Removal of SM monitoring transfers next season??? POLL

tupac_healy

Should the SM monitoring of transfers be done away with???

Mr Blobby

Easy decision TBH...

It's one thing for SM to monitor and cancel a bid. It's a totally different issue when they stop managers from conducting transfers for a whole season.

I haven't been able to do any Transfers with Real Madrid for nearly 2 months.

hufpc8w3adnk65

I "think" im in favour of letting it on and can't see my self changing my mind. If deal's are 100% legit then the SMFA wont reverse them. All these first refusal type deals get messy. Ive played worlds where it was turned off and it's rife with cheating! The ban on lads doing transfers with each other isnt permenent and besides even if we turn SMFA monitoring off all that happen's is the chairman becomes an even bigger pain. Every week lads are looking for way's too improve the game i'd suggest posting in the Soccermanager.com forum these suggestion's.

pepper180

MrMac84 wrote: »

I "think" im in favour of letting it on and can't see my self changing my mind. If deal's are 100% legit then the SMFA wont reverse them. All these first refusal type deals get messy. Ive played worlds where it was turned off and it's rife with cheating! The ban on lads doing transfers with each other isnt permenent and besides even if we turn SMFA monitoring off all that happen's is the chairman becomes an even bigger pain. Every week lads are looking for way's too improve the game i'd suggest posting in the Soccermanager.com forum these suggestion's.

Thats the thing, with all of us being on boards and knowing each other on it, I don't think people would cheat. Maybe thats just wishful thinking..

KERSPLAT!

I'd like to keep it. I've no idea why the recent transfers were reversed but obviously SM saw something. And as for the reporting thing, I doubt very much SM reverse transfers just because it's reported, they'd have to look into it and see if it warrants reversal much like what happens on boards.

Has anyone gotten a reply after complaining about a reversal?

tonic wine

SM my arse. It's just a ****ty piece of code that's fooking useless and spiteful little pricks abuse it to ruin the game for everyone else.

eireannBEAR

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

I'd like to keep it. I've no idea why the recent transfers were reversed but obviously SM saw something. And as for the reporting thing, I doubt very much SM reverse transfers just because it's reported, they'd have to look into it and see if it warrants reversal much like what happens on boards.

Has anyone gotten a reply after complaining about a reversal?

wrong dude,sure kyiv lost lich too. that deal wasnt dodgy either.

tupac_healy

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

I'd like to keep it. I've no idea why the recent transfers were reversed but obviously SM saw something. And as for the reporting thing, I doubt very much SM reverse transfers just because it's reported, they'd have to look into it and see if it warrants reversal much like what happens on boards.

Has anyone gotten a reply after complaining about a reversal?

Would the whole 'no idea of why recent transfers were reversed' part not be enough??.

nua domhan

tonic wine wrote: »

SM my arse. It's just a ****ty piece of code that's fooking useless and spiteful little pricks abuse it to ruin the game for everyone else.

Wrong - I've been in a game world where me and a mate reported another guys transfer because we knew he had 2 accounts and was using them to strengthen one team.

Nothing happened because the transfer was financially sound and even though we reported the transfer they couldn't find any proof anything was wrong.

So it's not just a 'piece of code' that reverses transfers when someone reports them - if it was you could block every transfer in the game.

If you're not doing a transfer that really screws someone over then you've nothing to worry about.

tonic wine

nua domhan wrote: »

If you're not doing a transfer that really screws someone over then you've nothing to worry about.

Wrong - I didn't screw anyone over. All was above board. There automated system was proved to be rubbish in this case, and several others, with no justification to reverse the transfer.

Edit: only grounds I can see why it was reverse because I paid 3x times the players value, but that's the game world we play in. The code picked this up and reversed it on that basis IMO.

There is no other reason it was reversed.

eireannBEAR

nua domhan wrote: »

Wrong - I've been in a game world where me and a mate reported another guys transfer because we knew he had 2 accounts and was using them to strengthen one team.

Nothing happened because the transfer was financially sound and even though we reported the transfer they couldn't find any proof anything was wrong.

So it's not just a 'piece of code' that reverses transfers when someone reports them - if it was you could block every transfer in the game.

If you're not doing a transfer that really screws someone over then you've nothing to worry about.

then why do you believe his open clear transfer was blocked?

tupac_healy

nua domhan wrote: »

If you're not doing a transfer that really screws someone over then you've nothing to worry about.

Hmmmm.......

Technically not true or else we would not even have this poll!!!!!!!! Who was getting screwed over in the deals that were cancelled?

IvySlayer

Am I the only one who doesn't have a clue what happened with blocked tranfers? :P

tonic wine

IvySlayer wrote: »

Am I the only one who doesn't have a clue what happened with blocked tranfers? :P

That's the point of getting rid of the SM system for blocking transfers.
Even those who had transfers blocked don't have a clue what happened.

The only reason I can come up with is the Automated transfer monitoring system reverses transfers in this gameworld that are reported because of the transfer fees we have to pay in this game world, hence the reason for getting rid of it next season.

nua domhan

eireannBEAR wrote: »

then why do you believe his open clear transfer was blocked?

Probably because of this....

tonic wine wrote: »

Edit: only grounds I can see why it was reverse because I paid 3x times the players value, but that's the game world we play in. The code picked this up and reversed it on that basis IMO.

There is no other reason it was reversed.

if he's valued at £5.5M as my chairman has him - then someone pays 16/17 then of course it's going to look dodgy and the code is going to pick it up. If you have to pay that much for a player then don't fire all the money over in one and make it look so obvious.

eireannBEAR

nua domhan wrote: »

Probably because of this....




if he's valued at £5.5M as my chairman has him - then someone pays 16/17 then of course it's going to look dodgy and the code is going to pick it up. If you have to pay that much for a player then don't fire all the money over in one and make it look so obvious.

the players highest value has no affect on the transfer how could it? its legal to buy within the chair mans value. a transfer would not be cancelled for this, also i bought melo extremely cheap for this game world so you are wrong here.

tonic wine

nua domhan wrote: »

Probably because of this....




if he's valued at £5.5M as my chairman has him - then someone pays 16/17 then of course it's going to look dodgy and the code is going to pick it up. If you have to pay that much for a player then don't fire all the money over in one and make it look so obvious.

Well that's the exact reason why it should be done away with next season.
The code is not compatible with the transfer fees we pay in this game world causing transfer to get reversed when reported.

tonic wine

eireannBEAR wrote: »

the players highest value has no affect on the transfer how could it? its legal to buy within the chair mans value. a transfer would not be cancelled for this, also i bought melo extremely cheap for this game world so you are wrong here.

Cheap for this game world, but the code is not based on just our game world but on the game as a whole which outputs we are overpaying for players. It looks as if the selling club is benefiting alot more then it should be. In other game worlds this may be the case, but the transfers fees are legit in our case.

eireannBEAR

tonic wine wrote: »

Cheap for this game world, but the code is not based on just our game world but on the game as a whole which outputs we are overpaying for players. It looks as if the selling club is benefiting alot more then it should be. In other game worlds this may be the case, but the transfers fees are legit in our case.

ah come on melos worth 9.6m and i paid 12!!!!!

Mr Blobby

I don't know why we can't just try next season without the SM monitoring.

We've had 1 season with it in place and it hasn't fully worked... We should at least try it.

All you have to do is PM people to warn them for next season.

GT_TDI_150

Maybe x3 value on a 5m valued player is considered more sus than 3x value on a 15m valued player. The 15m player might be considered more talented, higher rating, more potential, .... And more deserving of a higher fee.

Maybe the code looks at the avg % overspend in the Gw and because of all the youngsters getting snapped up at cost price this % might be lower than expected therefor paying 3x a player value might have set off alarms

Maybe a spiteful prick in Smfa doesn't like how popular/well contested our Gw is


Maybe ...






I vote keep the monitor on ....

KERSPLAT!

Mr Blobby wrote: »

I don't know why we can't just try next season without the SM monitoring.

We've had 1 season with it in place and it hasn't fully worked... We should at least try it.

All you have to do is PM people to warn them for next season.

Well a poll was set up for reason so we should go with that though whatever Mac decides is obviously the way it should be

tonic wine

If you look at the answer centre under help and type in reversed, you will see there is a load of people having the same issues as us with reversed transfers.

I think the algorithm causes more harm then good. We all have an identity on boards. I doubt anyone will go to the bother of having multiple board accounts to set up multiple sm accounts. It would be easy to monitor this ourselves anyway without using an algorithm that doesn't work and reverses transfers unfairly.

batistuta9

i think it should be took off, for a season at least, the prices people want/pay in the GW are OTT so no point in not getting players because of it

the whole suspicious activity would still be on anyway, wouldn't it for all the other stuff

tupac_healy

batistuta9 wrote: »

i think it should be took off, for a season at least, the prices people want/pay in the GW are OTT so no point in not getting players because of it

the whole suspicious activity would still be on anyway, wouldn't it for all the other stuff

Can't agree more, word for word

GT_TDI_150

I think it is worth noting that the deal that cause the comotion and subsequently this poll appears to have been reprted and WAS NOT reversed due to SMFA monitoring!

THIS IS IMPORTANT AS TURNING OFF/KEEPING ON MONITORING IS WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON

hufpc8w3adnk65

tonic wine wrote: »

It would be easy to monitor this ourselves anyway without using an algorithm that doesn't work and reverses transfers unfairly.

Easy too monitor ourselfs? Where'd you come up with that notion?

If we turn it off and a team does multiple deals with another that are one sided how do we cobat that?i have no ability too remove manager, the SMFA won't help us and the mods on boards surely won't close their boards accounts and even if they do their soccermanager account will be still be active

ctrl-alt-delete

All polls for topics such as this need to be made public too, we need it to ensure it is just the people playing the game that are voting.

KERSPLAT!

MrMac84 wrote: »

Easy too monitor ourselfs? Where'd you come up with that notion?

If we turn it off and a team does multiple deals with another that are one sided how do we cobat that?i have no ability too remove manager, the SMFA won't help us and the mods on boards surely won't close their boards accounts and even if they do their soccermanager account will be still be active

The mods on boards would have nothing to do with this as far as I know. They'd only be concerned with what happens on boards

hufpc8w3adnk65

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

The mods on boards would have nothing to do with this as far as I know. They'd only be concerned with what happens on boards

Thats what I ment. If we turn monitoring transfers off it makes soccermanager a MOD free zone. No one will be able too do any thing about any transfers we could see a situation where say Messi is sold for

40 million Torres & Gerard.

And we won't be able too do anything about it!
At the moment we can report it and If the SMFA think the deal is too one sided, or theres too many transfers between both sides or if they have same IP or a shared cookie etc theyll reverse it.

hufpc8w3adnk65

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

All polls for topics such as this need to be made public too, we need it to ensure it is just the people playing the game that are voting.

If I'm even going too consider turning it off ill need too see exactly who voted for which option NOT just numbers. Numbers could be anyone poppin in and voting and leaving.