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
  • #1 2021-03-21 14:39

    mrcarlsen wrote:

    Basically everybody (except uknow, involved admins and of course raid_on) think this kind of transfer is wrong.


    everyone is against playing within the rules? since when do you speak for a silent majority?

    mrcarlsen wrote:

    So maybe it's time to fix the rules so we can avoid this discussion in the future?


    everyone had a fair shot over years to suggest ideas to improve the situation without causing even more problems. how do you think it will help to change rules when discussions are repeating with the same points again and again?

  • #2 2021-03-21 15:14

    Quote:

    everyone is against playing within the rules?

    So if you don't agree with a rule, you're suddenly against playing by the rules ? That's like saying: if you're not a feminist you hate women.

    I don't try to speak for the silent majority, I'm simply stating my observations from reading the last 7 pages: few people try to defend the rules and the transfer, while the majority wants to change the rules. I'm so sorry for being so unclear.

    Quote:

    how do you think it will help to change rules when discussions are repeating with the same points again and again?

    A lot of times when friendly bidding and banking occurs it stirs a discussion because a lot of people think it's wrong and mostly only involved parties try to defend it. So if we don't change the rules I think the discussion will go on forever. The discussion is only happening because a lot of people don't agree with the rules on this point.

    Last edited by mrcarlsen at 2021-03-21 15:15
  • #3 2021-03-21 15:25

    mrcarlsen wrote:

    I don't try to speak for the silent majority, I'm simply stating my observations from reading the last 7 pages: few people try to defend the rules and the transfer, while the majority wants to change the rules. I'm so sorry for being so unclear.


    I think you don't see the new injustice you create by breaking the current application of treating transfers and their chaining the same. so you prefer transfers to be treated differently because the wrong guys buy and sell at the wrong times? and you want to punish the multiple execution of legal actions like transfers? go on and find a constructive way of convincing csm leadership instead of spreading salt repeatingly again even after rejection. one advice: maybe don't witchhunt the players who can't decide this kind of things.

  • #4 2021-03-21 15:27

    90% of admins agree it’s cheating. Just be glad it’s hard to put in writing and continue dancing around the rules in a browser game.

  • #5 2021-03-21 16:01

    Quote:

    I think you don't see the new injustice you create by breaking the current application of treating transfers and their chaining the same.


    Are you also against "§4.5. Circulating a tryout through any number of clans to evade the special tryout tax is not permitted."? This is basically a very explicit kind of banking requiring multiple steps (chaining) where you have to look at the whole chain instead of the individual transfers. If there can be a rule against this, I don't see why it can't be applied broader as well.

  • #6 2021-03-21 17:41

    mrcarlsen wrote:

    Are you also against "§4.5. Circulating a tryout through any number of clans to evade the special tryout tax is not permitted."?


    different case: they offered simple solutions how to handle it. and the free market already offers lazier and legal solutions to avoid "own tryout" taxes by allowing you to buy unanalyzed tryouts from others for gamble + reselling purposes. for everyone who wants to keep his acc clean and applies real world management strategies §4.5 will never be a problem.

    back to the banking issue.
    tldr:
    possible target conflicts:
    on the one side you have freedom of market/management decisions + treating everyone and every transfer the same + punishment based on proofs
    VS
    discrimination + general suspicion of groups and excluding a group of managers from accessing the free market soley based on their interactions with others aka guilt by association on the other side

    Last edited by Raid on at 2021-03-21 17:42
  • #7 2021-03-21 20:33

    In my opinion any transfer that is made without the intention of specifically benefiting your own clan (in one way or the other) is immoral. It may be legal within the current rules but that doesn't make it right. Do you disagree with this? Yes or no.

  • #8 2021-03-22 00:09

    mrcarlsen wrote:

    In my opinion any transfer that is made without the intention of specifically benefiting your own clan (in one way or the other) is immoral.


    changing your mind after few days to realign your monetary resources to be able to buy more suitable players for the current strategy: moral or immoral?

    mrcarlsen wrote:

    It may be legal within the current rules but that doesn't make it right. Do you disagree with this? Yes or no.


    if a possible solution by rules means restricting management decisions, limiting free market and locking out all guys with friends or communities from bidding to end up handing out transfer benefits for guys without friends or communites, then I disagree. at the current state of rules it's unlikely that you will be punished for trying your luck selling with high SB or changing your mind after days + sell the player you bought in a legal way. in case of suspicious bids you want to punish sellers as well who cannot influence who will bid?

    Last edited by Raid on at 2021-03-22 00:11
  • #9 2021-03-22 04:33

    Raid on wrote:

    mrcarlsen wrote:

    In my opinion any transfer that is made without the intention of specifically benefiting your own clan (in one way or the other) is immoral.


    changing your mind after few days to realign your monetary resources to be able to buy more suitable players for the current strategy: moral or immoral?

    mrcarlsen wrote:

    It may be legal within the current rules but that doesn't make it right. Do you disagree with this? Yes or no.


    if a possible solution by rules means restricting management decisions, limiting free market and locking out all guys with friends or communities from bidding to end up handing out transfer benefits for guys without friends or communites, then I disagree. at the current state of rules it's unlikely that you will be punished for trying your luck selling with high SB or changing your mind after days + sell the player you bought in a legal way. in case of suspicious bids you want to punish sellers as well who cannot influence who will bid?

    You keep answering questions with other questions and making circles around the truth. And when you answer about this particular part of the game(banking) you support it like nothing’s wrong. I’d love to see a real life team of any sort do this. A Premier League team with cash buying a 2-3M football player and 3 days later changing it’s mind and reselling him. Or buying a player because the team owner’s friend who also has a football team, can’t afford that player atm, but will have the money soon.

    So, what mrcarlsen and many other users say about it being not illegal but immoral is not limiting free market at all. You are free to buy whatever you like. And what could be done to avoid all this and might work, is to change the transfer taxes. F.E. You buy a player for 200k, 90% tax on the sale for 2 seasons, not on the profit. This way, you f up by buying the wrong player for your team, that’s on you. No more banking. No more shady deals.

  • #10 2021-03-22 07:55

    Raid on, stop second guessing intentions for a second, forget about the rules, "restriction of the free market" etc etc. Just answer this simple question:

    Do you think it's alright to do transfers with the intention of helping a friend, without any intention to benefit your own clan? The seller didn't change his mind about the player, he doesn't want to realign resources or whatever other reason you keep coming up with. He simply wants to help his friend.

    Is this okay? Yes or no.

  • #11 2021-03-22 08:22

    Think Pixel got the point well: put sales tax on the price and not on the Profit... Think that will avoid this rumble with some players... Good idea i think

  • #12 2021-03-22 09:13

    Rooney89 wrote:

    Think Pixel got the point well: put sales tax on the price and not on the Profit... Think that will avoid this rumble with some players... Good idea i think

    This idea would put an end once and for all to banking, and it will make the game on this particular side as it should be. You want a 200k-300k player? You need to have 200-300k in your bank. You don’t have that? Tough luck. I want to see then, who’s willing to be a friend and buy a 200k player and sell him for 20k to his buddy because he pays 180k in taxes.
    Idea would be 90%tax on the player final price for the first 3 to 5 seasons. After that, tax on profit. Or make the TL the same as the tryout system. Tax only the profit above 100k. Then a 300k player that is immediately resold for 300k is 100k + 90% of the 200k profit. Simple as that. This way, you either buy smart or you waste money. No more changing your mind. It would be like a contract you as a manager makes with the player you buy from tl. You decide you bought the wrong player? Then the cash goes to waste for your team in case you ditch him.

  • #13 2021-03-22 09:16

    PixeL wrote:

    So, what mrcarlsen and many other users say about it being not illegal but immoral is not limiting free market at all. You are free to buy whatever you like. And what could be done to avoid all this and might work, is to change the transfer taxes. F.E. You buy a player for 200k, 90% tax on the sale for 2 seasons, not on the profit. This way, you f up by buying the wrong player for your team, that’s on you. No more banking. No more shady deals.


    To restrict banking you are willing to punish all the ones who don't bank and actively play the game? Think about the side effects. With this kind of heavy and long lasting taxes you will punish active management, kill the common strategy of gaining cash via seasonal transfer deals and slow down the progress of new users or users with weaker players. They need to upgrade their players a lot and getting back a lot via resale helps there too.

    Last edited by Raid on at 2021-03-22 09:28
  • #14 2021-03-22 09:54

    Raid on, you're still ignoring my very simple question...

  • #15 2021-03-22 09:57

    Raid On is your real name Vlad and do you work at Robinhood?

  • #16 2021-03-22 11:19

    Verba wrote:

    Raid On is your real name Vlad and do you work at Robinhood?


    mrcarlsen wrote:

    Do you think it's alright to do transfers with the intention of helping a friend, without any intention to benefit your own clan? The seller didn't change his mind about the player, he doesn't want to realign resources or whatever other reason you keep coming up with. He simply wants to help his friend.


    might need more real world examples to figure it out:
    case 1:
    2019-10-04 18:30 Sold HσσpэЯ™ to Madison Ivy is UBEHAGELIG for 17 500 csm (Profit: 0 csm, Tax rate: 98%)
    2019-09-26 07:30 Bought HσσpэЯ™ from hang loose for 20 000 csm

    case 2:
    2019-05-11 12:30 Sold M. Obano to Silver Fang is UBEHAGELIG for 52 500 csm (Profit: 0 csm, Tax rate: 60%)
    2019-04-16 00:30 Bought M. Obano from imbalance ≠ XILANDER for 60 000 csm

    case 3:
    2020-02-21 20:30 Sold AWESOME 5CL (id: 18596105) to thef1shs for 115 184 csm (Profit: 0 csm, Tax rate: 98%)
    2020-02-14 23:00 Bought AWESOME 5CL (id: 18596105) from CSM-Agent for 116 667 csm
    3 cases of quickly buying and selling. luckily happening before future implementation of possible anti banking rules. punishable in your eyes if happening in future? not asking to raise double standard suspicions, just asking to gain deeper understatement.

  • #17 2021-03-22 11:25

    Raid on, still dodging my really simple question...

    Last edited by mrcarlsen at 2021-03-22 11:26
  • #18 2021-03-23 01:49

    Hypocritical discussion! Raid showed you obviously intentionally use the same procedure, which I do not consider wrong btw. It's an open TL and everyone can bid when a player is (re-)sold. So Raid used the correct arguments, but you tried to limit this on a pathetic "moral" question. My answer is yes btw.

    The proposed rule adjustment has obvious flaws and is unnecessary.

    And just as a side note @pixeL: "I’d love to see a real life team of any sort do this. A Premier League team with cash buying a 2-3M football player and 3 days later changing it’s mind and reselling him." I'd love to see a Premier league team obligated to keep a player at for 2 seasons...

  • #19 2021-03-23 02:55

    DrunkenSailor wrote:

    I'd love to see a Premier league team obligated to keep a player at for 2 seasons...

    To be honest I am already waiting for a long time, that the PL take on the CSM tax-system.
    Big advocate in that regard.

  • #20 2021-03-23 08:06

    I disagree, DrukenSailor. Raid on and others who defends these transfers endlessly do so without ever producing a compelling argument why banking should be allowed. Instead they think of a million reason why making it illegal will serioulsy restrict everyone else. They make it into a false dilemma by saying that either you allow banking or you punish everyone. I don’t buy that. That’s why I’m trying to figure out if they morally think banking is fine. If they do, then we will at least learn why they truly defend banking. If they don’t, then we can at least agree on something and start figuring out how to make banking illegal without restricting legitimate 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