Warrior General Games

My only comment,

I don't think you can really call it collusion as they would've gutted the team of the best players to go to the Bandits. That didn't happen.

Although, I definitely say it's a conflict of interest on Catspaw/Billy as the Player/GM shouldn't be making moves like that. I fail to imagine that somewhere in some league there isn't a CB who is comparable and doesn't have ANY links to the Bandits. I would HOPE that GLB can come up with a way to limit player transfer when you have a situation like this. In my opinion this sort of thing brings down the integrity and reputation of our league.

Originally posted by flesh_gordon
My only comment,

I don't think you can really call it collusion as they would've gutted the team of the best players to go to the Bandits. That didn't happen.

Heres a nice time for a fun analogy.

My friend goes to the bathroom and leaves his wallot on the table im sitting at. I take a look inside, and there's $100. I take only $5. Does that mean I'm not stealing? Also, if I took $75 he would notice when he got back and I would suffer the consequences. This situation can be similar in one of the two ways I mentioned, if you dont understand my analogy let me know so I can explain.

Just drop it, guys. Even if they were colluding, do the rules even say that you can't? It's just not a big deal, really. Everyone should seriously just drop it and get on with things.

I guess you could say that collusion IS a conflict of interests...

I'm not condoning the behaviour. I think it's morally wrong and goes against fair play. Maybe the team should get fined?

I'm just hoping we don't see this happen again.

If anyone has a reason to gripe, it's me. I'm a GM and I have 3 starters on the team directly below the Bandits in the standings, and we're playing them tomorrow. If this was a big deal, then I'd have every reason to be up in arms over it. So why am I not? Because this crap doesn't matter. There are so many ways to get an advantage in this game that it's retarded to pick this one and try to turn it into a shitstorm. If your owner/GMs aren't doing the same types of stuff to field the best team possible, then you need new GMs.

Okay, so heres the deal! Yes I know joe, and Im on one of his teams. I also know him from another gaming site and have known him to be nothing but honest and straight forward in the forums or how he has handled his teams. I cannot say for sure what happened in the whole "billygate" dealings, but from what I have read about in these posts is that catspaw was very quick in pulling the plug on joemalaka in their team forum and kicking him down to special teams. There was no mention from joemalaka about sabotaging the team as badkarma has indicated. What joemalaka said was that he was not going to continue putting money training into a player that the coach will not use effectively. Thats not sabotage, that is his right to do with his player as he so chooses. That in no way affects the team, especially since the player is parked on the bench. Catspaw was quick on the decision to ban joemalaka from the forums when he did nothing more than post some links about another player on the team. Joe stated that the team was very open about discussions and suggestions in their forums, so he did what he thought was right. There were people questioning the integrity of another player on his team and he thought it was right to let other teammates know about it. How is that wrong? Im not a big forum troll myself and only venture out occassionally, so it would be useful to me for another teammate to bring this sort of information to light for me in our team forums. What basis did catspaw have for banning him? Because he thought he would run out and tell everyone their gameplan? Why would he do that, did he show any type of aggression or anger towards the team to warrant such an immediate decision? Without even taking into consideration the whole trading incident, the acts that make you look guilty as sin are your actions against a player who was looking out for the team! He was trying to help the team with his post about what was being stated in other forums about the actions of billyvassi, and he gets banned for it...pretty ironic! Maybe he came off a bit harsh after being banned, but really after all that who could blame him? I would have some choice words for an owner that banned me for trying to keep him up to date and aware of his players and what was being said about the team in the forums. Heres another question for you, what are you going to do with joemalaka now? Its obvious you have painted him a "traitor" of sorts, although I believe you're incorrect in that assumption. So are you going to be honorable enough to trade him to a team of his choosing, cut him at the end of the season, or just let him sit there and vegetate?
These are just my opinions, everybodys got one!

Originally posted by BradyFTW
Just drop it, guys. Even if they were colluding, do the rules even say that you can't? It's just not a big deal, really. Everyone should seriously just drop it and get on with things.

Yes, the rules say you can't. You're an owner and you don't know that???

Gutting a colluding are two of the biggest problems in GLB. There are countless threads with suggestions, ideas, fixes and complaints about it.

It is a serious problem, as dishonesty, like what occurred here, make the game no fun for everyone else.

Originally posted by BradyFTW
If anyone has a reason to gripe, it's me. I'm a GM and I have 3 starters on the team directly below the Bandits in the standings, and we're playing them tomorrow. If this was a big deal, then I'd have every reason to be up in arms over it. So why am I not? Because this crap doesn't matter. There are so many ways to get an advantage in this game that it's retarded to pick this one and try to turn it into a shitstorm. If your owner/GMs aren't doing the same types of stuff to field the best team possible, then you need new GMs.

The guy who doesn't know colluding is illegal is telling me I need a new GM because I don't allow illegal behavior...? It appears the Bandits aren't the only team losing my respect today...

Originally posted by Ballbright
Originally posted by BradyFTW

If anyone has a reason to gripe, it's me. I'm a GM and I have 3 starters on the team directly below the Bandits in the standings, and we're playing them tomorrow. If this was a big deal, then I'd have every reason to be up in arms over it. So why am I not? Because this crap doesn't matter. There are so many ways to get an advantage in this game that it's retarded to pick this one and try to turn it into a shitstorm. If your owner/GMs aren't doing the same types of stuff to field the best team possible, then you need new GMs.

The guy who doesn't know colluding is illegal is telling me I need a new GM because I don't allow illegal behavior...? It appears the Bandits aren't the only team losing my respect today...

Intarnet foosball iz serius bizness

Originally posted by bigpimpin123


Heres a nice time for a fun analogy.

My friend goes to the bathroom and leaves his wallot on the table im sitting at. I take a look inside, and there's $100. I take only $5. Does that mean I'm not stealing? Also, if I took $75 he would notice when he got back and I would suffer the consequences. This situation can be similar in one of the two ways I mentioned, if you dont understand my analogy let me know so I can explain.

That's not the point about the lower players involved. The point is that a determination that collusion took place often requires circumstantial evidence. That the trade didn't involve the best CB is evidence that points to the possibility of it not being collusion.

It's not whether you can have collusion to gut for level-12 players, but rather whether you were actually colluding in light of the fact that you didn't take the level 14 CB when you had the chance.

Originally posted by BigD123

Intarnet foosball iz serius bizness

This gets the trophy for post of the day... nice one!

Originally posted by catspaw27
Originally posted by the hurricane

collusion as defined by Webster: "secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose"

I don't think this was collusion. Doing it via PM is a secret agreement but the purpose was neither illegal nor deceitful. Trading an inactive player to an inactive team makes sense. Why should this player be wasting a roster spot on a real team and why should the other guy be stuck on a team that doesn't have an owner. The Bandits got lucky. A team was disbanding and that team's GM happened to be on their team and tipped them off about it. It would have been absolutely nonsensical for the active players on Vassi's old team to be stuck there. I think the trade was fair because the numbers match up. Its a level 12 for a level 12. Trading an inactive to an inactive team doesn't hurt that team in the slightest and the Bandits bailed out that CB from several wasted weeks on his old team. The trade was beneficial for everybody involved.

This is all coming from a player on the team who is facing the Bandits in a day and my team is only 1 game behind them for the division lead. I have every incentive to cry wolf but I'm not going to because the Bandits did nothing wrong. I get that people don't like the Bandits, with the way some of their players run their mouths I don't blame you, but they are innocent in this matter.

I don't know who this guy is, but that's probably the most insightful thing I have read in this entire thread.

Oh, wait...he's on the Burning Pride. Damn. Oh well, I still respect that he can look in from the outside and develop a valid and concise account, and verbalize it in an appropriate manner.

Next time, can you add in some of tomorrow's game plan too? Much appreciated.

So you like the post, even though most of the "facts" in it are wrong? Everything I've seen says the team was disbanded because the GM made a decision that smacks of of zero integrity. This speaks volumes about what you're trying to do with your team. You bench and ban the guy who appears to have some honor and keep the guy who appears to have none...Definitely something wrong with that.

That being said, are any wins from here on out tainted? No, probably not, but I'm not sure I'd want them if I was in your shoes.

Originally posted by Ballbright

The guy who doesn't know colluding is illegal is telling me I need a new GM because I don't allow illegal behavior...? It appears the Bandits aren't the only team losing my respect today...

a) what he meant to ask is: "do the rules say that you can't [do what the bandits just did]?"

the answer to that is no.

and b) he said you need a new GM because passing on opportunities like the trade that is being discussed is putting your team at a disadvantage. By your definition of collusion any two teams that talk about trading players without posting that the player is available on the trade forum are colluding. Trades are a part of the game and it is common sense to look for trades that benefit your team. The trade was fair, get over it.

I know you are going to disagree with me so I might as well point this out before you pretend my team is unethical in any sense of the word. We have had the same starters since halfway through season 1. Our team has not participated in any significant trades throughout the entire life of the game. For you to somehow pretend that we are a lesser team for siding with the Bandits on this is absurd.

Originally posted by lerriuqs
So you like the post, even though most of the "facts" in it are wrong? Everything I've seen says the team was disbanded because the GM made a decision that smacks of of zero integrity. This speaks volumes about what you're trying to do with your team. You bench and ban the guy who appears to have some honor and keep the guy who appears to have none...Definitely something wrong with that.

That being said, are any wins from here on out tainted? No, probably not, but I'm not sure I'd want them if I was in your shoes.

FACT: The definition i gave from collusion is the definition from Webster's Dictionary online.

FACT: I don't believe it was collusion.

FACT: The Bandits got lucky.

FACT:It would have been absolutely nonsensical for the active players on Vassi's old team to be stuck there.

FACT:Trading an inactive to an inactive team doesn't hurt that team in the slightest and the Bandits bailed out that CB from several wasted weeks on his old team.

FACT:some of [the Bandits'] players run their mouths

Where the heck were my "facts" wrong? And yea disbanding a team that has a terrible owner who has quit playing and has a bunch of players trapped on the team is really classless *rolls eyes*

I do think the handling of the situation involving the player who started this thread was quite poor and I think it is terrible for team morale, so at least we agree on something.

Lastly their wins are not and will not be tainted, what we have here is a bunch of people with their panties in a bunch, plain and simple, and for you to even insinuate that they should feel an ounce of remorse for their completely legal transaction is pitiful.

I think you guys are confusing GLB.......







with the........









N o
F un
L eague.

Originally posted by the hurricane


1. FACT: The definition i gave from collusion is the definition from Webster's Dictionary online.

2. FACT: I don't believe it was collusion.

3. FACT: The Bandits got lucky.

4. FACT:It would have been absolutely nonsensical for the active players on Vassi's old team to be stuck there.

5. FACT:Trading an inactive to an inactive team doesn't hurt that team in the slightest and the Bandits bailed out that CB from several wasted weeks on his old team.

FACT:some of [the Bandits'] players run their mouths

2. Its a fact that it is your opinion, not that it wasnt a collusion
3. Thats definitely not a fact
4. Again, thats your opinion
5. You dont know they are inactive; the team owner's last action came today so i guess they are active, they just arent very good.

dont really care but i just wanted to point that stuff out