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

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

I definitely think the way the thread was set up left us with an uphill battle but sure thems the breaks, if it's to be left off then fair enough, that's what the majority want

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

And just to clarify, the PM was

***For Boards . ie Gameworld***

If ye get a chance please jump on boards and cast your vote in the monitoring and buying from unmanaged clubs threads, cheers

So I didn't try to sway anyone either way

ctrl-alt-delete

No, leave it off.

I voted to turn it back on.

Yes there are positives to both sides, but i would be more confident with the SMFA monitoring deals. The system might not be 100%, but sure we all know the game has it's faults.

People have lost out with it before, but there are ways to address some of those issues.

I think it is a shame that we could not talk about issues and use examples from the start of this thread, even though i don't think it would have changed any of the votes so far.

There is a deal that I would have liked to highlight, however i am not going to risk a siteban bringing it up seems as though this seems to be the way things have gone.

We cannot be sure anybody is cheating, but by the same stretch we cannot be sure anybody is not cheating. Just like the way we decide on how vacant positions are filled, I think it is best that we have a system in place that is transparent, consistent and above all that is taken out of our hands.

I would not be 100% confident that issues that were discussed and admitted to before have not taken place since then. It will always be the minority that flaunt the rules and I believe that SMFA monitoring will benefit the majority in that regard.

Below is what Soccermanager say about SMFA monitoring.

Soccermanager wrote:

Responsibility of the SMFA

In Soccer Manager there are strict rules regarding cheating in the form of the Code of Conduct, and this forms part of the Terms of Use. However, just because we have rules regarding this issue, we can not force everyone to follow them, and there is a minority who flaunt the rules. Due to this it gives the minority an unfair advantage over everyone else. This does not mean that we give up on them, as eventually they are found out, and action is taken against their account.

However, due to this minority we take a tougher stance against in-game cheating. It is the responsibility of the SMFA to block suspicious and/or dubious transfers (they do this very effectively using our sophisticated Automated Transfer Monitoring System (ATMS)), prevent match fixing and to penalise violators of the rules.

If you believe a manager within your Game World is cheating then you need to report them to the SMFA:

To report a transfer that is suspicious and/or dubious go to All Transfers within Transfer Market and click on the Illegal link.
To report Match Fixing go to the Match Report you believe was fixed and click on the Report Match Fixing link.
To report a manager who you believe to be using multiple accounts you need to click the report Multiple Accounts link within Club List.

The SMFA will investigate the report and take the appropriate action if necessary if there is clear evidence that the offending manager has broke the Code of Conduct which forms part of the Terms of Use.

Soccermanager wrote:

Transfers

The SMFA will block any transfer that they deem unusual or dubious. Their decision is aided by our Automated Transfer Monitoring System (ATMS) and is not personal or a judgement on you. The deal could have been blocked for a variety of reasons such as not being fair, too heavily weighted towards one club or issues with one or more of the managers accounts. If you feel the deal is fair and there are no issues with your account then the problem may be with the other managers account which the SMFA cannot discuss.

The ATMS 'learns' over time about managers and how fairly they are playing the game. Managers that continually break the rules will find it harder and harder to deal with other managers and more and more of their transfers will be blocked.

If the SMFA have blocked you from conducting transfers with another manager, they will not reverse their decision and it is advisable to look elsewhere to conduct your transfers.

The SMFA can reverse a transfer at any time if they deem it to be unusual or dubious. Their decision is aided by our Automated Transfer Monitoring System (ATMS) and is not personal or a judgement on you. The deal could have been reversed for a variety of reasons such as not being fair, too heavily weighted towards one club or issues with one or more of the managers accounts. If you feel the deal was fair and there are no issues with your account then the problem may be with the other managers account which the SMFA cannot discuss.

I am not going to go into a debate about this and apologise to anyone in advance that may ask me questions and quote me. I just wanted to point out why i voted to turn it back on, and to add what the soccermanager site says on the matter.

The reason for this being that I don't want to waste time on a detailed debate that might drag me to a point where i will receive infractions or bans.

Iago

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

The deck was stacked, we weren't allowed discuss certain topics, then days and many votes in we are allowed...

I didn't PM everyone, I sent 2 global messages in each of my game worlds. There are probably still some in the Boards league who haven't got a PM or know about the votes

As for the 3 unknowns, I apolagise. I was told about the URL account and brought it straight to the table, I should have looked closer.

As for being on a one man crusade, others have spoken out too. I just do it more often.

As I said earlier, I've no problem with managers getting a message. We're all in the same league and we should all have the opportunity to have our say.

I also agree that there should have been more transparency around the vote, all topics should have been up for discussion from the get go. I don't quite understand why they weren't to be honest, but there you go.

I accept that the account thing was an oversight, but I do think it points to a desire to find something, anything, to turn the vote around. Maybe that's because of the aforementioned lack of transparency, I don't know. Only you know for sure.

I still firmly believe that the level of cheating in a GW like this where we are all members of the same forum will be minimal. I also believe that the game is set up in such a way to reduce the chances of it, three of the key elements of which are;

- players have a minimum value set by the system
- all deals are public once completed
- only 3 deals per season between two clubs

Furthermore I think monitoring adversely affects the gameworld because of three reasons

- It stops people from doing deals that two managers are comfortable with involving more than 2/3 players. I don't think that's a good thing and I think it will strangle the market even more.

- As reporting can be done anonymously with no consequences people will report maliciously. This may or may not result in action being taken such as a transfer being cancelled, but over time it will cause bad blood & I believe that it will be abused far more than the cheating that non-monitoring provides an opportunity for.

- Thirdly the impact of the second point above could be that some managers are banned forever more from doing deals with each other even when they are innocent of any wrongdoing.

In short both the opportunity for strangling the market & the potential for long term unintended and unfair consequences is far higher with monitoring turned on than it is with monitoring turned off.

ctrl-alt-delete

No, leave it off.

I think the above it correct at time of posting :pac:

It is tough going this.

Wilberto

I've just moved the last two pages of posts to here. If your post(s) were moved from this thread, I don't mean any offence, but I felt the thread was hugely off rails, and wanted to bring it back to which it was first intended - a debate.


As for the rules, I propose that :

1) Any manager who is currently managing a team is allowed to vote. Why complicate things? We must presume newer managers are going to stay around for the foreseeable future and, as a result, they are entitled to their say regarding the direction of this league.

2) Managers who had access to their Boards account at the time the poll was started are allowed to vote, provided their vote was cast prior to their access being withdrawn.

unkymo

No, leave it off.

Everton manager here. Voted to leave it on the first time and am voting to turn it back on this time.

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

On the phone, can someone do a quick count. Think it's 13-10?

Al Capwned

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

On the phone, can someone do a quick count. Think it's 13-10?

This is the state at the minute.

pepper180

Al Capwned wrote: »

This is the state at the minute.

Yeah but a lot of them votes are void!

GT_TDI_150

I reckon they should have had SMFA monitoring on at the WC tonight ... I'd report a result like that as possible cheating

irishgoldberg

No, leave it off.

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

I reckon they should have had SMFA monitoring on at the WC tonight ... I'd report a result like that as possible cheating

at the moment its 14/14 right?

Its a tough one to call, I don't think many legit transfers got reversed when it was on and at the moment the game is going thru a big change of managers leaving - I think we are at the lowest ever number at the moment with 17 clubs unmanaged. My vote???









Turn it back on for one season and see how it goes.

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

I wouldn't even mind another vote at the end of next season

irishgoldberg

No, leave it off.

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I wouldn't even mind another vote at the end of next season

ok heres an idea.... how about we set up a poll to see if people want to vote on another vote about voting for next season?????

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

irishgoldberg wrote: »

ok heres an idea.... how about we set up a poll to see if people want to vote on another vote about voting for next season?????

Pollception :cool:

GT_TDI_150

irishgoldberg wrote: »

at the moment its 14/14 right?

Its a tough one to call, I don't think many legit transfers got reversed when it was on and at the moment the game is going thru a big change of managers leaving - I think we are at the lowest ever number at the moment with 17 clubs unmanaged. My vote???









Turn it back on for one season and see how it goes.

there are some dudd votes in the current list

TheGunns

The one transfer that was reversed which ultimately made the decision for me was some transfer GT had, although the Rodriguez transfer has me going the other way. Decided that it's much worse getting left in the lurch (you sell based on a buy and that buy gets reversed and then you're stumped) then missing out on players from dodgy deals.

Hope that makes sense

Myrddin

If the poll stats are void, you guys might be better able to keep track of things by using a table, something like:

Vote |On |Off
User 1| X|
User 2| |X|
User 3| X


I got that by using the below (I replaced an E with 3 in the [/TABLE] tag so it wouldn't build a table from it, in order to show how it's done)

Vote |On |Off
User 1| X|
User 2| |X|
User 3| X
[/TABL3]

GT_TDI_150

See ...
I told ye a table would sort this out

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

I think the poll is fine, the votes just need to be verified same as any other vote

tupac_healy

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I think the poll is fine, the votes just need to be verified same as any other vote

Totally agree, just leave it run its course and when the poll closes just disqualify the irrelevant votes.... Simples

ahnowbrowncow

No, leave it off.

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

there are some dudd votes in the current list

Hey, my vote is no dud. Please withdraw and apologise for the use of such unparliamentary language.

Myrddin

tupac_healy wrote: »

Totally agree, just leave it run its course and when the poll closes just disqualify the irrelevant votes.... Simples

A table simply makes it easier to keep track of, you wouldn't be casting the poll aside or anything...I just thought with certain votes that aren't valid you could run the table in conjunction with the poll for a true indication. But whatever works for you guys Totting it up at the end works just the same

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

You thinking of joining us Myrddin?

Myrddin

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

You thinking of joining us Myrddin?

It'd be like asking Wayne Rooney to write a thesis on quantum physics....ha, I wouldn't have a clue

KERSPLAT!

No, leave it off.

Myrddin wrote: »

It'd be like asking Wayne Rooney to write a thesis on quantum physics....ha, I wouldn't have a clue

Ah it's easier than that, not by much but definitely easier