Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Ballbright

Originally posted by

* BillyVassi blew up the team for the purpose of releasing all the players to free them up for the trade
That was his stated intention per the first thread.

No, what he said was he gutted the team to fre them up for trades to other teams, teams with active owners. He did not say he blew up the team to allow for this one, particular trade.Originally posted by
Originally posted by
But that's not worth sanctioning, suspending or banning anyone.

Violating the rules, as was done, is worth punishing as per the terms of service. should we let one person get away with it (because he supposedly only did it once)..what about the next guy? Is it fair to punish him after letting the first guy off?

There are a reason rules are in place. Otherwise everyone would just cheat.

And if it is collusion, by all means, deal with it, and deal with it harshly and publicly to discourage everyone else on the site from taking part in it. (Besides, who doesn't love a public execution?) Nothing would kill this site faster than people being driven away because of the cheating of others. But if it *ISN'T* collusion, which I believe to be the case on the limited information I have picked up from this thread, then nothing should happen. And no matter how adamantly you state that it did happen, it's still up to debate. Not faulting you for taking a strong view on one side of the matter, but others can and do disagree, and it doesn't make them dullards, sheep, or suckers.

Originally posted by Ballbright

No, I'm not. By your own admission, YOU contacted Catspaw about the player in question. It's against the rules.

In the original thread, I had stated that what you had done to Spinner's team wasn't right, but not punishable as it was within the rules "..unless you had traded a player or players to a team you were on..." WHICH YOU DID!!!!!!!

As per the rules it IS collusion, you DID violate the rules, and you DO deserve to be punished for it.

Where is the rule that you can't trade someone to a team that you're on? Owners trade their guys to their own team all the time.

You have 4 guys on your own team.

And 2 guys on another team. If those 2 someday end up on a team you're on, I guess you will need to be punished?

Originally posted by billyvassi
Originally posted by atm490

Full disclosure about who I am because apparently that drastically affects how posts are read around here: For the past THREE days I have been on the Bandits team. At this point, I have no real emotional attachment to the players or owners, or even the team, other than that I took about an hour to create my avatar. I also have a player on a BBB team that started at the end of Season 1.
---

About 3 days ago, just about when all this was happening, I noticed a post by CatsPaw in the "teams looking for players" forum, stating that he was looking for a back-up WR, TE, or CB.

I PMed him and told him that I had extra Flex, that I wanted to create a player, and that I could create any of those players. He asked me to come up with a big tight end to sign. Sure enough, after I created my guy, Cats signed him.

Let me just ask this: If CatsPaw and the Bandits are so guilty of collusion, then wouldn't they do something to get a tight end that was better than level 1? Look at the depth chart... "Paul Orndorff"... level 1 third-string tight end, I think 5th string-wide receiver on rare occassions.

I really, REALLY believe that if Catspaw and BillyVassi were colluding to make the Bandits a better team, they would've taken someone even mediocre at that spot. Instead, I'm there, because Cats told me in our conversations that he thought I was a good guy to have around.

I don't agree with what Billy did at the trading deadline, but I understand it. I also think the Bandits had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with it.

Just my two cents.

That team had a level 15 TE, too. If we were colluding he would've gotten that guy instead of signing a random low level guy from the forum.



No, the two are unrelated. What we're discussing here are actions committed, not would've/could've/should'ves.

What you DID do was contact the GM of a team you were on and offer a high level player of need for an inactive player. You colluded by stripping Spinner's team of a resource (without permission), and bettering a team you were on...

Originally posted by billyvassi
Originally posted by Ballbright


No, I'm not. By your own admission, YOU contacted Catspaw about the player in question. It's against the rules.

In the original thread, I had stated that what you had done to Spinner's team wasn't right, but not punishable as it was within the rules "..unless you had traded a player or players to a team you were on..." WHICH YOU DID!!!!!!!

As per the rules it IS collusion, you DID violate the rules, and you DO deserve to be punished for it.

Where is the rule that you can't trade someone to a team that you're on? Owners trade their guys to their own team all the time.

You have 4 guys on your own team.

And 2 guys on another team. If those 2 someday end up on a team you're on, I guess you will need to be punished?


No, those players are staying put. And if I happen to play the other team someday (Canberra Strike) with my team, as per an agreement with Canberra's owner I will be locked out of the Canberra forums for that week so I can't peek at tactics.

Nice try though...keep trying to deflect attention away from what you've done...

Originally posted by Ballbright
Originally posted by billyvassi

Originally posted by atm490


Full disclosure about who I am because apparently that drastically affects how posts are read around here: For the past THREE days I have been on the Bandits team. At this point, I have no real emotional attachment to the players or owners, or even the team, other than that I took about an hour to create my avatar. I also have a player on a BBB team that started at the end of Season 1.
---

About 3 days ago, just about when all this was happening, I noticed a post by CatsPaw in the "teams looking for players" forum, stating that he was looking for a back-up WR, TE, or CB.

I PMed him and told him that I had extra Flex, that I wanted to create a player, and that I could create any of those players. He asked me to come up with a big tight end to sign. Sure enough, after I created my guy, Cats signed him.

Let me just ask this: If CatsPaw and the Bandits are so guilty of collusion, then wouldn't they do something to get a tight end that was better than level 1? Look at the depth chart... "Paul Orndorff"... level 1 third-string tight end, I think 5th string-wide receiver on rare occassions.

I really, REALLY believe that if Catspaw and BillyVassi were colluding to make the Bandits a better team, they would've taken someone even mediocre at that spot. Instead, I'm there, because Cats told me in our conversations that he thought I was a good guy to have around.

I don't agree with what Billy did at the trading deadline, but I understand it. I also think the Bandits had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with it.

Just my two cents.

That team had a level 15 TE, too. If we were colluding he would've gotten that guy instead of signing a random low level guy from the forum.



No, the two are unrelated. What we're discussing here are actions committed, not would've/could've/should'ves.

What you DID do was contact the GM of a team you were on and offer a high level player of need for an inactive player. You colluded by stripping Spinner's team of a resource (without permission), and bettering a team you were on...



Forgive me for being a lawyer and all, but that's not entirely true. In order to prove collusion you'd need show that the parties involved INTENDED to collude. My post, about how they signed a Level 1 TE when they could've easily had a Level 15 TE, goes against intent. My assertion is that it makes it more likely that nothing that the Bandits did was calculated, and therefore, they are innocent.

Originally posted by billyvassi
Originally posted by Ballbright


No, I'm not. By your own admission, YOU contacted Catspaw about the player in question. It's against the rules.

In the original thread, I had stated that what you had done to Spinner's team wasn't right, but not punishable as it was within the rules "..unless you had traded a player or players to a team you were on..." WHICH YOU DID!!!!!!!

As per the rules it IS collusion, you DID violate the rules, and you DO deserve to be punished for it.

Where is the rule that you can't trade someone to a team that you're on? Owners trade their guys to their own team all the time.

You have 4 guys on your own team.

And 2 guys on another team. If those 2 someday end up on a team you're on, I guess you will need to be punished?


They don't trade guys to the teams they're on - they trade for guys onto their teams - a big difference.

I had a player on another team that I was GM of for a while. I made some trades with that team, but I never accepted or created a deal from the other team's perspective. I left that up to the owner of that team, not me. Doing it any other way is impropriety at it's finest...

Originally posted by Ballbright

No, the two are unrelated. What we're discussing here are actions committed, not would've/could've/should'ves.

What you DID do was contact the GM of a team you were on and offer a high level player of need for an inactive player. You colluded by stripping Spinner's team of a resource (without permission), and bettering a team you were on...



#1, I had permission. He made me GM with the express purpose of controlling ALL of the team's players, because he was inactive with the team. It was not required that I consult him before I made roster moves. The one times I DID ask him about a roster move (long ago) he said I didn't need to.

#2 You keep saying "high level player" for some reason (I'd guess to play on gut reactions to make the point you want to), when it is a 4th string player that is not high level at all for our league.

Originally posted by atm490
Forgive me for being a lawyer and all, but that's not entirely true. In order to prove collusion you'd need show that the parties involved INTENDED to collude. My post, about how they signed a Level 1 TE when they could've easily had a Level 15 TE, goes against intent. My assertion is that it makes it more likely that nothing that the Bandits did was calculated, and therefore, they are innocent.

Forgive me for coming from a family of lawyers, but I must rebutt.

The intent is already proven. Billy decided at some point, whether before or after he decided to fire sale someone else's team, to better the Bandits by offering them an exclusive deal. He didn't offer the other player on the open market (a rather exhausting search of his posts will reveal that). He offered to exclusively better his own team by letting them ship off an inactive player they didn't want to pay for a position of need.

Doing a deal for a starter would have raised much more suspicion than shoring up the real weakness the Bandits have (depth at CB)...well had anyway...but that is conjecture on my part.

God damn, some of you guys take this shit way too serious.

Ive been a GM on the team for awhile, and I heard nothing about any type of weird action going on. We may talk smack and have fun in the forums because, well, its a game, but Catspaw has been nothing but honest all the time I have known the guy.

You guys can think what you want about whatever, cause in the end, nothing is going to change and Im sure ll of us will have moved on from this little game.

Catspaw is a standup guy and nothing malicious was ever done by anybody on th team.

The worst we have done is talk shit about getting Wondertramps sister pregnant, and some of you guys actually seem to get really pissed about what we say. ITS ALL IN FUN

Its just a game people, im sure I meet some of you guys outside of this we would all have a good laugh and some beers.

Originally posted by Ballbright

The intent is already proven. Billy decided at some point, whether before or after he decided to fire sale someone else's team, to better the Bandits by offering them an exclusive deal. He didn't offer the other player on the open market (a rather exhausting search of his posts will reveal that).


The ENTIRE TEAM was on the market. Extensively searching my posts won't show ANY specific player being offered. He was not made exclusive to the Bandits.

Originally posted by billyvassi
#1, I had permission. He made me GM with the express purpose of controlling ALL of the team's players, because he was inactive with the team. It was not required that I consult him before I made roster moves. The one times I DID ask him about a roster move (long ago) he said I didn't need to.

No, you didn't have permission to gut his team, as per Spinner himself in the original thread. He gave you the ability to manage his team in all matters FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE TEAM. Not to strip it down when you (and purportedly others) didn't like the way he was doing his job as an owner.

Originally posted by
#2 You keep saying "high level player" for some reason (I'd guess to play on gut reactions to make the point you want to), when it is a 4th string player that is not high level at all for our league.

It isn't a low level player...I was being specific. The player is above the 50th percentile in levels among players created, thus by definition being a high level player. But it really doesn't matter what "string" he is. The move was illegal.

But by all means keep bringing up irrelevant points in an attempt to deflect away from your collusion. I rather enjoy continually embarrassing you.

Originally posted by Ballbright
Originally posted by atm490

Forgive me for being a lawyer and all, but that's not entirely true. In order to prove collusion you'd need show that the parties involved INTENDED to collude. My post, about how they signed a Level 1 TE when they could've easily had a Level 15 TE, goes against intent. My assertion is that it makes it more likely that nothing that the Bandits did was calculated, and therefore, they are innocent.

Forgive me for coming from a family of lawyers, but I must rebutt.

The intent is already proven. Billy decided at some point, whether before or after he decided to fire sale someone else's team, to better the Bandits by offering them an exclusive deal. He didn't offer the other player on the open market (a rather exhausting search of his posts will reveal that). He offered to exclusively better his own team by letting them ship off an inactive player they didn't want to pay for a position of need.

Doing a deal for a starter would have raised much more suspicion than shoring up the real weakness the Bandits have (depth at CB)...well had anyway...but that is conjecture on my part.



Well... I guess you're halfway there. You can prove the intent of Billy all you want. You can say that Billy wanted to make the Bandits better. But collusion, 'by definition' as you so commonly say, requires two or more parties to be involved. At some point, you'd need to prove that the owner of the Bandits also intended to Collude, otherwise, no dice.

At this point, I haven't seen any evidence at all that indicates that Catspaw intended to collude.

Ballbright go back to work or something.

Originally posted by Ballbright

I rather enjoy continually embarrassing you.


I think that right there says a lot. Your motivation isn't "justice," as you are trying to give the impression, it's attacking and embarrassing people for your enjoyment.