Rollbacked transfers

Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111
  • #1 2014-05-11 14:03

    sure

  • #2 2014-05-11 15:10

    Wow.. I actually thought you guys were joking around. You seriously don't understand the rollback?

    D-F-D wrote:

    The buyer place 5 bids, all very high, above the start bid, in a few minutes. I can't see those as serious bids.
    Given the fact you didn't sell your player before for a much lower value and i saw a similar player being sold for 15k yesterday, it was a no-brainer to me.

    ans wrote:

    vega wrote:

    I think his player had only off's analyzed before the mid ?


    nope I even saw the dude doing crazy bids, for example 30k on a 13-14y with no limits showing and no good icons... lol

    vali wrote:

    to the actual posted player.
    rollback again. wasnt sold for much lower, normal price for a guy like this is ~10k MAYBE, so such bids are just not serious and need to be rollbacked anytime. if you want 70k, set low sb and hope for a FAIR bidwar, then noone can do anything, but the rollbacked bid (29k sb -> directly 70k bidded) and the current are jokes :}

    The player had a SB of 29k. A manager that has made a lot of weird transfer bids suddenly bids 70k on a player that he could buy for probably max 35k.

    Your time argument isn't valid either. He could have bought the player for half the price, and the time he recieved the player would be the same.

    I still truly hope you guys are playing a practical joke on us.. Anyway, good work with the rollbacks..

  • #3 2014-05-11 16:24

    during my time as an admin, I always tried to make it a point that admins were not there to set the TL prices, but to prevent obvious cheating or boosting attempts. As long as that is the still the case then I see no issue - but the role of the admin is simply to prevent cheating, not to say a player is going for more than he should, because that is setting the TL.

    Last edited by SyN at 2014-05-11 16:24
  • #4 2014-05-11 18:28

    http://www.cs-manager.com/csm/other/?p=other_players&s=player&n=12375363

    WTF D-F-D 100k on this noob, GO ROOLBACK NOW !!!!!

  • #5 2014-05-11 18:30

    feuille wrote:

    http://www.cs-manager.com/csm/other/?p=other_players&s=player&n=12375363

    WTF D-F-D 100k on this noob, GO ROOLBACK NOW !!!!!

    Lol there is a very big difference and you know that.

  • #6 2014-05-11 18:53

    feuille wrote:

    http://www.cs-manager.com/csm/other/?p=other_players&s=player&n=12375363

    WTF D-F-D 100k on this noob, GO ROOLBACK NOW !!!!!


    nice try. 100k bid before aim was analyzed. different case.

  • #7 2014-05-11 20:06

    SyN wrote:

    during my time as an admin, I always tried to make it a point that admins were not there to set the TL prices, but to prevent obvious cheating or boosting attempts. As long as that is the still the case then I see no issue - but the role of the admin is simply to prevent cheating, not to say a player is going for more than he should, because that is setting the TL.

    That's great, but the admins have to make sure no one violates the rules. Here is a rule you seem to forget:

    §4.1. When bidding, never bid (much) more than the market price for a player. Unserious bids are regarded as cheating.

    Following your logic admins are not supposed to enforce this rule.

  • #8 2014-05-11 20:45

    zAiw00t wrote:

    SyN wrote:

    during my time as an admin, I always tried to make it a point that admins were not there to set the TL prices, but to prevent obvious cheating or boosting attempts. As long as that is the still the case then I see no issue - but the role of the admin is simply to prevent cheating, not to say a player is going for more than he should, because that is setting the TL.

    That's great, but the admins have to make sure no one violates the rules. Here is a rule you seem to forget:

    §4.1. When bidding, never bid (much) more than the market price for a player. Unserious bids are regarded as cheating.

    Following your logic admins are not supposed to enforce this rule.

    And considering this guy is worth no more then 20k, I should hope something will be done...

  • #9 2014-05-11 22:34

    zAiw00t wrote:

    That's great, but the admins have to make sure no one violates the rules. Here is a rule you seem to forget:

    §4.1. When bidding, never bid (much) more than the market price for a player. Unserious bids are regarded as cheating.

    Following your logic admins are not supposed to enforce this rule.


    and who makes the market price, if not the market (the user/s) itself? if i put a player on TL for 50k and a single manager would pay that much to actually use him, that is the market price for that single player. it doesnt matter, if 100 people say he is only worth 10k.
    and this rule is formulated in very unclear. what is the "much" supposed to mean (supposed the term market price was really determinable)?

  • #10 2014-05-12 00:19

    sEklAt wrote:

    zAiw00t wrote:

    That's great, but the admins have to make sure no one violates the rules. Here is a rule you seem to forget:

    §4.1. When bidding, never bid (much) more than the market price for a player. Unserious bids are regarded as cheating.

    Following your logic admins are not supposed to enforce this rule.


    and who makes the market price, if not the market (the user/s) itself? if i put a player on TL for 50k and a single manager would pay that much to actually use him, that is the market price for that single player. it doesnt matter, if 100 people say he is only worth 10k.
    and this rule is formulated in very unclear. what is the "much" supposed to mean (supposed the term market price was really determinable)?

    seklat has it here - my point is the admins do NOT set the market price, the users do. Anyone who follows the TL has a pretty general idea of what players sell for - so if a player who normally sells between 40-60k sells for 80, admins should not be interfering in that IMO - however if a player that usually sells for 40-60k goes for 160k - that's a different story.

    Keep in mind, when I came to the admin team we had the opposite problem - admins were frowned upon ALL THE TIME for rolling back stuff that was borderline and tbh most of the time should NOT of been rolled back - hence why some of us always pushed for admins to only rollback when the bid was just plain ridiculous OR it was an obvious cheating attempt - this logic has, for the most part, held true since. Back then, admins DID set the market price and that's not their job - this needs to be a free market.

    The problem with this is there is no magic formula and the market shifts constantly depending on supply and demand - making things sometimes difficult to measure persay.

  • #11 2014-05-12 00:46

    the point is, the player discussed in here (crap guy worth 10k rollbacked with 70k bid) WAS NOT SOLD FOR way lower then this bid before. not weeks ago, but few days.

    the basic problem with the rules is easy. they are vague. but that doesnt change certain things.

    a "stupid" bid happening in a bidwar (with two obvious "real" and not multi accounts) is legit.
    a stupid bid happening out of the nowhere (for example with stupid SB, or stupid bid when SB is way lower) has to be rollback, because of "security". its not possible to know if this price is legit (like in a bidwar) or not (multi account, cheat, boosting, "stupid acting").

    it was obvious the guy who bidded multiple stupid bids in like 30 mins (for ex 36k on a tryout 13yo unanalysed) was a troll/idiot bidder. this needs to be rollback, not because the seller cheats, but because its boosting/trolling/unserious bid.

    now the player is back on for 70k (after he didnt get sold for 4x before) and a french guy bids. for me, its a rollback again, because

    - its not possible to know if the buyer is connected in any way to the seller (french, too). why did he not bid before, if he liked the player? it COULD be a "i will help a friend bid" (i am not saying it IS!).

    in a case if a price is much higher then normal (and with normal i mean similar guys sold recently) and not a bidwar involved, there need to be a rollback, or (the alternative) just remove all kind of rollbacks, and let go through any bid that happens.

    Quote:

    if i put a player on TL for 50k and a single manager would pay that much to actually use him, that is the market price for that single player.

    well. this is true in theory. but but how to know that the first 70k bidder thought its a serious bid, i want to use the player? how to know it on the new 70k bid? its impssible to know. this shows the market in here does not work like a market in the outside world. example : if you see some guy buying a car for 100k euro, while others say its only worth 10k, he will most likely has his reasons to buy.
    in CSM, someone might just be trolling, not interested in the game, HARM other users over helping one single guy. as long as there is a theoretic chance, that a bid is unserious, AND its way overpriced, there is no doubt it asks for a rollback.

    that why

    Quote:

    my point is the admins do NOT set the market price, the users do.

    is not the complete truth. ADMINS need to regulate the market, because of the mentioned things that can happen...

    in other words, if i sell a player thats worth 50k in 9 of 10 cases and then some guy comes and bids 100k, it should be rollbacked, because its a harm for the game. its POSSIBLE it might be friend boost, trollbid or similar. it might be a legit bid as well, but there is no way to find out 100%. market price vs actual bid differ so much that admins have to act cause of "preventing security reasons" if the case is on the edge (example : player worth normally 25k going for 40,45) its a different story, but we are talkin about a player that in open bid war would quite regularly end up for 10k

    Last edited by vali at 2014-05-12 00:52
  • #12 2014-05-12 01:29

    sEklAt wrote:

    zAiw00t wrote:

    That's great, but the admins have to make sure no one violates the rules. Here is a rule you seem to forget:

    §4.1. When bidding, never bid (much) more than the market price for a player. Unserious bids are regarded as cheating.

    Following your logic admins are not supposed to enforce this rule.


    and who makes the market price, if not the market (the user/s) itself? if i put a player on TL for 50k and a single manager would pay that much to actually use him, that is the market price for that single player.

    You make a HUGE mistake by assuming CSM TL is an effective market. It's not. Hence you get it all wrong: just because you can find a player willing to pay 50k that's not the market value. I thought that was quite obvious tbh.

    Having said that I agree there are situations, where it's hard to determine when the bid is to be considered "unserious". But in this specific case it's quite obvious the rollback was justified.

    vali basically said anything else needed to be said. :-)

  • #13 2014-05-12 02:03

    i think you are the one getting in wrong. due to the fact that it isnt an effective market, market prices cannot be decided by an actual market (or a group of super elite oldschool csm managers), but only by a single user.
    if the majority would be able to decide what is right and what is wrong (at least in a span of some k) like people are more or less suggesting, the market should be viewed as effective.
    the problem with csm is that no two players are alike and little differences in limits e.g. would make a huge difference in price for most of the members.
    the biggest example that was given here, from what i read, was that a similar player was sold the day before for 15k. and that is fine and all, but if there is only one such player at the moment and a manager desperately wants such a player, he might be worth 50k or even more to him. and he might bid something like that on the spot to be sure to get him this time. and that is were a term like "market price" totally fails, if it is not considered in the right context.
    supply and demand are so fucked up in csm (at least for now) that it is just not possible in my opinion to disregard a bid on the mentioned rule, if it is not absolutely over the top.

    easiest way to fix would be blind auctioning:
    3 days TL, nobody knows the bids. highest bidder gets the player for the second highest bid. random, if more than one did by chance bid the same.
    it would be possible to use a minimum bid as well to protect the seller, but that would thwart the market pricing. this would also make it easily possible to remove much too high bids via algorithm.

  • #14 2014-05-12 02:26

    blind auctioning wont work either. why?

    Quote:

    highest bidder gets the player for the second highest bid.

    what happens if there is exactly one bid? same problem as before (and in MOST (!) problematic cases we have only one bid. thats what we are talking about in here most of the time - if we have 2 or more bids, we have most likely a bidfight of more then one guy that seriously wants the player -> no rollback.

    there is no real way to stop what i mentioned above. this is a game and some ppl might not take it "serious". either help friends, cheat, troll or do whatever. thats WHY IT NEEDS admins to regulate.

    if a similar player was sold 2 days ago for 15k, and now a very similar goes for 70k, how does that correspond with "the player might be worth those 70k to him" ?

    he could have bidded on the 15k guy (why didnt he do, if serious interest in such players?)

    he could have bidded on the guy when he was on with cheaper SB (dont forget the player we are discussing went without a bid when SB was 4x, then SB was 29k and he was rollbacked because noone bidded 29k but some idiot bidded 70k). now tell me how a 70k SB/bid is reasonable explained?

    the problem with rules/rollbacks is : you need to look at every case. one by one.

    in this case, we have a player thats, realistically, worth 10-25k (sometimes even less, but i am sure most ppl would agree this is a normal number for those top5)

    - not sold for 4x SB (i think it was 49, but i am not sure, thats why i say 4x)
    - on for 29k, no bid, then 70k bid (logic rollback)
    - on for 70k (which makes no sense as he got no bids before with way lower sbs) and suddenly someone bids 70k nearly directly after he is put on TL. this looks at least weird from the point of market and logic bidding, doesnt it? why would a bidder avoid bidding when SB is much lower, and then bid 70k out of the nowhere???

    the way how those bids happend already show its obviously a rollback. but you cant say this in general. if the player was on for 1 csm and 2,3 guys pushed eachother up to 70k in a BIDWAR, there was nothing wrong with it (legit interest of ppl, that obviously faught for a player they want to have/use). now its weird and there is not one argument why the deal is legit and to many possible reasons why its not (i dont say AT ALL - please notice that - that its a cheat or friend boost. but it could be, and that alone is enough)

    Last edited by vali at 2014-05-12 02:31
  • #15 2014-05-12 02:32

    Vali ' he did bid on the 15k guy, but I overbidded him and he never bothered to bid again, and he was online because I checked at the exact time I bidded.

    Is what is weird that somehow the seller of the 70k player, 1) had some idiot bid 70k in first place (He was spam bidding alot of players)

    then 2) Once rolled back and relisted like 1 hour later bidded 70k again from a different manager (Who is french) If that's of any relevance.

    Yes there are many factors involved with TL but I've seen many many many players like this sell for under 10,000 csm.

    I think even foxtrot picked up a guy the same for 5-7CSM!!

    so 70k is wrong and seller is cheating or something...

  • #16 2014-05-12 02:57

    vali wrote:

    blind auctioning wont work either. why?

    Quote:

    highest bidder gets the player for the second highest bid.

    what happens if there is exactly one bid? same problem as before (and in MOST (!) problematic cases we have only one bid. thats what we are talking about in here most of the time - if we have 2 or more bids, we have most likely a bidfight of more then one guy that seriously wants the player -> no rollback.

    if there is no minimum bid and the player isnt totally shit, there will be at least a low bid in probably 95%. bad luck for the seller, but happens.
    in any other case a single unserious bid should be very easy to spot and admins can intervene.

    vali wrote:


    if a similar player was sold 2 days ago for 15k, and now a very similar goes for 70k, how does that correspond with "the player might be worth those 70k to him" ?

    he could have bidded on the 15k guy (why didnt he do, if serious interest in such players?)

    seriously? maybe people have stuff to do? maybe he didnt decide what to do, yet?
    arent you one of the people argueing that the game is too time intensive for new players? and yet you demand people to know what's happening on the TL everyday? one reason for being willing to pay more might be just because of the limited time one can spend to check the TL.
    and my argument isnt about this special case per se, but the general ruling in some cases. you cannot demand that people always know what it is going on TL and based on their not knowing what happened some days ago, tell them that they are not allowed to spend whatever a player is worth to them.
    i give you a real life example: people knew the ps4 was released. still lots of them bought them of ebay for x-times the regular price.
    they did know, why didnt they take care? the ps4 has limited runs. they probably had something better to do than preordering or standing in line for hours. the ps4 seems to be worth more than the regular price to them. sound familiar?
    as i said it is not about this case, but the general arguments dont hold up imo and decisions seem to be arbitrary from time to time.

    on another note: there should be some kind of compensation for the seller, because it is really annoying to get a transfer rollbacked, if you are not involved at all

  • #17 2014-05-12 03:04

    why compensate? a rollbacked transfer has no disadvantages (you even get back the 500 csm or whatever you paid for putting on TL).

    anyway,

    Quote:

    arent you one of the people argueing that the game is too time intensive for new players? and yet you demand people to know what's happening on the TL everyday? one reason for being willing to pay more might be just because of the limited time one can spend to check the TL.

    i dont demand anything from anyone. if a "newbie" who has no idea bids 100k on a player worth 10k, it will be rollbacked. because of the reasons i mentioned. it COULD be cheat, multi, friend push, boosting, trolling.

    i had this case on a player i sold MYSELF (cl for 35k sb and someone bidded 150k). i reported and it got rollbacked for a reason. the guys running this game cant allow that things like this give advantage to some. so if there is the slightest possibility we have a cheat/rulebreaking (like pushing, trolling, unserious bid), its a rollback.

    there is _NO HARM_ done on a rollback. seller wont be punished (if he aint involved) and he wont lose money either.

    in general, i dislike the blind auction soluation for certain reasons. the only way I can see how to (more or less) remove push/unserious/cheat bids from this game : only allow 1 csm auctions and ONLY allow next bid to be "next highest possible one" (so no way to push bids from 1k to 100k). this sounds annoying (and tbh, it would be), but this way, it would be impossible to generate a "stupid" price unlike you dont have multiple friends/multies pushing eachother on your players.

    but as i said before, i cant see a single problem why this discussion actually happend. DFD Did a good job in a rollback and it makes me sad to see that the current (totally stupid) 70k bid is obviously not rollbacked. it reminds me of the nice days were >100k sold unanalysed tryouts were not rollbacked for some reasons. its better to have one rollback to much then one not enough. and i say this as a guy that "suffered" from it as well (without doing anything wrong). in a "game market" there need to be ppl regulating it one way or the other.

    Last edited by vali at 2014-05-12 03:05
  • #18 2014-05-12 03:22

    vali wrote:

    why compensate? a rollbacked transfer has no disadvantages (you even get back the 500 csm or whatever you paid for putting on TL).


    i once had a transfer rollbacked and did not get my transfer fee back afair. also most often you have to pay extra salary.

    vali wrote:

    Quote:

    arent you one of the people argueing that the game is too time intensive for new players? and yet you demand people to know what's happening on the TL everyday? one reason for being willing to pay more might be just because of the limited time one can spend to check the TL.

    i dont demand anything from anyone.


    you basically are. you are saying: if you bid much more on a kind of player you could have gotten cheaper the other day, because you were not online or if you bid more, because you want to be sure, because you will miss the deadline, you won't get the player.
    about feuille's player: i could actually see somebody pay 40k for that, because the offs look adorable. so if i want him for sure, i might bid 50k, but then i would think "hmm, 50k isnt so far from what i might expect somebody to pay and the next bid step is so small, i should bid 60k or maybe 70k to be sure. because i might miss the DL. also i save 15k from LC each season, might as well go a little overboard"
    this might not be why the manager bid what he bid, but it is a reasonable chain of thought, so definitely not beyond reasonable doubt

    vali wrote:

    so if there is the slightest possibility we have a cheat/rulebreaking (like pushing, trolling, unserious bid), its a rollback.


    csm should also have the presumption of innocence and not rollback stuff, because it might once in a blue moon be a cheat

    vali wrote:

    in general, i dislike the blind auction soluation for certain reasons.


    like?

    Last edited by sEklAt at 2014-05-12 03:23
  • #19 2014-05-12 09:45

    sEklAt wrote:

    i think you are the one getting in wrong.

    Not when it comes to the definition about market value. You don't seem to understand the definition of an effective market. Comments like this one proves it:

    sEklAt wrote:

    if the majority would be able to decide what is right and what is wrong (at least in a span of some k) like people are more or less suggesting, the market should be viewed as effective.

    That's nonsense. Obviously that's not the only factor defining an effective market. Go look it up.

    sEklAt wrote:

    due to the fact that it isnt an effective market, market prices cannot be decided by an actual market (or a group of super elite oldschool csm managers), but only by a single user.

    We agree on everything but the highlighted part. Of course a group of highly experienced users who supervise players on the TL on a daily basis (that's the case for admins) judge if a price is reasonable or not. I have read you whole post, but your points are only relevant in border line cases (the grey zone) imo.

    sEklAt wrote:

    ... a term like "market price" totally fails, if it is not considered in the right context.
    supply and demand are so fucked up in csm (at least for now) that it is just not possible in my opinion to disregard a bid on the mentioned rule, if it is not absolutely over the top.

    We agree. But I only felt I have to comment since you claimed the market price is determined by what one manager is willing to pay. That's simply nonsense.

    Btw.: feuille's transfer case absolutely over the top. Normally similar players are sold for 10-20k - we're talking a bid that is +300-700% compared to normal prices. :-)

    Last edited by zAiw00t at 2014-05-12 09:47
  • #20 2014-05-13 03:31

    zAiw00t wrote:

    sEklAt wrote:

    i think you are the one getting in wrong.

    Not when it comes to the definition about market value. You don't seem to understand the definition of an effective market. Comments like this one proves it:

    sEklAt wrote:

    if the majority would be able to decide what is right and what is wrong (at least in a span of some k) like people are more or less suggesting, the market should be viewed as effective.

    That's nonsense. Obviously that's not the only factor defining an effective market. Go look it up.


    arent the defining aspects of an effective market completly symmetric information and rational individuals?
    but please tell me which big defining factor i am missing, that would make my argument invalid, i dont see it.

    zAiw00t wrote:

    We agree on everything but the highlighted part. Of course a group of highly experienced users who supervise players on the TL on a daily basis (that's the case for admins) judge if a price is reasonable or not. I have read you whole post, but your points are only relevant in border line cases (the grey zone) imo.

    zAiw00t wrote:

    Btw.: feuille's transfer case absolutely over the top. Normally similar players are sold for 10-20k - we're talking a bid that is +300-700% compared to normal prices. :-)

    i agree that admins know what players are going for and saying that a user alone determines the price is a little exaggerated, but i think that the actual range upwards for bids can be much bigger than only a few k, depending on the available time and finances of a manager. so basically i just think the grey zone is much wider
    i think in ranges like in the current case one should not argument with percentages, but rather with absolute values to determine whether or not something could be just fueled by serious demand or by making sure to certainly get a player. i sold a player for 3 csm, that was only a 1 csm player, with percentages that might also sound like a massive overbid

    i gave an example about this player above, and by no means do i claim that the bid did happen that way because of thoughts like that, but i dont think it is unreasonable that some managers might act this way without any intention of cheating (which should be - apart from protecting new members - the only reason for rollbacks imo).

    Quote:

    about feuille's player: i could actually see somebody pay 40k for that, because the offs look adorable. so if i want him for sure, i might bid 50k, but then i would think "hmm, 50k isnt so far from what i might expect somebody to pay and the next bid step is so small, i should bid 60k or maybe 70k to be sure. because i might miss the DL. also i save 15k from LC each season, might as well go a little overboard"


    i think the bold part is very relevant

    Last edited by sEklAt at 2014-05-13 03:32
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111