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

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

tupac_healy wrote: »

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......

We aren't allowed talk about the main reasons for turning it back on.

'you can debate tytning monitoring back on but you can't talk about this, this or this'

Alot has happened since it was turned off as I'm sure a lot of people will remember, we're just not allowed mention it. One incident in particular.

JamboMac

No, leave it off.

A month to vote was a bit of a long time to leave it.

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

JamboMac wrote: »

A month to vote was a bit of a long time to leave it.

Makes no odds really, it can't be changed till the end of the season which is about 3 months I think

TheGunns

I know I had changed my mind and wanted it back on but I can't remember why Haven't voted yet though.

The SMFA have blocked a deal with another manager in a gold gw for no particular reason (at least none was explained and the help section isn't really helpful at all) so that's putting me off it turning it back on.

ctrl-alt-delete

No, leave it off.

This is all one big fcuk up.

It is heavily weighted already with the limitations on discussions and being dragged of course.

I reckon we should write it off, allow the mods some time to come up with a decent way of actually discussing it and vote nearer the end of season.

It was touted as a trial and stated that if it is not working we can have a vote. If we cannot discuss it fully and openly then there is no point having a vote.

I am out.

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

This is all one big fcuk up.

It is heavily weighted already with the limitations on discussions and being dragged of course.

I reckon we should write it off, allow the mods some time to come up with a decent way of actually discussing it and vote nearer the end of season.

It was touted as a trial and stated that if it is not working we can have a vote. If we cannot discuss it fully and openly then there is no point having a vote.

I am out.

Absolutely agree

Wilberto

Okay Lads. Given that my previous amendment to the rules evidently hasn't allowed for an open debate, I shall allow the use of any examples of transfers that, you strongly feel, have exploited the "Monitoring Off" rule. When using these examples, explain why you think they are exploiting the rules in a civilised, and mature manner.

However, as a result, this thread will now be run with an iron fist where bans WILL be handed out if necessary and the thread may be locked entirely.

Seriously, we're all adults here! Let's have a mature debate. If your transfer get's mentioned as "suspect", a simple explanation as to why you think it was actually a fair one will suffice as a response. 20 page "bitchfests" will result in a banning, and the thread being locked.




P.S. I haven't banned anyone yet but, in truth, I'm looking forward to my first one. Don't let it be you!




Elmo's word of the day :

Mature.

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

Can we talk about cross world transfers? I understand the need to keep it at zero tolerance but I still think everything, bar duel accounts, should be game ball.

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

Two transfers I feel is an obvious example of taking advantage of the monitoring being off that were pretty recent were between the same two clubs.

The first one is Wolfsburg paying Cruzerio 5million + Ricardo Rodriguez in exchange for a pretty much unknown 88 rated nobody from Brazil.

And then a few weeks later, sold Gabriel Paletta to the same club for 6.7 million, an 80 rated 21 year old and an 80 rated 19 year old.

Isolated they might look like simply bad business, but together it looks like someone selling two of his best players for nothing in return to a someone while refusing better bids on both players from other people...

I don't know if it's dodgyness or just coincidence but the ability to have SMFA look at it would be nice.

Wilberto

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Can we talk about cross world transfers? I understand the need to keep it at zero tolerance but I still think everything, bar duel accounts, should be game ball.

For two reasons I'm not going to allow a discussion on cross GW deals.

1. The managers who have admitted to conducting such transfers have acknowledged their mistake, apologised unreservedly, and have had their apologies accepted. They have also vowed not to engage subsequent similar transactions, particularly as it's explicitly expressed within the terms of SM to be against the transfer rules.

2. As mentioned in point 1, it is against the rules in SM, presumably meaning that managers who conduct themselves in this fashion are at risk of having their SM accounts suspended.

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

Wilberto wrote: »

For two reasons I'm not going to allow a discussion on cross GW deals.

1. The managers who have admitted to conducting such transfers have acknowledged their mistake, apologised unreservedly, and have had their apologies accepted. They have also vowed not to engage subsequent similar transactions, particularly as it's explicitly expressed within the terms of SM to be against the transfer rules.

2. As mentioned in point 1, it is against the rules in SM, presumably meaning that managers who conduct themselves in this fashion are at risk of having their SM accounts suspended.

But sure if they have already admitted they've done it, why can't we point to the potential of it happening again as a good reason for turning monitoring back on?

With monitoring back on it would 100% never happen again.

I don't think the managers who have admitted they've done them in the past will do them again, but what's to stop anyone else from doing it? There's no way to flag, report or spot it. Monitoring makes sure it can't happen at all because the system will flag it itself.

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

But cross world transfers could still be happening, going unnoticed and unreported because monitoring is off. It's not their actions I want to discuss specifically, it's the point that it could be still happening. It's probably one of the biggest reasons for monitoring being turned on.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that, thread has been a mess since the start as was pointed out already.

I know you've a difficult job, I just think this could've been handled better

Wilberto

Seaneh wrote: »

But sure if they have already admitted they've done it, why can't we point to the potential of it happening again as a good reason for turning monitoring back on?

With monitoring back on it would 100% never happen again.

I don't think the managers who have admitted they've done them in the past will do them again, but what's to stop anyone else from doing it? There's no way to flag, report or spot it. Monitoring makes sure it can't happen at all because the system will flag it itself.

Sorry, what I forgot to mention is that I don't see how it makes a difference anyway. There will be no way of knowing if such a deal has been in place as we can only see one side of it.

Besides that, they have said that they will not partake in these deals and all we can do is take their word at face value.

So yeah, case closed!

Wilberto

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

But cross world transfers could still be happening, going unnoticed and unreported because monitoring is off. It's not their actions I want to discuss specifically, it's the point that it could be still happening. It's probably one of the biggest reasons for monitoring being turned on.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that, thread has been a mess since the start as was pointed out already.

I know you've a difficult job, I just think this could've been handled better

Fair point, but now it's made. There really isn't much to add to that anyway is there? (Genuine Question. )

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

Wilberto wrote: »

Sorry, what I forgot to mention is that I don't see how it makes a difference anyway. There will be no way of knowing if such a deal has been in place as we can only see one side of it.

Besides that, they have said that they will not partake in these deals and all we can do is take their word at face value.

So yeah, case closed!

Except the fact that WE can't see those deals is EXACTLY why SMFA monitoring being turned back on is a good thing.

SMFA monitoring WILL spot them.


Just because 2 people won't be doing them AGAIN doesn't mean other won't/aren't doing them.

And if SMFA monitoring was never turned off, those deals never would have happened in the first place.

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

Wilberto wrote: »

Fair point, but now it's made. There really isn't much to add to that anyway is there? (Genuine Question. )

Well if we were all only allowed make one specific point, Boards would be a quiet place. Boards as a whole is for discussion, discussion here didn't happen, we were told we could discuss one thing then some complained and we were allowed discuss a little more, then a little more... And then told that's enough, you've made your point even though I haven't

I know this is a game but you have to see that this thread has been a shambles

This is going in circles

Hercule Poirot

No, leave it off.

Seaneh wrote: »

Two transfers I feel is an obvious example of taking advantage of the monitoring being off that were pretty recent were between the same two clubs.

The first one is Wolfsburg paying Cruzerio 5million + Ricardo Rodriguez in exchange for a pretty much unknown 88 rated nobody from Brazil.

And then a few weeks later, sold Gabriel Paletta to the same club for 6.7 million, an 80 rated 21 year old and an 80 rated 19 year old.

Isolated they might look like simply bad business, but together it looks like someone selling two of his best players for nothing in return to a someone while refusing better bids on both players from other people...

I don't know if it's dodgyness or just coincidence but the ability to have SMFA look at it would be nice.

Never mind cross world transfers - I'd prefer it if the two managers involved in the above transfers came on here and explained themselves

Wilberto

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Well if we were all only allowed make one specific point, Boards would be a quiet place. Boards as a whole is for discussion, discussion here didn't happen, we were told we could discuss one thing then some complained and we were allowed discuss a little more, then a little more... And then told that's enough, you've made your point even though I haven't

I know this is a game but you have to see that this thread has been a shambles

This is going in circles

Okay. I'll move the thread up to Defcon One - Maximum state of readiness.
Everything is on the table (apart from the obvious duplicate accounts - that is always and forever off the table) on the proviso that the debate remains civilised.

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

Good ladeen.

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

Better late than never, thanks Wilberto, I know I'm a pain

Dodgy deals, people selling players for pennies and leaving clubs, cross world transfers, etc. These are the reasons monitoring should be on.

The lads involved in the cross world transfers have admitted they were wrong and apologised, fair enough. The problem is that monitoring being off leaves a huge gapping hole for people to cheat and act the mick with no repercussions.

Tomorrow I could sell 3 top players to Seaneh for pennies, 3 to Tupac another 3 to Ger and leave the game. Leaving Bayern a carcass of the beautiful (:p ) team it once was. Is that fair? No its not, can you stop me from doing it with monitoring off? No you can't.

I realise that monitoring off means some deals can go through that otherwise wouldn't but, IMO, the case of having it on far outweighs the case for having it off.

Another example is I could be getting Messi in another gameworld at cost price in exchange for giving a few good players here for pennies, is that fair? Nope, can you stop me with monitoring off? Nope

I don't know about others but I use chat a good bit in SM and atleast once or twice a week questionable deals are talked about, I doubt I'm the only one. Wouldn't it be better to have these investigated? So we know for sure they were legit or reversed if there was a problem

Also I do feel for managers who had legit deals reversed but no system is perfect and we have to take the good with the bad

I've always felt strongly with regards to this rule in particular, the main reason being, I hate nothing more than cheating and people taking advantage of a bad situation

KERSPLAT! For president!!!!

That is all

Wilberto

I guess it's about trust. Do enough people trust each and every one of their fellow managers to behave responsibly and not act in a way that brings the game into disrepute (I always wanted to use that phrase :P) while the rule is off? It does only take one bad egg to spoil an omelette.

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

Wilberto wrote: »

I guess it's about trust. Do enough people trust each and every one of their fellow managers to behave responsibly and not act in a way that brings the game into disrepute (I always wanted to use that phrase :P) while the rule is off? It does only take one bad egg to spoil an omelette.

That's the problem. It's an indisputable fact that people WILL cheat if they think they can get away with it.

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

Wilberto wrote: »

I guess it's about trust. Do enough people trust each and every one of their fellow managers to behave responsibly and not act in a way that brings the game into disrepute (I always wanted to use that phrase :P) while the rule is off? It does only take one bad egg to spoil an omelette.

I would trust most/a good few, but not all hence the need for monitoring. I trust people I interact with, it's hard to trust anyone you don't know and in all honesty, this is the internet, we're all anonymous for the most part

And before anyone asks, I won't mention any names

hufpc8w3adnk65

No, leave it off.

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Better late than never, thanks Wilberto, I know I'm a pain

Dodgy deals, people selling players for pennies and leaving clubs, cross world transfers, etc. These are the reasons monitoring should be on.

The lads involved in the cross world transfers have admitted they were wrong and apologised, fair enough. The problem is that monitoring being off leaves a huge gapping hole for people to cheat and act the mick with no repercussions.

Tomorrow I could sell 3 top players to Seaneh for pennies, 3 to Tupac another 3 to Ger and leave the game. Leaving Bayern a carcass of the beautiful (:p ) team it once was. Is that fair? No its not, can you stop me from doing it with monitoring off? No you can't.

I realise that monitoring off means some deals can go through that otherwise wouldn't but, IMO, the case of having it on far outweighs the case for having it off.

Another example is I could be getting Messi in another gameworld at cost price in exchange for giving a few good players here for pennies, is that fair? Nope, can you stop me with monitoring off? Nope

I don't know about others but I use chat a good bit in SM and atleast once or twice a week questionable deals are talked about, I doubt I'm the only one. Wouldn't it be better to have these investigated? So we know for sure they were legit or reversed if there was a problem

Also I do feel for managers who had legit deals reversed but no system is perfect and we have to take the good with the bad

I've always felt strongly with regards to this rule in particular, the main reason being, I hate nothing more than cheating and people taking advantage of a bad situation

KERSPLAT! For president!!!!

That is all

That lads is how you make a point! No wild accusations just good honest points! P.s I agree with the above and will be voting it back on

Maldjd23

This whole thread reminds me of the time some lad bought Andrea Dossena off me and the deal was reversed...It was probably the buying manager who reported it!!

Iago

Seaneh wrote: »

That's the problem. It's an indisputable fact that people WILL cheat if they think they can get away with it.

It's also an indisputable fact that people will be petty and report for the sake of doing it.

Frankly, I don't think I, you, or anybody else is in a position to say that a deal is unfair or too heavily weighted in another teams favor. If two managers are willing to do a deal, then leave them to it imo. No different to real life, sometimes managers/clubs make a mistake, cest la vie.

Monitoring disrupts the game and makes it far more difficult for smaller clubs to expand and develop their squad. If the price to be paid for that is occasionally somebody taking advantage and cheating, then so be it.

I firmly believe that cheating <<< people being petty and vindictive and reporting deals & monitoring blocking mutli-part deals that two managers are happy with.

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

I think it's a sad indication of the short sightedness of some of the game world players that there have been some brilliant examples of why monitoring needs to be on and so few people have bothered to vote, and even sadder that of those who have voted, 13 have voted to leave it off.

Mr Blobby

Seaneh wrote: »

I think it's a sad indication of the short sightedness of some of the game world players that there have been some brilliant examples of why monitoring needs to be on and so few people have bothered to vote, and even sadder that of those who have voted, 13 have voted to leave it off.

Well obviously those examples can't be that great since it hasn't convinced everyone to turn it back on.

Seaneh

No, leave it off.

I think the problem is a lot of people, in fact most of the "no" camp, voted before we were actually allowed to give examples. It means the vote was never going to have a fair crack.

The two transfers between wolfsberg and cruzerio, the fact that we know people have abused it in the pass, the fact that we know it's human nature to bend the rules if you think you'll get away with it and then several other transfers which would never pass (and rightly so) with monitoring on.

I honestly can't see how leaving it off is a good thing.

KERSPLAT! essay really is an airtight argument and nobody has said anything to dispute it, if the poll was reset I'm 100% certain the %'s would be different now.

Iago

Seaneh wrote: »

I think it's a sad indication of the short sightedness of some of the game world players that there have been some brilliant examples of why monitoring needs to be on and so few people have bothered to vote, and even sadder that of those who have voted, 13 have voted to leave it off.

Seaneh wrote: »

I think the problem is a lot of people, in fact most of the "no" camp, voted before we were actually allowed to give examples. It means the vote was never going to have a fair crack.

The two transfers between wolfsberg and cruzerio, the fact that we know people have abused it in the pass, the fact that we know it's human nature to bend the rules if you think you'll get away with it and then several other transfers which would never pass (and rightly so) with monitoring on.

I honestly can't see how leaving it off is a good thing.

KERSPLAT! essay really is an airtight argument and nobody has said anything to dispute it, if the poll was reset I'm 100% certain the %'s would be different now.

Or just maybe, you're in the minority.

This is the second time there has been a vote on it, and so far at least, it's the second time people have voted to leave it off.

It's got nothing to do with short-sightedness and everything to do with the fact that the positives of leaving it off outweigh the negatives. It's really that simple imo.