CelloG said:


I wasn't speculating Dee, I may not be @ but I still have my finger on the pulse of the back room changes. This is now punishable. Bombs away!

Anonymous01 said:


Thanks, CelloG, for explaining these rules' rationale.

I disagree that even Dee's above scenerio should be punished though. The benefits of allowing these kinds of transactions to go unregulated seem to me to outweigh risks in both the short and long terms.

In general, comments here are consistent with my suspicions about some players' support of these policies. Arguments about new managers not being able to afford players is only window dressing for many players' real concerns -- that they, themselves, are being out-competed by other managers, and want game administrators to protect them.

Maybe the scenarios you allude to, CelloG, are so outlandish, with numbers so astronomical or depressed, that they truly do distort the game, and bar other players from reasonably participating and competing. If so, I'd love to read illustrative details, to the extent you or current moderators are permitted to cite examples.

But right now, my position is that this and similar policies hinder fairness rather than aid it.

Edited by Anonymous01 17-10-2012 09:43

illex said:


I don't know how you could think Dee's scenario isn't an issue. You get a player who does GB searches and finds a bunch of 90 prog players. But they're not hostileable because those managers don't have enough experience. They then go and con these managers into selling them their players via auction. They then flip the player for 100X the price they paid. The issue is that they're tricking new players into selling to them and gaining an unfair advantage.