nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Should SMFA transfer monitoring be turned back ok? MOD NOTE POST 1

Seaneh

MOD NOTE :
Okay Lads. Given that my previous amendment to the rules evidently hasn't allowed for an open debate, I shall allow the use of any examples of transfers that, you strongly feel, have exploited the "Monitoring Off" rule. When using these examples, explain why you think they are exploiting the rules in a civilised, and mature manner.

However, as a result, this thread will now be run with an iron fist where bans WILL be handed out if necessary and the thread may be locked entirely.

Seriously, we're all adults here! Let's have a mature debate. If your transfer get's mentioned as "suspect", a simple explanation as to why you think it was actually a fair one will suffice as a response. 20 page "bitchfests" will result in a banning, and the thread being locked.

P.S. I haven't banned anyone yet but, in truth, I'm looking forward to my first one. Don't let it be you!

Elmo's word of the day :

Mature.

End Mod Note.

Right lads. So this is something that's been talked about so I thought I'd get the ball rolling.

At the end of the current season we need to make a very serious decision about how our league works.

We've had monitoring off for a season and a bit now and as a result we've seen some not by the book deals happening. With monitoring on these deals would never happen or would be reversed instantly.

I believe that the protection that monitoring gives outweighs the inconvenience it causes and makes the game world a better place over all. Every other league I play in has monitoring on and I think they are better for it.

I've put up an open poll and the expiry date will be as far away as possible so people can vote and give their opinion on the subject.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

hufpc8w3adnk65

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Jaysus the 'turn it back on camp' are severely hampered when we can't use any examples, those being the main reasons for turning it back on!

I've voted to turn it on, I'll bow out at that. Ridiculous thread is ridiculous.

Again lads democracy rules , so after speaking with Wilberto were going too change the rules too allow examples, wait till wilberto edits the thread too tell ye the new rules.

I was just in from work this evening when I seen seanehs thread and was worried the place would go into meltdown so sprang into action perhaps too harshly

Al Capwned

Moderation done properly.
Well done.

hufpc8w3adnk65

Al Capwned wrote: »

Moderation done properly.
Well done.

Wait till Wilberto discuss the guidelines before ye say that ha ha

Maldjd23

JamboMac wrote: »

MOD SNIP

Who is this lad? Can't find him in the database!!

Honestly, i would like to hear a few more examples before making a decision. I just wish the league admin had more control when it came to sacking managers who were acting the fool. Massive fault in the game IMO that he can't.

hufpc8w3adnk65

Maldjd23 wrote: »

Who is this lad? Can't find him in the database!!

Honestly, i would like to hear a few more examples before making a decision. I just wish the league admin had more control when it came to sacking managers who were acting the fool. Massive fault in the game IMO that he can't.

Yup agreed 100%. If we all report it too soccermanager threw a ticket perhaps they'd look into changing it

Seaneh

Maldjd23 wrote: »

Who is this lad? Can't find him in the database!!

Honestly, i would like to hear a few more examples before making a decision. I just wish the league admin had more control when it came to sacking managers who were acting the fool. Massive fault in the game IMO that he can't.

Not being able to appoint "admins" is a pain too. Poor mac has to do everything, ha.

If he could give someone else the power to accept applications his life would be a lot easier!

Al Capwned

Especially considering he's off to the sun for a couple of weeks, the tramp. :pac:

/OT

Wilberto

After GT's well written post, along with concerns over the inability to have a thorough debate without the use of examples, we have decided to lift the rules on not being able to use these examples. However, before we allow people to go gung-ho into throwing out examples, what I'm going to do first is to only allow managers to use their own transfers as examples, as per GT's post.

In other words, the only people who are allowed to introduce a transfer into this debate are one of the two managers involved in that transfer.

Furthermore, the aforementioned strong warnings regarding potential bans being handed out are in force now more than ever.

Let's keep it to a strong civilised debate.

hufpc8w3adnk65

Are people happy with the two rules I proposed also as too the vote?

KERSPLAT!

MrMac84 wrote: »

Are people happy with the two rules I proposed also as too the vote?

I'm not. You want to disqualify anyones vote who leaves before the end of the season but won't count some ones vote who joins in the next few weeks

Thread is being strangled. Everything bar duel accounts should be up for debate*.

*my reasoning for this staying off limits is accusing someone of multi accounting is against the boards charter as it is already so this would need to be adhered to

Seaneh

It's still hard to present a good argument as to why it's better on because nobody who's made an obviously weird deal is going to comment on it and open it up for debate, but I know you need to keep the things kosher.

I will say that there ARE very obvious examples I'd love to cite but I'm 100% supportive of yourself and Wilberto in any decision you make because I know you're just doing what you think is best.

hufpc8w3adnk65

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I'm not. You want to disqualify anyones vote who leaves before the end of the season but won't count some ones vote who joins in the next few weeks

Thread is being strangled. Everything bar duel accounts should be up for debate*.

*my reasoning for this staying off limits is accusing someone of multi accounting is against the boards charter as it is already so this would need to be adhered to

My reasoning been if they leave then there vote shouldn't count and by saying if new managers join they won't have expierence in transfers and won't know what they are voting on or for? Again lads these are "proposals" nothing set in stone.

KERSPLAT!

And I'm not saying the above just to be awkward. There should be a proper debate not stifled debate

KERSPLAT!

MrMac84 wrote: »

My reasoning been if they leave then there vote shouldn't count and by saying if new managers join they won't have expierence in transfers and won't know what they are voting on or for? Again lads these are "proposals" nothing set in stone.

I know they're proposals, I'm just saying I disagree with them

When the vote closes the results should be just that. A result and as such the outcome should be implemented. As long as each manager voting currently manages a team then they should all count whether for or against

hufpc8w3adnk65

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

And I'm not saying the above just to be awkward. There should be a proper debate not stifled debate

I belive thats what everybody wants but we don't need people too start accusing others of wrong doing so baby steps, weve got the poll for 28 days

KERSPLAT!

MrMac84 wrote: »

I belive thats what everybody wants but we don't need people too start accusing others of wrong doing so baby steps, weve got the poll for 28 days

With 10 votes already cast... No point allowing proper discussion with a few days to go and no one left to vote

Seaneh

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

With 10 votes already cast... No point allowing proper discussion with a few days to go and no one left to vote

I agree, close the tread, vote carried, monitoring goes back on!

Al Capwned

Just to be a pain in the arse Mac, aren't there other changes due to be implemented, that weren't....

Reducing the login requirement to 21 days was one.

Seaneh

I think, given the importance of this decision, it should take precedence.

Al Capwned

Important according to who? (Not saying it's not btw)

The login requirement was done last season. It should have been implemented before this season started, but wasn't. It needs to be put in place now at the earliest possible opportunity.
We've had a few polls, and they should be implemented/actioned chronologically. Any other way of deciding what's important and what's not undermines the democracy of the decisions made.

Seaneh

I think that seeing that this measure exists to protect against "irregularities" it's obviously important.

I wish I could give examples of why it think so but right now I can't, hopefully that changes soon.

Al Capwned

Seaneh wrote: »

I think that seeing that this measure exists to protect against "irregularities" it's obviously important.

I wish I could give examples of why it think so but right now I can't, hopefully that changes soon.

And the login requirement was passed to prevent teams languishing essentially unmanaged for a month, which may not be an 'irregularity', but was definitely not helping the GW. Why should you be made judge of what's more important. Actioning decisions in the order they were made is surely fairer to everyone in the GW.

Anyway, this is completely off the topic at hand, so I'll leave it at that.

ctrl-alt-delete

Al Capwned wrote: »

Important according to who? (Not saying it's not btw)

The login requirement was done last season. It should have been implemented before this season started, but wasn't. It needs to be put in place now at the earliest possible opportunity.
We've had a few polls, and they should be implemented/actioned chronologically. Any other way of deciding what's important and what's not undermines the democracy of the decisions made.

You are correct that the login rule was voted on to be changed.

I think this is more important at the moment but that is not to detract from the way we should be doing things.

Tupac raised the point a few times that the window for changes was open but I think Mac did not want to cut the login down because situations had changed.

I think he felt that at the time of the polls the GW was more or less full and at one stage we had a waiting list which was the original point of changing the login time.

We are at a point now where we have plenty of teams free and I don't think he wants to be kicking lads out of jobs.

I don't agree with going against the consensus and I am only thinking myself what Mac was thinking regarding the issue , I am not sure if he posted reasons, but I would back him up on that one.

Seaneh

Because one measure stops potential cheating and the other just means lazy people log in a week earlier than they used to to keep their teams.

hufpc8w3adnk65

Ill do both changes at the end of season lads no prob

Al Capwned

MrMac84 wrote: »

Ill do both changes at the end of season lads no prob

Only one has been decided man.

tupac_healy

Voted off....

After reading through the last 4 pages nothing new in this argument has been brought to the table IMO so therefore nothing has changed...

Majority wanted it off then and apparently so they do now......

Seaneh

The majority haven't voted yet and I'd suggest they hold off for a while in the hopes Mac and Wil allow us to cite deals we believe are "irregular" and good examples of why we need to turn this back on.

But it's no coincidence that the people voting to keep this off are the same people who wanted buying from unmanaged clubs left on. They are only thinking of their own benefit and not the benefit of the game world as a whole.

Al Capwned

Seaneh wrote: »

The majority haven't voted yet and I'd suggest they hold off for a while in the hopes Mac and Wil allow us to cite deals we believe are "irregular" and good examples of why we need to turn this back on.

But it's no coincidence that the people voting to keep this off are the same people who wanted buying from unmanaged clubs left on. They are only thinking of their own benefit and not the benefit of the game world as a whole.

Don't make such sweeping generalisations.... You do not know my reasons for originally voting to turn it off. They were not selfish reasons. And I'm sure you cannot know everybody else's reasoning either.

The mods have stated that you can cite your own deals.

You seem to be on some sort of a crusade on this topic, would it not be better for you to put your point of view forward, and let people decide on the facts, rather than on unsubstantiated conjecture on your part.

And yes, I do appreciate the irony of that last paragraph. Bang away there anyway lad, I'll only be responding to on-topic posts from here on in if needed. Apologies to those posters reading this back-and-forth and subsequent derailment.

Seaneh

I can't post facts the mods won't let us just now. Hopefully that changes.

But GTI has given the Salah deal as an example of a GOOD reversal so we have that.

Then there is Kokorin to Sporting. I bought him in good faith but a few days later the selling manager ups sticks and quits the league, that's bad form, he sold players knowing he was quitting. With monitoring of this can be reported.

Someone complained about Ronaldinho to Benfica, with monitoring on that deal can be reported and investigated, the deal was sound and wouldn't have been reversed anyway but the ability to investigate it is important.

I'm not on a "crusade" I think think that monitoring being turned off is being abused and it should be put back on.