Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should SMFA transfer monitoring be turned back ok? MOD NOTE POST 1

24

Comments

  • #32
    hufpc8w3adnk65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,158 ✭✭✭✭hufpc8w3adnk65


    No, leave it off.
    KERSPLAT! wrote: »
    Jaysus the 'turn it back on camp' are severely hampered when we can't use any examples, those being the main reasons for turning it back on!

    I've voted to turn it on, I'll bow out at that. Ridiculous thread is ridiculous.

    Again lads democracy rules , so after speaking with Wilberto were going too change the rules too allow examples, wait till wilberto edits the thread too tell ye the new rules.

    I was just in from work this evening when I seen seanehs thread and was worried the place would go into meltdown so sprang into action perhaps too harshly


  • #33
    Al Capwned
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,721 ✭✭✭Al Capwned


    Moderation done properly.
    Well done.


  • #34
    hufpc8w3adnk65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,158 ✭✭✭✭hufpc8w3adnk65


    No, leave it off.
    Al Capwned wrote: »
    Moderation done properly.
    Well done.

    Wait till Wilberto discuss the guidelines before ye say that ha ha


  • #35
    Maldjd23
    Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭Maldjd23


    JamboMac wrote: »
    MOD SNIP

    Who is this lad? Can't find him in the database!!

    Honestly, i would like to hear a few more examples before making a decision. I just wish the league admin had more control when it came to sacking managers who were acting the fool. Massive fault in the game IMO that he can't.


  • #36
    hufpc8w3adnk65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,158 ✭✭✭✭hufpc8w3adnk65


    No, leave it off.
    Maldjd23 wrote: »
    Who is this lad? Can't find him in the database!!

    Honestly, i would like to hear a few more examples before making a decision. I just wish the league admin had more control when it came to sacking managers who were acting the fool. Massive fault in the game IMO that he can't.

    Yup agreed 100%. If we all report it too soccermanager threw a ticket perhaps they'd look into changing it


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    No, leave it off.
    Maldjd23 wrote: »
    Who is this lad? Can't find him in the database!!

    Honestly, i would like to hear a few more examples before making a decision. I just wish the league admin had more control when it came to sacking managers who were acting the fool. Massive fault in the game IMO that he can't.

    Not being able to appoint "admins" is a pain too. Poor mac has to do everything, ha.

    If he could give someone else the power to accept applications his life would be a lot easier!


  • #38
    Al Capwned
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,721 ✭✭✭Al Capwned


    Especially considering he's off to the sun for a couple of weeks, the tramp. :pac:

    /OT


  • #39
    Wilberto
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 8,576 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wilberto


    After GT's well written post, along with concerns over the inability to have a thorough debate without the use of examples, we have decided to lift the rules on not being able to use these examples. However, before we allow people to go gung-ho into throwing out examples, what I'm going to do first is to only allow managers to use their own transfers as examples, as per GT's post.

    In other words, the only people who are allowed to introduce a transfer into this debate are one of the two managers involved in that transfer.

    Furthermore, the aforementioned strong warnings regarding potential bans being handed out are in force now more than ever.

    Let's keep it to a strong civilised debate.


  • #40
    hufpc8w3adnk65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,158 ✭✭✭✭hufpc8w3adnk65


    No, leave it off.
    Are people happy with the two rules I proposed also as too the vote?


  • #41
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭KERSPLAT!


    No, leave it off.
    MrMac84 wrote: »
    Are people happy with the two rules I proposed also as too the vote?

    I'm not. You want to disqualify anyones vote who leaves before the end of the season but won't count some ones vote who joins in the next few weeks

    Thread is being strangled. Everything bar duel accounts should be up for debate*.


    *my reasoning for this staying off limits is accusing someone of multi accounting is against the boards charter as it is already so this would need to be adhered to


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    No, leave it off.
    It's still hard to present a good argument as to why it's better on because nobody who's made an obviously weird deal is going to comment on it and open it up for debate, but I know you need to keep the things kosher.

    I will say that there ARE very obvious examples I'd love to cite but I'm 100% supportive of yourself and Wilberto in any decision you make because I know you're just doing what you think is best.


  • #43
    hufpc8w3adnk65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,158 ✭✭✭✭hufpc8w3adnk65


    No, leave it off.
    KERSPLAT! wrote: »
    I'm not. You want to disqualify anyones vote who leaves before the end of the season but won't count some ones vote who joins in the next few weeks

    Thread is being strangled. Everything bar duel accounts should be up for debate*.


    *my reasoning for this staying off limits is accusing someone of multi accounting is against the boards charter as it is already so this would need to be adhered to

    My reasoning been if they leave then there vote shouldn't count and by saying if new managers join they won't have expierence in transfers and won't know what they are voting on or for? Again lads these are "proposals" nothing set in stone.


  • #44
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭KERSPLAT!


    No, leave it off.
    And I'm not saying the above just to be awkward. There should be a proper debate not stifled debate


  • #45
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭KERSPLAT!


    No, leave it off.
    MrMac84 wrote: »
    My reasoning been if they leave then there vote shouldn't count and by saying if new managers join they won't have expierence in transfers and won't know what they are voting on or for? Again lads these are "proposals" nothing set in stone.

    I know they're proposals, I'm just saying I disagree with them :)

    When the vote closes the results should be just that. A result and as such the outcome should be implemented. As long as each manager voting currently manages a team then they should all count whether for or against


  • #46
    hufpc8w3adnk65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,158 ✭✭✭✭hufpc8w3adnk65


    No, leave it off.
    KERSPLAT! wrote: »
    And I'm not saying the above just to be awkward. There should be a proper debate not stifled debate

    I belive thats what everybody wants but we don't need people too start accusing others of wrong doing so baby steps, weve got the poll for 28 days :)


  • #47
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭KERSPLAT!


    No, leave it off.
    MrMac84 wrote: »
    I belive thats what everybody wants but we don't need people too start accusing others of wrong doing so baby steps, weve got the poll for 28 days :)

    With 10 votes already cast... No point allowing proper discussion with a few days to go and no one left to vote


  • #48
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    No, leave it off.
    KERSPLAT! wrote: »
    With 10 votes already cast... No point allowing proper discussion with a few days to go and no one left to vote

    I agree, close the tread, vote carried, monitoring goes back on!


  • #49
    Al Capwned
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,721 ✭✭✭Al Capwned


    Just to be a pain in the arse Mac, aren't there other changes due to be implemented, that weren't....

    Reducing the login requirement to 21 days was one.


  • #50
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    No, leave it off.
    I think, given the importance of this decision, it should take precedence.


  • #51
    Al Capwned
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,721 ✭✭✭Al Capwned


    Important according to who? (Not saying it's not btw)

    The login requirement was done last season. It should have been implemented before this season started, but wasn't. It needs to be put in place now at the earliest possible opportunity.
    We've had a few polls, and they should be implemented/actioned chronologically. Any other way of deciding what's important and what's not undermines the democracy of the decisions made.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    No, leave it off.
    I think that seeing that this measure exists to protect against "irregularities" it's obviously important.

    I wish I could give examples of why it think so but right now I can't, hopefully that changes soon.


  • #53
    Al Capwned
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,721 ✭✭✭Al Capwned


    Seaneh wrote: »
    I think that seeing that this measure exists to protect against "irregularities" it's obviously important.

    I wish I could give examples of why it think so but right now I can't, hopefully that changes soon.

    And the login requirement was passed to prevent teams languishing essentially unmanaged for a month, which may not be an 'irregularity', but was definitely not helping the GW. Why should you be made judge of what's more important. Actioning decisions in the order they were made is surely fairer to everyone in the GW.

    Anyway, this is completely off the topic at hand, so I'll leave it at that.


  • #54
    ctrl-alt-delete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,258 ✭✭✭✭ctrl-alt-delete


    No, leave it off.
    Al Capwned wrote: »
    Important according to who? (Not saying it's not btw)

    The login requirement was done last season. It should have been implemented before this season started, but wasn't. It needs to be put in place now at the earliest possible opportunity.
    We've had a few polls, and they should be implemented/actioned chronologically. Any other way of deciding what's important and what's not undermines the democracy of the decisions made.

    You are correct that the login rule was voted on to be changed.

    I think this is more important at the moment but that is not to detract from the way we should be doing things.

    Tupac raised the point a few times that the window for changes was open but I think Mac did not want to cut the login down because situations had changed.

    I think he felt that at the time of the polls the GW was more or less full and at one stage we had a waiting list which was the original point of changing the login time.

    We are at a point now where we have plenty of teams free and I don't think he wants to be kicking lads out of jobs.

    I don't agree with going against the consensus and I am only thinking myself what Mac was thinking regarding the issue , I am not sure if he posted reasons, but I would back him up on that one.


  • #55
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    No, leave it off.
    Because one measure stops potential cheating and the other just means lazy people log in a week earlier than they used to to keep their teams.


  • #56
    hufpc8w3adnk65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,158 ✭✭✭✭hufpc8w3adnk65


    No, leave it off.
    Ill do both changes at the end of season lads no prob


  • #57
    Al Capwned
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,721 ✭✭✭Al Capwned


    MrMac84 wrote: »
    Ill do both changes at the end of season lads no prob

    Only one has been decided man. ;)


  • #58
    tupac_healy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,515 ✭✭✭tupac_healy


    Voted off....

    After reading through the last 4 pages nothing new in this argument has been brought to the table IMO so therefore nothing has changed...

    Majority wanted it off then and apparently so they do now......


  • #59
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    No, leave it off.
    The majority haven't voted yet and I'd suggest they hold off for a while in the hopes Mac and Wil allow us to cite deals we believe are "irregular" and good examples of why we need to turn this back on.


    But it's no coincidence that the people voting to keep this off are the same people who wanted buying from unmanaged clubs left on. They are only thinking of their own benefit and not the benefit of the game world as a whole.


  • #60
    Al Capwned
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,721 ✭✭✭Al Capwned


    Seaneh wrote: »
    The majority haven't voted yet and I'd suggest they hold off for a while in the hopes Mac and Wil allow us to cite deals we believe are "irregular" and good examples of why we need to turn this back on.


    But it's no coincidence that the people voting to keep this off are the same people who wanted buying from unmanaged clubs left on. They are only thinking of their own benefit and not the benefit of the game world as a whole.

    Don't make such sweeping generalisations.... You do not know my reasons for originally voting to turn it off. They were not selfish reasons. And I'm sure you cannot know everybody else's reasoning either.

    The mods have stated that you can cite your own deals.

    You seem to be on some sort of a crusade on this topic, would it not be better for you to put your point of view forward, and let people decide on the facts, rather than on unsubstantiated conjecture on your part.

    And yes, I do appreciate the irony of that last paragraph. Bang away there anyway lad, I'll only be responding to on-topic posts from here on in if needed. Apologies to those posters reading this back-and-forth and subsequent derailment.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    No, leave it off.
    I can't post facts the mods won't let us just now. Hopefully that changes.

    But GTI has given the Salah deal as an example of a GOOD reversal so we have that.

    Then there is Kokorin to Sporting. I bought him in good faith but a few days later the selling manager ups sticks and quits the league, that's bad form, he sold players knowing he was quitting. With monitoring of this can be reported.

    Someone complained about Ronaldinho to Benfica, with monitoring on that deal can be reported and investigated, the deal was sound and wouldn't have been reversed anyway but the ability to investigate it is important.

    I'm not on a "crusade" I think think that monitoring being turned off is being abused and it should be put back on.


Advertisement