Cheating

[PipkiN]

Sljivovica>

you would wonder, that even A division teams are "cheating" on trades with friends ...
and some of them even get top players for cheap accepts in fast transfer from "friends", what I really believe is kind of farming ... what is not classified as cheating now ...

publishing of those cases is prohibited on forum. if you contact sheriffs you get answer it is not cheating

those things are sometimes hard to discover but be sure this even A is infected by this issue ...

So write me PM about these cases and you'll see what will happen ...

[Sjarel]

As far as I can see this topic is mainly about two separate cases :

1. Lying managers
2. Players getting sold for low prices

1. Lying managers
--------------------------------
Your conclusion is we should add to the rules an extra sentence explicitly stating that it's not allowed. Imho lying can be seen as offensive behavior and thus is covered by the rules. The difficult part however is how to prove it, how to deal with it and how to handle the enormous amount of work the sheriffs would have dealing with all the (mainly false) complaints.

Allthough I agree it's a pain, I really don't see how we can deal with this in a way that it's actually doable for the sheriffs. Maybe you should compare it with the second-hand car market, you're never sure about what you buy and if the seller is speaking the truth. Nobody will feel sorry for you if you make a bad bargain.

To end

Liaing is unfair, unethical and bad, but it belongs to life (an mainly to bussiness!) as eg. breathing.

2. Players getting sold for low prices
-----------------------------------------------
First there are the miscontent managers about missed transfers. I think it's their own fault they did not make a higher offer in the first place, they had the chance just as well as any other manager.

Second there is the question if the buyer/seller is/are cheating. Allthough they might get caught in the long run, this is a problem indeed, but how to fix it ? Forbidding direct transfers would not be good, as that is one of the best parts of the game, as you pointed out yourselves. The only option I could think of so far was to extend the current 2-day period to a 4-day period...

I don't like reliability scales, nor E-bay style bidding. The system needs to be as simple as possible. Imho it is too complicated as it is already, too hard to understand for a non-expert manager and we all know that is the major part of Soccerproject managers.

A few comments :

.. I think they afraid loosing many players due to this change.

Not true, I'm afraid of making the game worse than it was before. That would of course result in the same thing, but it's the difference between thinking in the long or short run.

Most good teams from higher divisons are great thanks to direct transfers, the exact same system that makes cheating easy.

I'd like to point out it can be played without it. I have because I think a developer should not involve in this kind of practice, although it's prolly the best part of the game.

To end I first copy-paste this text to somewhere else, since I'm sure typing it took me too long so the forum will reject it when I press the 'Submit-button'

[zandyy]

Thanks for your comment Sjarel.

I'm not sure I agree with your interpertation of the topic here: this topic is about defining another type of behaviour as cheating, and finding ways to make that type of behaviour more difficult to perform anyway. It is one issue. One solution was ethical in nature, and the other technological.

On the first solution, it is my understanding that you support two arguments that were mentioned here: a. That it is not police-able, and b. That it is actually not ethically wrong. While I understand and somewhat (reluctantly) agree with the first point, I cannot accept the second point. When you buy a second-hand car you can take the car for an independent third-party examination; you can sue the seller afterwards; you can go for arbitration; etc. It is clear to me why none of these options are practical or desirable for SP. I won't repeat the whole argument here, but the main point was that there are other things in the rules that aren't police-able, but they are there nontheless; that some of the issues that are mentioned in the rules are to my mind more minor than those that aren't (e.g. porno – there, racial abuse – not); and that, regardless of the ability to police, a line should be added saying that managers should act in good faith.

On the second solution, it is true that one of the possible results of this solution is higher prices, but this was not the problem the solution tried to solve. The problem was cheating in the transfer market, and the solution gives better transparancy to the market. I agree with you completely that direct transfers is one of the highlights of SP, and forbidding them would ruin the game. It seems that apart from that, your main agrument against the solution is that it may seem too complicated to new managers. I am really not sure you can rule out something that may solve a huge problem just because it may require a handfull of managers who never shopped on Ebay to get it wrong the first time around. Over 300 million people have shopped on Ebay already, and apparently managed to master the bidding system. In order to give new managers a good grip of the system, we can (in addition to, as suggested, make the whole thing optional) also forbid it during the manager's first month; and I personally volunteer to write the complete guide to the new system for new managers.

The idea again: a 'buy it now' price, a 'maximum bid' and a 'reliability scale'. It is really not that complicated. If it's complicated to implement – that is a different question, but I don't think so either (correct me if I'm wrong). It will give more power to buyers (which are at a disadvantage with the current system), more transparancy, less spam, less transfers in unrealistic prices, more honesty, and – generally happier managers I believe.

Zandyy

[poesken]

I prefer the ebay option. I dealed several times with lying manager. Who give their worth, but withdraw when the moment is there. In my opinion that's the same as cheating.
When you give a worth, you stick with it, even if there is a possibility to get 1 or 2M more for it.
It's the same when 2 managers are interested in a player and the manager who sells the player uses them to get the best price.

IF YOU GIVE YOUR WORTH, you just tell other managers, sorry I allready made a deal, at that moment you are a great manager. It doesn't mather in which division you play at that moment.
I think that the idea by giving a rate to each manager is also a good idea. At that moment you allready know if you can thrust the other one or not.


Manager: Guerriero
Team: XAR B.3

[Dark Tiger]

My idea was:

after a fresh bid the selling manager has to wait at least a certain amount of time before he can accept the offer. This way other manager get enough time to raise a new bid. It will be much harder to sell players to a friend for a low prize. Waiting period should be 8 or 12 or 24 ours after the latest bid.


Another option:

Manager set the deathline in advance and can choose to have players on the list between 2 to 8 days. We abolish managers accepting themselves. This way all potential buyers know when they need to be alert and the market will do its work.

[cercel_jr]

My idea was:

after a fresh bid the selling manager has to wait at least a certain amount of time before he can accept the offer. This way other manager get enough time to raise a new bid. It will be much harder to sell players to a friend for a low prize. Waiting period should be 8 or 12 or 24 ours after the latest bid.


Another option:

Manager set the deathline in advance and can choose to have players on the list between 2 to 8 days. We abolish managers accepting themselves. This way all potential buyers now when they need to be alert and the market will do its work.

These 2 are some good ideas, easy and practical.
I prefer the first one, with 24h.

[warchilde]

true...these are some good ideas.
wanna bet you won't see them implemented????

[sljivovica]

true...these are some good ideas.
wanna bet you won't see them implemented????

Hmmm... maybe you should know that the idea came from Dark Tiger on the Dutch forum, and Sjarel asked Dark Tiger to post the idea on the English forum to get your opinions too.

[Zé da Silva]

But Sjarel also said, and I quote:

Forbidding direct transfers would not be good, as that is one of the best parts of the game, as you pointed out yourselves.

You might say delaying is not forbidding, but after 24 hours the effect is pretty much the same.

[Frrfrr]

Sliv:
the first idea of Dark Tiger was discussed in diferent content in
http://forum.soccerproject.com/viewtopic.php?t=95292, so I may just support it

the second one alone ... I am not sure ... to be exact minute, exact second there to bid the least, while the player would be sold on predermined time ...
this would push the manager to spend too much time for being online just in time before their player is expiring in e.g. 23mins ...
even confirming this would help help to solve the cheating, but increased time requirements to get online at least from my point are too high

[sljivovica]

Fact remains that the manager still can have an influence on WHEN the player is sold, but in more cases than before it will not be useful.
And maybe Sjarel can do it with 4/8/12-hour increments or something. I don't know..

[zandyy]

I tried to read Dark Tiger’s ideas several times, and just don’t understand what they come to solve and why are they posted under this thread. If I understand correctly (and please, tell me I misunderstood!), he suggests:
a. Direct transfers won’t be cancelled but delayed so that in practice they would be unworkable.
b. The transfer period would be pre-determined so that managers with more time on their hand and more rapid internet connections can win more bids.

Unrealistic transfer prices were not the issue of this thread. These, as far as I can tell, are being dealt with regularly and successfully by administrators. The issue here was the negotiation side of the transfer market, and how to make it safer, fairer, more complex and more reflective of market prices.

[cercel_jr]

I tried to read Dark Tiger’s ideas several times, and just don’t understand what they come to solve and why are they posted under this thread. If I understand correctly (and please, tell me I misunderstood!), he suggests:
a. Direct transfers won’t be cancelled but delayed so that in practice they would be unworkable.
b. The transfer period would be pre-determined so that managers with more time on their hand and more rapid internet connections can win more bids.

Unrealistic transfer prices were not the issue of this thread. These, as far as I can tell, are being dealt with regularly and successfully by administrators. The issue here was the negotiation side of the transfer market, and how to make it safer, fairer, more complex and more reflective of market prices.

But so far those 2 are the best ideas in this topic.
Like I said, easy and practical.
The e-bay ideea, or what ever it is called, is complicated and doesn't worth spending time and brain on it.
This negotiation side of the transfer market is wonderfull as it is. A improvement can be the first idea of Dark Tiger.
From the begining of the game the system is unchanged and managers are used with it.
If the whole system is changed like you want it to change, all the managers before this change have a big + because the today system is easier than the e-bay thing. Also I bet that at least 50% of the SP managers don't know how to use e-bay or what is it.

Also sjarel said that this negociations are not cheating.

[zandyy]

But so far those 2 are the best ideas in this topic.
Like I said, easy and practical.
The e-bay ideea, or what ever it is called, is complicated and doesn't worth spending time and brain on it.
This negotiation side of the transfer market is wonderfull as it is. A improvement can be the first idea of Dark Tiger.
From the begining of the game the system is unchanged and managers are used with it.
If the whole system is changed like you want it to change, all the managers before this change have a big + because the today system is easier than the e-bay thing. Also I bet that at least 50% of the SP managers don't know how to use e-bay or what is it.

Also sjarel said that this negociations are not cheating.

Read my 7 Sept posting, I answered all your concerns there.

[cercel_jr]

Read my 7 Sept posting, I answered all your concerns there.

Have you ever programed something?
Do you know what pograming is?
It is very easy to have an idea, but this ideea must be implemented.
This is one of the big problems with new ideas. That's why I said it doesn't worth spending "brain" on it.
This transfers negociation problem is a small issue in SP. It is very good seen by most of the managers and very few who don't like it, I mean very very few.
And sjarel said it is a part of the game and it does not need to be changed in such a dramatical way.