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 2021-03-10 17:38

    I wish I had friends that could’ve saved me last time I rage sold.

  • #2 2021-03-10 18:46

    dant wrote:

    Wrath wrote:

    Well.. we all know that this is a clear baking case.
    Unfortunately banking is not covered by the rules, thus it is not illegal.

    I agree that this nouhau case is more than obvious, but, I need to repeat myself, so far it is not against the rules.

    If admin team doesnt even understand the term "banking" well ye its hard to punish

    This isnt banking at all its saving managers ass after rage sell, and honestly I have nothing against it, even if ecs bid can be considered as a friendly bid since so much more than previous bid

    It's banking too (if it was arranged).

    Let's keep a respectful tone from here.

    Last edited by zAiw00t at 2021-03-10 18:47
  • #3 2021-03-10 19:04

    Well yeah, but there is no clear distinction of banking as it isnt even named in the csm rules. That's why i reacted to the statement that it's a "clear banking case".
    If users or admins want that to change, write/add rules that define banking and how it should be handled.
    But I really do think it's more important to focus on TL cheating that clearly gives users an advantage against others.. which i dont think "banking" does, even if i dont like it being done. And by banking i mean my definition..
    The case recently discussed is just not banking in my mind, as it is not "holding money related".

    Last edited by booban at 2021-03-10 19:07
  • #4 2021-03-10 19:07

    booban wrote:

    But is it even banking? Isnt banking when Manager A buys Player 1 from Manager B, because Manager C doesnt have the csm needed and Manager C then buys Player 1 from Manager A when the needed csm have been collected??


    it's not that obvious. changing mind after buying a player is common, reselling a player is allowed at any time. as seller it's impossible to prevent certain potential buyers from bidding on your player. this is even considered in rules. f.e. you cannot trollbid on a player of a random seller to make admins pushing him/her. most likely you as bidder will be punished.

    now step by step summary:
    A succesfully buying player 1 from manager B -> bought at market price resulting in no rollback -> legit
    A selling player 1 shortly after changing mind -> legit
    C successfully buying player 1 from manager A -> bought at market price resulting in no rollback -> legit

    Last edited by Raid on at 2021-03-10 19:12
  • #5 2021-03-10 19:21

    kekw

  • #6 2021-03-10 19:25

    booban wrote:

    Well yeah, but there is no clear distinction of banking as it isnt even named in the csm rules. That's why i reacted to the statement that it's a "clear banking case".
    If users or admins want that to change, write/add rules that define banking and how it should be handled.
    But I really do think it's more important to focus on TL cheating that clearly gives users an advantage against others.. which i dont think "banking" does, even if i dont like it being done. And by banking i mean my definition..
    The case recently discussed is just not banking in my mind, as it is not "holding money related".

    Its Banking and its ok, please never try to argue their decisions, they bought and magicaly changed there mind 10s later, the 300k+ overbid was because he really needed that 25yo and was scared of overbid :pepe:

    Last edited by dant at 2021-03-10 19:30
  • #7 2021-03-10 19:36

    As a former nh member and admin I won't ask you again to maintain a respectful tone, dant

    P.S. well played osis. gubbed

    Last edited by Icbus at 2021-03-10 19:36
  • #8 2021-03-10 19:40

    People than wonder why so many people quit CSM....

    "later found swimming with the fishes"

    Last edited by dant at 2021-03-10 19:41
  • #9 2021-03-10 19:48

    so moral of the story, ecs44 and hu7k are just not treated as regular managers because of their money and results. Got it.

  • #10 2021-03-10 19:55

    RiFLE wrote:

    so moral of the story, ecs44 and hu7k are just not treated as regular managers because of their money and results. Got it.

    You forgot that I'm an admin.

  • #11 2021-03-10 19:57

    Hu7K wrote:

    RiFLE wrote:

    so moral of the story, ecs44 and hu7k are just not treated as regular managers because of their money and results. Got it.

    You forgot that I'm an admin.

    That's part of the explanation, thanks for reminding

  • #12 2021-03-10 20:02

    RiFLE wrote:

    so moral of the story, ecs44 and hu7k are just not treated as regular managers because of their money and results. Got it.

    How are they not treated like every other user?

    Raid on wrote:

    now step by step summary:
    A succesfully buying player 1 from manager B -> bought at market price resulting in no rollback -> legit
    A selling player 1 shortly after changing mind -> legit
    C successfully buying player 1 from manager A -> bought at market price resulting in no rollback -> legit

  • #13 2021-03-10 20:09

    Yes yes, everyone is bad! Just roll back both players to Zoif so we can stop arguing about these boring trades and start focusing on my interesting cases instead.

  • #14 2021-03-10 20:26

    zAiw00t wrote:

    RiFLE wrote:

    so moral of the story, ecs44 and hu7k are just not treated as regular managers because of their money and results. Got it.

    How are they not treated like every other user?

    Raid on wrote:

    now step by step summary:
    A succesfully buying player 1 from manager B -> bought at market price resulting in no rollback -> legit
    A selling player 1 shortly after changing mind -> legit
    C successfully buying player 1 from manager A -> bought at market price resulting in no rollback -> legit

    Are you really trying to say that Player A puts a player on TL, Player B from SAME COMMUNITY buys for an absurd amount of money (market price sure, 99,9% of managers cannot intervene, there's no market price here, luckily a brave soul overbidded but I guess you'll rollback that). Then Player B suddenly sells it backs a couple days after and oh surprise, Player A buys it for the same amount (still from the same community).
    And you're talking about Player B "changing his mind" ? Alright

    You chose to close your eyes on obvious banking activity (I don't quite care whether it's in the rules or not, it's abuse). Please explain how it's incorrect ?

  • #15 2021-03-10 20:41

    RiFLE wrote:

    I don't quite care whether it's in the rules or not.

    How should we have a constructive discussion like that? It seems the only reasonable way to move forward is to forbid every transfer above 25k so that all managers can intervene and we remove the functionality of having communities.

    Last edited by Hu7K at 2021-03-10 20:43
  • #16 2021-03-10 20:42

    RiFLE wrote:

    Are you really trying to say that Player A puts a player on TL, Player B from SAME COMMUNITY buys for an absurd amount of money (market price sure, 99,9% of managers cannot intervene, there's no market price here, luckily a brave soul overbidded but I guess you'll rollback that).


    contradictions: you say "cannot intervene" but in the end someone intervenes and then you question it by you assuming a future rollback.
    who decides what's market price? you? or buyer + seller + admin approval as final step?

  • #17 2021-03-10 20:45

    Hu7K wrote:

    RiFLE wrote:

    I don't quite care whether it's in the rules or not.

    How should we have a constructive discussion like that? It seems the only reasonable way to move forward is to forbid every transfer above 25k so that all managers can intervene and we remove the functionality of having communities.

    well a person with acces to database shouldnt be allowed to play for one

  • #18 2021-03-10 20:46

    dant wrote:

    Hu7K wrote:

    RiFLE wrote:

    I don't quite care whether it's in the rules or not.

    How should we have a constructive discussion like that? It seems the only reasonable way to move forward is to forbid every transfer above 25k so that all managers can intervene and we remove the functionality of having communities.

    well a person with acces to database shouldnt be allowed to play for one

    Yeah, let's talk about this for a bit, good point. Surely will help the discussion. I demand MrKaizer to leave second to none now!

    Last edited by Hu7K at 2021-03-10 20:48
  • #19 2021-03-10 20:47

    dant wrote:

    Hu7K wrote:

    RiFLE wrote:

    I don't quite care whether it's in the rules or not.

    How should we have a constructive discussion like that? It seems the only reasonable way to move forward is to forbid every transfer above 25k so that all managers can intervene and we remove the functionality of having communities.

    well a person with acces to database shouldnt be allowed to play for one

    +1+1+1+1

  • #20 2021-03-10 20:49

    Raid on wrote:

    RiFLE wrote:

    Are you really trying to say that Player A puts a player on TL, Player B from SAME COMMUNITY buys for an absurd amount of money (market price sure, 99,9% of managers cannot intervene, there's no market price here, luckily a brave soul overbidded but I guess you'll rollback that).


    contradictions: you say "cannot intervene" but in the end someone intervenes and then you question it by you assuming a future rollback.
    who decides what's market price? you? or buyer + seller + admin approval as final step?

    Raid on wrote:


    now step by step summary:
    A succesfully buying player 1 from manager B -> bought at market price resulting in no rollback -> legit
    A selling player 1 shortly after changing mind -> legit
    C successfully buying player 1 from manager A -> bought at market price resulting in no rollback -> legit

    I guess you did decide what's market price. And now it's granted right ?

    Last edited by RiFLE at 2021-03-10 20:49
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