistent. The creates more, not less, work for those actively investigating reported cheating, while also exposing them to criticism centered on arbitrary enforcement of rules. Our dev team deserves better.

[NYY #23]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

Even this is not clear. One interpretation is that a team would be required to obtain a new card prior to replacing an old card, and that selling a card to get the points to eventually upgrade is not allowed. I doubt this is meant to be an example, but it is a textbook example of not dancing with the ones that brought me and dismantling a team partially to make alterations that are hopefully (though not guaranteed to be) an improvement.

Also, there's the problematic fact that the devs themselves have said on these very forums that losing on purpose is acceptable under certain conditions. Some example strategies they cited as appropriate included playing cards out of position to gain defensive experience, though they did not say if there was a limit to what was acceptable (such as the extreme example of the all-catcher team).


The standards we have are neither clear nor consistent. The creates more, not less, work for those actively investigating reported cheating, while also exposing them to criticism centered on arbitrary enforcement of rules. Our dev team deserves better.

I feel like it is pretty clear. Are you trying to win, or purposely trying to lose? Are you putting your best team forward, or did you get to diamond and say - this is too hard, let me put in a team of iron players to lose until I'm back in bronze and can dominate. Are you playing a player in a position they are capable of playing, or do you purposely playing players out of position? Do you have five starting pitchers, or do you have a bunch of closers in your rotation, with no bullpen?

I really don't think they have any intent to go after a team because they were promoted, but may not have the best starting pitchers. While training someone for a new position may hurt you longterm the intent is to make the team better long term right?

I also doubt they are going after players who sell a card to raise money for an upgrade, as long as you have an acceptable substitute.

People who tank know what they are doing. It seems pretty clear to me, try to win with an acceptable team for your level and I think you'll be fine.

[Kushiel]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

Even this is not clear. One interpretation is that a team would be required to obtain a new card prior to replacing an old card, and that selling a card to get the points to eventually upgrade is not allowed. I doubt this is meant to be an example, but it is a textbook example of not dancing with the ones that brought me and dismantling a team partially to make alterations that are hopefully (though not guaranteed to be) an improvement.

Also, there's the problematic fact that the devs themselves have said on these very forums that losing on purpose is acceptable under certain conditions. Some example strategies they cited as appropriate included playing cards out of position to gain defensive experience, though they did not say if there was a limit to what was acceptable (such as the extreme example of the all-catcher team).


The standards we have are neither clear nor consistent. The creates more, not less, work for those actively investigating reported cheating, while also exposing them to criticism centered on arbitrary enforcement of rules. Our dev team deserves better.

Are you just trying to find some wiggle room to lose on purpose?

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by Kushiel

Are you just trying to find some wiggle room to lose on purpose?

Since I joined your Perfect League last season, I have added Cy Blanton, Tug McGraw, and Wilcy Moore. I am not trying to lose on purpose, but my concern is that people will claim I am because I still start players like Carlos Martinez, Rookie Tulo, Jody Davis, and far too many left handed and groundball pitchers, and because my team regularly gives your team way more points than any competitive team ought to.

My concern is that there is far too much wiggle room. My goal is to eliminate this wiggle room, not create more of it.