SoccerManager.com (#4) The Boards.ie World

hufpc8w3adnk65

Gameworld detail:

**UPDATE June 2015 **
We are still accepting players into the game world.you can PM me if you need any help in getting started.


We have created a Soccermanager.com league world for the Boards.ie members only. It only launched on 24th of March 2013 and new members are always welcome.
If you would like a team in it, then register on the site and then search for game world ID:174426 to view free clubs. If you want a club then click "Apply" and post in here your user name and which club you applied for and ill accept you into the world ASAP.Or else just PM me with your email and ill offer you a job

As alot of the big clubs are already managed players who join now will start with a small team and try too amass as much manager points as possible as down the road when teams become free we refer too manager points and the manager with the most points who wants the job is awarded it.it is easyier too get points with small teams then big teams as this explains

The success that you achieve with your club is rewarded in the form of Manager Points. They are awarded for wins, draws, league titles, cup titles and you get additional points for winning or drawing against a team that is stronger than your own. For each respective feat you are awarded the following based on our manager point scoring system:

Win: 3 pts
Draw: 1 pts
Lose: 0 pts
Win against stronger team: 5 pts
Draw against stronger team: 2 pts
League Title: 10 pts
Cup Title: 10 pts

The Manager Points that you are awarded will be accumulated during your time as manager of the club. This information will also be recorded and displayed within your Profile and Club History. If you manage to accumulate enough points then you feature within the Best Managers list.

Please note that if you move to another club due to either accepting a job offer or resigning then your Manager Points will not transfer with you. However, they will still be displayed within your Profile alongside the respective club you accumulated them with.

TheGunns

Well since I'm in early... I really don't think the unmanaged rule should go through either way as there's enough controversy surrounding the whole ruling and people voted before it was discussed fully. I think the vote should be voided and continued as a discussion thread leading to a future vote thread.

I would also like to change the login rule back to 30 days. The people who were logging in at the 30 day mark after doing nothing for the 30 days have just adjusted to the reduced time. It really isn't serving any purpose for me (but I guess a longer login time doesn't either)

Ramble over!

On another note, after a bad start I am still only 6 points from the top of Division 2!

hufpc8w3adnk65

TheGunns wrote: »

Well since I'm in early... I really don't think the unmanaged rule should go through either way as there's enough controversy surrounding the whole ruling and people voted before it was discussed fully. I think the vote should be voided and continued as a discussion thread leading to a future vote thread.

I would also like to change the login rule back to 30 days. The people who were logging in at the 30 day mark after doing nothing for the 30 days have just adjusted to the reduced time. It really isn't serving any purpose for me (but I guess a longer login time doesn't either)

Ramble over!

On another note, after a bad start I am still only 6 points from the top of Division 2!

Some very valid points there!

hufpc8w3adnk65

What do we do about people who voted and closed their boards account after? What about people who voted and quit there club then?

ctrl-alt-delete

MrMac84 wrote: »

What do we do about people who voted and closed their boards account after? What about people who voted and quit there club then?

Tough one, maybe we should have a vote on it?

But seriously, I think they should both still count as they were valid votes at the time they were cast.

swoody

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Tough one, maybe we should have a vote on it?

But seriously, I think they should both still count as they were valid votes at the time they were cast.

no chance. they vetoed their rights when they quit one, the other or both.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

GT_TDI_150

How did we end up here!?!

We didnt get to our magical 10,000.... Mods thinking the own the place

ctrl-alt-delete

swoody wrote: »

no chance. they vetoed their rights when they quit one, the other or both

Suits me that, but I was just giving my opinion.

The Mods will be up all night counting this one!

swoody

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

How did we end up here!?!

We didnt get to our magical 10,000.... Mods thinking the own the place

nah, mac obviously failed maths in school.

Lord TSC

The votes should be, as they always were, counted by who has a team and how they voted. If people have left their team, then their vote to affect the game world shouldn't really count....

ctrl-alt-delete

Lord TSC wrote: »

The votes should be, as they always were, counted by who has a team and how they voted. If people have left their team, then their vote to affect the game world shouldn't really count....

It was never really set in stone though which is why we are discussing it now, the main criteria is you need to have a boards account for a vote to count.

However I'm sure there was a vote before where votes counted even after a person lost their boards posting privileges.

We've had that many I don't know, but we are starting this thread well, loads of discussion and not much agreement

Lord TSC

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

It was never really set in stone though which is why we are discussing it now, the main criteria is you need to have a boards account for a vote to count.

The whole point of public votes was that it could be checked and made sure no one was voting who wasn't playing in the gameworld.

GT_TDI_150

No point in counting the votes at all so ... No way of telling who will still be round when the proposed changes are getting implimented or not as the case way be...

Wilberto

While we're on the subject on the eligibility of votes, what about the votes of the users who have voted one way, but have since expressed their change of view after reading the discussion. Should we adjust the result to cater for their change of heart? Personally, I think so. I know their is are at least two people, and quite possibly three in this scenario.

ctrl-alt-delete

Lord TSC wrote: »

The whole point of public votes was that it could be checked and made sure no one was voting who wasn't playing in the gameworld.

Yes I am aware of that, and I have always been one of the main advocates of that - mainly to stop people who are not and never have been involved from having their vote counted.

I'm saying it was never set in stone, stating that at the time of counting you must have boards privileges and manage a team. I am sure votes counted like that before where when voted they were fully active, but before the vote closed they had been banned.

It needs to be added to the charter whatever is decided this time.

swoody

might as well be the first to post the standard results post

Chris P Bacon steered Juventus to victory against Toulouse FC.
Juventus beat Toulouse FC 1 - 0 in their SMFA Shield Group B fixture.
Sánchez scored the winner for Juventus and was later voted Man of the Match for his performance.

ctrl-alt-delete

Wilberto wrote: »

While we're on the subject on the eligibility of votes, what about the votes of the users who have voted one way, but have since expressed their change of view after reading the discussion. Should we adjust the result to cater for their change of heart? Personally, I think so. I know their is are at least two people, and quite possibly three in this scenario.

Tupac expressed his desire to have his vote removed, and Colemania to have his removed or changed if possible.

Wilberto

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

No point in counting the votes at all so ... No way of telling who will still be round when the proposed changes are getting implemented or not as the case way be...

Very true. In the case of those particular people then all we can do is take it that they voted with the best of intentions at that particular moment in time.



:pac: :P

Lord TSC

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

No point in counting the votes at all so ... No way of telling who will still be round when the proposed changes are getting implimented or not as the case way be...

I'd argue this is why a set timelimit also needs to be brought in (as in, when the vote starts, an end date is set afterwhich the result is set, rather than an open ended vote which is always in flux), AND these votes shouldn't take place till nearer the end of the seasons (so it affects the managers actually participating and avoids people who left weeks before it having an impact on a gameworld they are no longer part of).

Wilberto

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Tupac expressed his desire to have his vote removed, and Colemania to have his removed or changed if possible.

Colemania I had counted, Mr. Blobby had voted for neither yes or no but had since expressed his desire to come back to the gameworld.

TBH, I figured Tupac was just being a tad dramatic so I left his vote alone.

The third one was MRP..something. The Panathinaikos manager I think. Although, he hadn't fully confirmed that he wanted to change his vote but it everything else but.

KERSPLAT!

You should be managing a team to get a vote otherwise you're voting on something that doesn't affect you, at least not at the time of the vote.

swoody

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

You should be managing a team to get a vote otherwise you're voting on something that doesn't affect you, at least not at the time of the vote.

thats you and al so......as both your clubs run themselves.

ctrl-alt-delete

Wilberto wrote: »

Colemania I had counted, Mr. Blobby had voted for neither yes or no but had since expressed his desire to come back to the gameworld.

TBH, I figured Tupac was just being a tad dramatic so I left his vote alone.

The third one was MRP..something. The Panathinaikos manager I think. Although, he hadn't fully confirmed that he wanted to change his vote but it everything else but.

Then I think there is one on either side of the vote that don't manage a club?

KERSPLAT!

swoody wrote: »

thats you and al so......as both your clubs run themselves.

Into the feckin ground by the looks of it!!

Wilberto

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Then I think there is one on either side of the vote that don't manage a club?

Yeah, Rasco and 8-10 are just straight up void votes, plain and simple!

ctrl-alt-delete

Wilberto wrote: »

Yeah, Rasco and 8-10 are just straight up void votes, plain and simple!

Now you just need to pop into the waiting list thread and sort that one out

tupac_healy

Wilberto wrote: »

Colemania I had counted, Mr. Blobby had voted for neither yes or no but had since expressed his desire to come back to the gameworld.

TBH, I figured Tupac was just being a tad dramatic so I left his vote alone.

The third one was MRP..something. The Panathinaikos manager I think. Although, he hadn't fully confirmed that he wanted to change his vote but it everything else but.

You figured wrong.....

I can't figure how I could have been clearer on the subject and I want my vote taken out completely, but hey, it's a case of the powers that be not listening to the current managers sure what else is new

Lord TSC

tupac_healy wrote: »

You figured wrong.....

I can't figure how I could have been clearer on the subject and I want my vote taken out completely, but hey, it's a case of the powers that be not listening to the current managers sure what else is new

I'd have thought it was taking care of the current managers by making sure one wasn't making a rash decision and was giving him a chance to calm down and make sure he was happy with his decision...

KERSPLAT!

Severe case of hyperbole in here.

tupac_healy

Lord TSC wrote: »

I'd have thought it was taking care of the current managers by making sure one wasn't making a rash decision and was giving him a chance to calm down and make sure he was happy with his decision...

Or it could be viewed as not listening to someone making perfect sence, and it's not like it wasn't the first time I said my num 1 priority above anything was keeping current managers happy.....

TBF the 'calming down' excuse is pretty poor, considering I've often expressed where the priorities with this GW should lie, and nothing I said in my post about Baz sounded any different so for me that whole 'calm down' is a cop out

Lord TSC

tupac_healy wrote: »

Or it could be viewed as not listening to someone making perfect sence, and it's not like it wasn't the first time I said my num 1 priority above anything was keeping current managers happy.....

TBF the 'calming down' excuse is pretty poor, considering I've often expressed where the priorities with this GW should lie, and nothing I said in my post about Baz sounded any different so for me that whole 'calm down' is a cop out

The constant attempts to portray everyone who disagrees with you as not wanting to keep current managers happy is frustrating though; just because I disagree about how to achieve the same goal, doesn't mean we have different ones. And pulling out of a vote just because people disagree with you does nothing but damage your own side of the vote.

tupac_healy

Lord TSC wrote: »

The constant attempts to portray everyone who disagrees with you as not wanting to keep current managers happy is frustrating though; just because I disagree about how to achieve the same goal, doesn't mean we have different ones. And pulling out of a vote just because people disagree with you does nothing but damage your own side of the vote.

I pretty much don't have any side of any discussion which in any way shape or form causes a manger to quit.....


As for my 'constant portrayals' would you give me an example of what the others that disagree with me on a constant basis have put forward to rectify this?


1 example will do

swoody

may i just summarise the no vote vs tupac with a gif (yeah know i love them gif)



wont end well for ya tupac.....:pac:

GT_TDI_150

"I dont know what a tracker mortgage is"

swoody

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

"I dont know what a tracker mortgage is"

its a mortgage that tracks/follows the movements of another rate. simplez.

Lord TSC

tupac_healy wrote: »

I pretty much don't have any side of any discussion which in any way shape or form causes a manger to quit.....

Which manager is this now?

You obviously feel passionately about the matter, that's clear when you're debating it. So I can't understand why you pull your vote in some grand symbolic gesture which does nothing but make it harder for the change you want to actually come to pass.

As for my 'constant portrayals' would you give me an example of what the others that disagree with me on a constant basis have put forward to rectify this?

1 example will do

If you read through the other topic, there's plenty of examples of why people are objecting to turning the thing on, and I've got no intentions of restating those arguments again. If you want to continue the debate about the vote, there's a topic for it, but stop trying to slyly misrepresent our intentions on the matter.

GT_TDI_150

swoody wrote: »

its a mortgage that tracks/follows the movements of another rate. simplez.

ok and when is a vote not a vote? :P

GT_TDI_150

just 1 more point to get to the knock outs, just one more point...


Certified Cable Tie Technician earned a draw with FC Porto against Cardiff City.
The match ended 1 - 1 between FC Porto and Cardiff City in their SMFA Shield Group E fixture.
Hulk was on the scoresheet for his side.

swoody

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

ok and when is a vote not a vote? :P

when you vote for it not to be a vote......

tupac_healy

Lord TSC wrote: »

Which manager is this now?

You obviously feel passionately about the matter, that's clear when you're debating it. So I can't understand why you pull your vote in some grand symbolic gesture which does nothing but make it harder for the change you want to actually come to pass.



If you read through the other topic, there's plenty of examples of why people are objecting to turning the thing on, and I've got no intentions of restating those arguments again. If you want to continue the debate about the vote, there's a topic for it, but stop trying to slyly misrepresent our intentions on the matter.

Whats so hard to understand its very very basic, its the loss of a manager vs some poxy vote, for me its a no brainer, the cost was too high in my eyes


Yes, such as squad caps and I even threw out the 'I won't buy if others agree' which I seem to recall were shot down without hesitation..... Any workable examples?
oi

As for you quip, I will let that one slide mate as to be fair, as I can spot the breadcrumbs a mile off! Not getting drawn back into what essentially not only ends up as a repetitive debacle but a rather aging one at that.....

Whats the use in rehashing old phrases re-phrased anyway? There is clearly nothing new on the table so its a self defeating exercise

Lord TSC

Its just that I don't see how pulling your vote stops a manager leaving. Did someone threaten to walk if you voted?

If the issue is apparently such a big deal that someone quits over it, would you not want every vote you can? What do you achieve by pulling out of a vote other than to make it harder to make a change? I disagree with you but I respect your right to vote, and simply can't work out why you'd pull your vote.

KERSPLAT!

And to add to that, will you abstain from all future votes in case someone goes mad, insults a poster and quits?

tupac_healy

Lord TSC wrote: »

Its just that I don't see how pulling your vote stops a manager leaving. Did someone threaten to walk if you voted?

If the issue is apparently such a big deal that someone quits over it, would you not want every vote you can? What do you achieve by pulling out of a vote other than to make it harder to make a change? I disagree with you but I respect your right to vote, and simply can't work out why you'd pull your vote.

And that is EXACTLY the point I've been making! You and others cannot make it out because you refuse to believe what is writtin in front of you...

Last time....


I pulled my vote, because.....

A MANAGER QUIT OVER THE WHOLE POXY THING AND IF OTHERS WERE GOING TO FOLLOW SUIT I WANT NOOOOOOOOOO PART IN IT HENCE I RETRACT ALL VIEWS ON THE MATTER AND MY VOTE....

I'm asking one thing, just listen is all... There are other signs also but if some cannot accept what is written above as being my reason pulling my vote then what is the point in going further into the matter? What I've said above is on the most basic level of the big issue with the GW, It cost us a regular so for me its a non issue, keeping members is THE issue, always has been, that was my basis when I was voting on the matter and indeed throughout the whole GW...

GT_TDI_150

I was going to create a poll on the following but not sure our poor league could take the drama of another vote. So I'm resorting to appealing to Mac and Wilberto's sentimentality ...

It seems that in his rush to create this thread Mac abandoned the legacy of our thread name :rolleyes:

Soccermanager.com
SoccerManager.com (#2) The Boards.ie World
SoccerManager.com (#3) The Boards.ie World
SoccerManager.com (#4) The Boards.ie World .... ?

Do we need a vote or will the mods oblige?

KERSPLAT!

tupac_healy wrote: »

And that is EXACTLY the point I've been making! You and others cannot make it out because you refuse to believe what is writtin in front of you...

Last time....


I pulled my vote, because.....

A MANAGER QUIT OVER THE WHOLE POXY THING AND IF OTHERS WERE GOING TO FOLLOW SUIT I WANT NOOOOOOOOOO PART IN IT HENCE I RETRACT ALL VIEWS ON THE MATTER AND MY VOTE....

I'm asking one thing, just listen is all... There are other signs also but if some cannot accept what is written above as being my reason pulling my vote then what is the point in going further into the matter? What I've said above is on the most basic level of the big issue with the GW, It cost us a regular so for me its a non issue, keeping members is THE issue, always has been, that was my basis when I was voting on the matter and indeed throughout the whole GW...

Because of a ban, not the vote.

The Internet

Now I don't mean this as an insult Tupac but I'm always more confused after reading your posts than I was beforehand.

They're not as bad as Eireannbear's and Baz's were but I still can't manage to work out what you're trying to say half the time

swoody

all those against the vote should be made recruit new members and they (new manager) must make a commitment to play at least a season.

tupac_healy

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Because of a ban, not the vote.

No vote, no ban, hence retracted vote..... next

swoody

The Internet wrote: »

Now I don't mean this as an insult Tupac but I'm always more confused after reading your posts than I was beforehand.

They're not as bad as Eireannbear's and Baz's were but I still can't manage to work out what you're trying to say half the time

what you sayin bout cork people? :mad:

KERSPLAT!

tupac_healy wrote: »

No vote, no ban, hence retracted vote..... next

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

And to add to that, will you abstain from all future votes in case someone quits?

.

Lord TSC

tupac_healy wrote: »

A MANAGER QUIT OVER THE WHOLE POXY THING AND IF OTHERS WERE GOING TO FOLLOW SUIT I WANT NOOOOOOOOOO PART IN IT HENCE I RETRACT ALL VIEWS ON THE MATTER AND MY VOTE....

If we're talking about Baz (and I won't be talking much about it given I believe it's not on putting words in a banned users mouth when he can't respond), it looks like he got banned and then quit in a fit of anger; it doesn't look like the debate caused a manager to quit, but rather a manager quit when he got banned in some fit of rage. The debate, and your vote, has no impact on the fact he quit over (seemingly) a ban. You cancelling your vote doesn't bring him back and doesn't change what he did and said to get banned. It achieves nothing other than weakening a stance you seem quite passionate about, which is counter productive. Do we just never vote on anything again in case a user breaks the charter and gets himself a ban?

But whatever, I'll leave it there, stating one last time....please don't misrepresent others in their intentions; I (and I believe others) believe that keeping it off is in the best interest of the gameworld, both for current AND future managers, and I resent people trying to imply anything to the contrary.