Edited by Deathblade on Apr 22, 2012 18:15:23
Forum > Suggestions > Epic Suggestions > Give my dots a "Tactics Sharing Option" just like the "Attributes Sharing Option"
Deathblade
offline
offline
merenoise
offline
offline
Originally posted by Ken1
I'll name myself as a coordinator and former (long ago) owner that has benched players that didn't show their attributes, and would show preference, as a coordinator, for those who showed their tactics over those who didn't.
ITT Ken1 admits he is/was a douchebag owner/coordinator.
Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by merenoise
Starter/backup really doesn't mean anything in GLB though. Every team I have ever had dots on plays their backups as much as their starters so who starts is not really an issue.
For not stupid owners, yeah.
Dumb owners throw all the backups on special teams, which gets them about 15 special team plays and nothing else.
This is true. But dumb owners aren't really retaining good dots for long enough for it to be an issue. If two different agents get signed to a team with an owner like Ken1 and he benches the guy who won't open his build that dot finds a new team after the season is over. He gets full XP and learns a valuable lesson, namely don't associate with guys like Ken1 who think that it is cool for them to make decisions that ruin another users experience.
I'll name myself as a coordinator and former (long ago) owner that has benched players that didn't show their attributes, and would show preference, as a coordinator, for those who showed their tactics over those who didn't.
ITT Ken1 admits he is/was a douchebag owner/coordinator.
Originally posted by Deathblade
Originally posted by merenoise
Starter/backup really doesn't mean anything in GLB though. Every team I have ever had dots on plays their backups as much as their starters so who starts is not really an issue.
For not stupid owners, yeah.
Dumb owners throw all the backups on special teams, which gets them about 15 special team plays and nothing else.
This is true. But dumb owners aren't really retaining good dots for long enough for it to be an issue. If two different agents get signed to a team with an owner like Ken1 and he benches the guy who won't open his build that dot finds a new team after the season is over. He gets full XP and learns a valuable lesson, namely don't associate with guys like Ken1 who think that it is cool for them to make decisions that ruin another users experience.
Ken1
offline
offline
Originally posted by John Hinckley, Jr.
If two different agents get signed to a team with an owner like Ken1 and he benches the guy who won't open his build that dot finds a new team after the season is over. He gets full XP and learns a valuable lesson, namely don't associate with guys like Ken1 who think that it is cool for them to make decisions that ruin another users experience.
I'm so "awful" that I'm asking not to be given that power over tactic sharing. Others are saying they would do the same thing over tactic sharing and are pushing to get the power to do it...and I've managed to argue with them without being 1/10 as insulting as you are to me, and as you aren't (because you aren't stalking them) to those who say they'd do the same thing about tactic sharing and want the power to do it.
ITT: My stalker manages to be a douche by calling me one.
If two different agents get signed to a team with an owner like Ken1 and he benches the guy who won't open his build that dot finds a new team after the season is over. He gets full XP and learns a valuable lesson, namely don't associate with guys like Ken1 who think that it is cool for them to make decisions that ruin another users experience.
I'm so "awful" that I'm asking not to be given that power over tactic sharing. Others are saying they would do the same thing over tactic sharing and are pushing to get the power to do it...and I've managed to argue with them without being 1/10 as insulting as you are to me, and as you aren't (because you aren't stalking them) to those who say they'd do the same thing about tactic sharing and want the power to do it.
ITT: My stalker manages to be a douche by calling me one.
Edited by Ken1 on Apr 22, 2012 22:22:29
jimmiejoe
offline
offline
Originally posted by Ken1
Originally posted by jimmiejoe
I can "understand" your viewpoint, whether I agree is another matter altogether.
I pose this question to you though:
Can you not see where your viewpoint would make many owners think that of instead of being a team player, you are trying to either go against the teams wishes or perhaps stat whore with your player?
Whether or not that is the truth is irrelevant, as perception is part of an owner's view on you as an agent.
And if they do indeed view you as being a "team cancer", then it is fully within their right to bench or cut you. As much as you keep saying you paid money for your player, don't forget that they paid money for their team.
damn typos
The fact that players would be benched or cut as a "team cancer" for their owners' having minds of their own not following orders are exactly why this suggestion must never be implemented. And if everyone has to follow orders of a team owner due to fear of consequences and have no discretion of their own, then what's the point of creating a player?
Still skirting the question Ken, but I am not surprised at this point.... you should be a politician, seriously.
If you don't want the owners to know your tactics, then DON'T SIGN WITH THAT TEAM. Is it that hard for you to understand?
Originally posted by jimmiejoe
I can "understand" your viewpoint, whether I agree is another matter altogether.
I pose this question to you though:
Can you not see where your viewpoint would make many owners think that of instead of being a team player, you are trying to either go against the teams wishes or perhaps stat whore with your player?
Whether or not that is the truth is irrelevant, as perception is part of an owner's view on you as an agent.
And if they do indeed view you as being a "team cancer", then it is fully within their right to bench or cut you. As much as you keep saying you paid money for your player, don't forget that they paid money for their team.
damn typos
The fact that players would be benched or cut as a "team cancer" for their owners' having minds of their own not following orders are exactly why this suggestion must never be implemented. And if everyone has to follow orders of a team owner due to fear of consequences and have no discretion of their own, then what's the point of creating a player?
Still skirting the question Ken, but I am not surprised at this point.... you should be a politician, seriously.
If you don't want the owners to know your tactics, then DON'T SIGN WITH THAT TEAM. Is it that hard for you to understand?
jetsown09
offline
offline
Originally posted by jimmiejoe
Still skirting the question Ken, but I am not surprised at this point.... you should be a politician, seriously.
If you don't want the owners to know your tactics, then DON'T SIGN WITH THAT TEAM. Is it that hard for you to understand?
So he should not sign with a majority of teams?? What team will go out and says "Oh by the way, we demand open tactics" in this already tough recruiting process? How is he possibly going to know if nobody tells him his tactics must be opened until he actually joins the team? Then perhaps you believe he should team hop through 6 different ones in the preseason until he finds the right match.
Still skirting the question Ken, but I am not surprised at this point.... you should be a politician, seriously.
If you don't want the owners to know your tactics, then DON'T SIGN WITH THAT TEAM. Is it that hard for you to understand?
So he should not sign with a majority of teams?? What team will go out and says "Oh by the way, we demand open tactics" in this already tough recruiting process? How is he possibly going to know if nobody tells him his tactics must be opened until he actually joins the team? Then perhaps you believe he should team hop through 6 different ones in the preseason until he finds the right match.
SG✬21
offline
offline
Why do you guys even deal with Ken??
Your wasting his precise time in which he could be making up stats.
Your wasting his precise time in which he could be making up stats.
merenoise
offline
offline
Originally posted by Ken1
Originally posted by John Hinckley, Jr.
If two different agents get signed to a team with an owner like Ken1 and he benches the guy who won't open his build that dot finds a new team after the season is over. He gets full XP and learns a valuable lesson, namely don't associate with guys like Ken1 who think that it is cool for them to make decisions that ruin another users experience.
I'm so "awful" that I'm asking not to be given that power over tactic sharing. Others are saying they would do the same thing over tactic sharing and are pushing to get the power to do it...and I've managed to argue with them without being 1/10 as insulting as you are to me, and as you aren't (because you aren't stalking them) to those who say they'd do the same thing about tactic sharing and want the power to do it.
ITT: My stalker manages to be a douche by calling me one.
I'm not the one who thinks it is okay to bench peoples dots. I've been an owner a long time, had some dudes ask to be cut mid-season, had others not love their role on the team and leave after a season. I just cut them loose and in many cases end up having their dot either come back or have them bring in different dots because I don't try to ruin their experience. Have never gotten in my head that it would be acceptable to do what you said you've done in the past and presumably still think is okay to do from how hard you are fighting against this suggestion.
Originally posted by Ken1
I'll name myself as a coordinator and former (long ago) owner that has benched players that didn't show their attributes, and would show preference, as a coordinator, for those who showed their tactics over those who didn't.
Originally posted by John Hinckley, Jr.
If two different agents get signed to a team with an owner like Ken1 and he benches the guy who won't open his build that dot finds a new team after the season is over. He gets full XP and learns a valuable lesson, namely don't associate with guys like Ken1 who think that it is cool for them to make decisions that ruin another users experience.
I'm so "awful" that I'm asking not to be given that power over tactic sharing. Others are saying they would do the same thing over tactic sharing and are pushing to get the power to do it...and I've managed to argue with them without being 1/10 as insulting as you are to me, and as you aren't (because you aren't stalking them) to those who say they'd do the same thing about tactic sharing and want the power to do it.
ITT: My stalker manages to be a douche by calling me one.
I'm not the one who thinks it is okay to bench peoples dots. I've been an owner a long time, had some dudes ask to be cut mid-season, had others not love their role on the team and leave after a season. I just cut them loose and in many cases end up having their dot either come back or have them bring in different dots because I don't try to ruin their experience. Have never gotten in my head that it would be acceptable to do what you said you've done in the past and presumably still think is okay to do from how hard you are fighting against this suggestion.
Originally posted by Ken1
I'll name myself as a coordinator and former (long ago) owner that has benched players that didn't show their attributes, and would show preference, as a coordinator, for those who showed their tactics over those who didn't.
Ken1
offline
offline
Originally posted by John Hinckley, Jr
Have never gotten in my head that it would be acceptable to do what you said you've done in the past and presumably still think is okay to do from how hard you are fighting against this suggestion.
I don't think it's okay to set things up so as to allow it. That's why I fight the suggestion that would make it happen.
And in the past it never lasted long. I'd let people know why they were benched (NOT rotted), and they'd show their attributes to me.
I don't think it's okay to do what you're doing, to follow me around and troll me at every opportunity. Talk about messing with someone's game experience, and it isn't even to try to help a team win. What you do cannot be justified.
Have never gotten in my head that it would be acceptable to do what you said you've done in the past and presumably still think is okay to do from how hard you are fighting against this suggestion.
I don't think it's okay to set things up so as to allow it. That's why I fight the suggestion that would make it happen.
And in the past it never lasted long. I'd let people know why they were benched (NOT rotted), and they'd show their attributes to me.
I don't think it's okay to do what you're doing, to follow me around and troll me at every opportunity. Talk about messing with someone's game experience, and it isn't even to try to help a team win. What you do cannot be justified.
The Immortal One
offline
offline
Originally posted by Ken1
You're making a huge assumption about how I set my players' tactics, one that whatever relative Rbedgood is didn't make and he certainly thought that my players helped his team, and provided a couple of players to the team I owned at the time in return.
This is a HUGE power grab by owners and coordinators at the expense of player-builders, one that should not be allowed.
No not making any assumptions. I am the DC of my team, and MY DAI is designed for very specific builds and tactics. If one dot is not setting his tactics accordingly than there is a weak link in my D. For the best interest of every other agent on the team I need to make sure I only have team players on my team. I have never had a single agent argue with the settings I have asked for, and I very confident that they all would like any idea that makes it easier to manage the dots on the team.
You're making a huge assumption about how I set my players' tactics, one that whatever relative Rbedgood is didn't make and he certainly thought that my players helped his team, and provided a couple of players to the team I owned at the time in return.
This is a HUGE power grab by owners and coordinators at the expense of player-builders, one that should not be allowed.
No not making any assumptions. I am the DC of my team, and MY DAI is designed for very specific builds and tactics. If one dot is not setting his tactics accordingly than there is a weak link in my D. For the best interest of every other agent on the team I need to make sure I only have team players on my team. I have never had a single agent argue with the settings I have asked for, and I very confident that they all would like any idea that makes it easier to manage the dots on the team.
Guppy, Inc
online
online
Originally posted by bedgood42
No not making any assumptions. I am the DC of my team, and MY DAI is designed for very specific builds and tactics. If one dot is not setting his tactics accordingly than there is a weak link in my D. For the best interest of every other agent on the team I need to make sure I only have team players on my team. I have never had a single agent argue with the settings I have asked for, and I very confident that they all would like any idea that makes it easier to manage the dots on the team.
i dont think people understand that this isnt about good owners making reasonable requests of players. its about the multitude of terrible owners telling players to do stupid things.
No not making any assumptions. I am the DC of my team, and MY DAI is designed for very specific builds and tactics. If one dot is not setting his tactics accordingly than there is a weak link in my D. For the best interest of every other agent on the team I need to make sure I only have team players on my team. I have never had a single agent argue with the settings I have asked for, and I very confident that they all would like any idea that makes it easier to manage the dots on the team.
i dont think people understand that this isnt about good owners making reasonable requests of players. its about the multitude of terrible owners telling players to do stupid things.
merenoise
offline
offline
Originally posted by Ken1
I don't think it's okay to do what you're doing, to follow me around and troll me at every opportunity. Talk about messing with someone's game experience, and it isn't even to try to help a team win. What you do cannot be justified.
You followed me into this thread (I first posted on page two), said something ridiculous, were corrected and then insisted on repeating that ridiculous thing over and over. Several people countered your position and you essentially dug in with the same nonsense you had been saying (owners are all bad people who will rot dots for trivial reasons). You seem to do it in every suggestions thread I post in. You've posted the same thing over and over 11 times in the last 5 pages. There are other people in the thread who don't like the idea but yet manage to not spam it.
Then you finally said something so egregious that I finally snapped and called you on it. If I sign a dot and he decides to close his build benching him would make me a terrible owner. I actually have a dot on one of my teams with a closed build, he belongs to an agent I have known for a while and no one is giving him a hard time for closing his build. He plays exactly as much as the other HB on the team. To do anything less would make me a bad owner.
In the 4 years I've been on GLB I have played for exactly 1 bad owner for exactly 1 season. Bad owners are a small minority and not a widespread phenomenon like you've put forth in this suggestion. The vast majority of owners would never bench a dot for closing his build or for closing his tactics if this suggestion gets implemented.
I don't think it's okay to do what you're doing, to follow me around and troll me at every opportunity. Talk about messing with someone's game experience, and it isn't even to try to help a team win. What you do cannot be justified.
You followed me into this thread (I first posted on page two), said something ridiculous, were corrected and then insisted on repeating that ridiculous thing over and over. Several people countered your position and you essentially dug in with the same nonsense you had been saying (owners are all bad people who will rot dots for trivial reasons). You seem to do it in every suggestions thread I post in. You've posted the same thing over and over 11 times in the last 5 pages. There are other people in the thread who don't like the idea but yet manage to not spam it.
Then you finally said something so egregious that I finally snapped and called you on it. If I sign a dot and he decides to close his build benching him would make me a terrible owner. I actually have a dot on one of my teams with a closed build, he belongs to an agent I have known for a while and no one is giving him a hard time for closing his build. He plays exactly as much as the other HB on the team. To do anything less would make me a bad owner.
In the 4 years I've been on GLB I have played for exactly 1 bad owner for exactly 1 season. Bad owners are a small minority and not a widespread phenomenon like you've put forth in this suggestion. The vast majority of owners would never bench a dot for closing his build or for closing his tactics if this suggestion gets implemented.
Ken1
offline
offline
Originally posted by merenoise
You followed me into this thread (I first posted on page two), said something ridiculous, were corrected and then insisted on repeating that ridiculous thing over and over.
First, I don't follow you into threads. You post in almost every thread in Suggestions, so you can't accuse me of "following you in." What's specific is that you attacked me. I didn't attack you until you did. I practically (maybe literally) never attack first. For the most part (you're a little slow, so that doesn't mean every single time) I don't respond directly to you until/unless you respond directly to me. And you, unlike others, don't respond to me when you do without a personal attack.
The supposedly "ridiculous thing" I was posting (that there would be retribution for hiding tactics) was confirmed later by owners admitting they'd bench or cut players who refused to show their tactics if this idea were implemented. It was in response to the ridiculous thing being posted over and over by an advocate of the suggestion of "No one has named names" (of owners who would seek retribution if someone refused to open his tactics).
You followed me into this thread (I first posted on page two), said something ridiculous, were corrected and then insisted on repeating that ridiculous thing over and over.
First, I don't follow you into threads. You post in almost every thread in Suggestions, so you can't accuse me of "following you in." What's specific is that you attacked me. I didn't attack you until you did. I practically (maybe literally) never attack first. For the most part (you're a little slow, so that doesn't mean every single time) I don't respond directly to you until/unless you respond directly to me. And you, unlike others, don't respond to me when you do without a personal attack.
The supposedly "ridiculous thing" I was posting (that there would be retribution for hiding tactics) was confirmed later by owners admitting they'd bench or cut players who refused to show their tactics if this idea were implemented. It was in response to the ridiculous thing being posted over and over by an advocate of the suggestion of "No one has named names" (of owners who would seek retribution if someone refused to open his tactics).
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
