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 2021-03-24 15:13

    Raid on wrote:

    mathe wrote:

    And the fact that many of the admins making these decisions are also involved in these communites makes for a nice conflict of interest that nobody seems to mind.


    To debunk possible uprising conspiracy theories:
    Admins are expected to act neutral no matter who is suspect of breaking rules. More non-nouhaus are admin than nouhaus. Cases involved nouhaus can still be assigned to non-nouhau admins. Admins have the tools to monitor each other when needed. In case of misbehaving of one admin you can still contact a GA+ via mail for a complaint.

    Not really a conspiracy theory. Just a fact, just like if I was having a court hearing and my relative was the judge. Yes it might be a conflict interest there, the judge should be able to act professional but are you sure they will?

    And how do you know they are acting neutral? Do you have any information I don't have?

    Not to debunk every admin, I think most of them are great work.

    I apologize for stiring this conversation away from yours and mrcarlsens conversation. If you please could go back and answer his simple question too.

    You seem like a guy that can't answer with a Yes or No, so maybe politics are something for you raid-on?

  • #2 2021-03-24 15:28

    mathe wrote:


    And how do you know they are acting neutral? Do you have any information I don't have?

    Because it's forbidden. Check mate logic.

  • #3 2021-03-24 15:30

    jaaqov wrote:

    mathe wrote:


    And how do you know they are acting neutral? Do you have any information I don't have?

    Because it's forbidden. Check mate logic.

    Yes, nobody has been doing anything forbidden before... grow up

  • #4 2021-03-24 16:58

    I appreciate you remind us, Mathe, that Raid on still haven’t answered my question despite having replied me and others several times. I wonder why :^)

    Last edited by mrcarlsen at 2021-03-24 16:59
  • #5 2021-03-25 10:03

    mathe wrote:

    jaaqov wrote:

    mathe wrote:


    And how do you know they are acting neutral? Do you have any information I don't have?

    Because it's forbidden. Check mate logic.

    Yes, nobody has been doing anything forbidden before... grow up

    Damn, really didn't thought I had to add a /s to my post for you.
    Next time I'll let you know if sarcasm is involved, so you can feel a bit more included.

  • #6 2021-03-25 11:56

    mrcarlsen wrote:

    I appreciate you remind us, Mathe, that Raid on still haven’t answered my question despite having replied me and others several times. I wonder why :^)


    seems like there is no answer which can please you. feeling sorry for that. nevertheless, no one is obliged to provide further answers here. you already got a official statement and several pov's from regular users/former admins. how you are dealing with it is up to you.
    consider yourself like a paying guest in a restaurant. by entering it and ordering meals you accept the house rules. do you want to be the guest who annoys the owner forever to change house rules at the risk of being thrown out? or do you just accept the house rules, move on and finally enjoy your meal? I myself prefer to enjoy my own meals instead of harassing other guests + owners.

    Last edited by Raid on at 2021-03-25 12:04
  • #7 2021-03-25 14:13

    Raid on wrote:

    seems like there is no answer which can please you.

    A simple yes or no answer will make me more than happy.

    You already did a very good job to find excuses why you think a rule against banking is impractical but you never answered if you think banking is okay in the first place.

    Just to remind you, this is the question that you never answered (despite having replied multiple times): do you think it's okay to do transfers with the intention of helping a friend, without any intention to benefit your own clan?

    Last edited by mrcarlsen at 2021-03-25 14:34
  • #8 2021-03-25 15:14

    mrcarlsen wrote:

    Just to remind you, this is the question that you never answered (despite having replied multiple times): do you think it's okay to do transfers with the intention of helping a friend, without any intention to benefit your own clan?


    you mean helping your friends doing fair deals? if the bought player ends up being unused in lineup A or being trained badly it still doesn't change the green lighted "fair deal" tag the admins gave by not rollbacking the purchase. so overall it seems ok within the rules.

  • #9 2021-03-25 15:27

    No, I'm not asking you to make any more assumptions or if-statements to justify banking. I'm simply asking you if you think it's okay to do a transfer with NO intention (at any point) to benefit your own clan. You ONLY do the transfer to help a friend.

  • #10 2021-03-25 15:39

    mrcarlsen wrote:

    No, I'm not asking you to make any more assumptions or if-statements to justify banking. I'm simply asking you if you think it's okay to do a transfer with NO intention (at any point) to benefit your own clan. You ONLY do the transfer to help a friend.


    this is where the midunderstanding is. you have a different view on benefits than rules + admins state. for you benefits include how you use the player after he got bought. then you could blame your commate verba for buying a 6th player despite only having 5 slots in lineup A for XP gain + hearts buildup + punish him based on that. fortunately, csm transfer rules don't work like that. else a lot of rollbacks have to happen after deadline resulting in massive amount of extra work for admins + the database coders.
    now back to the discussed cases. so far everyone benefited after zoif's failed rebuying bids in the transfers triangle of zoif -> hu7k -> osis and zoif -> ecs44 -> icbus:
    -zoif got his cash he needed to rebuild = benefit of selling
    -ecs44 + hu7k got their cash back after resleeping few nights over the purchase decision + can buy more suitable players for their current strategy = benefits of managing their financial resources
    -icbus and osis received the powerful player they might need for a comeback. = benefit of buying
    win win for every 3 parties in each case

    Last edited by Raid on at 2021-03-25 15:40
  • #11 2021-03-25 15:48

    Once again you're avoiding answering by referring to the rules. Can't you see how ridiculous that argument is?

    Because it's legal doesn't make it right. Slavery used to be legal. Drinking & driving too. Child labor. Domestic violence. Just to name a few.

  • #12 2021-03-25 15:57

    mrcarlsen wrote:

    Once again you're avoiding answering by referring to the rules. Can't you see how ridiculous that argument is?

    Because it's legal doesn't make it right. Slavery used to be legal. Drinking & driving too. Child labor. Domestic violence. Just to name a few.


    relax, it's just a browser game with simple rules. in csm you brief your terrorists to do IRL crimes like killing police forces + trying to make things explode with the bomb. doesn't sound right IRL but it's game fiction, falls under freedom of expression + arts and is within the game rules.

  • #13 2021-03-25 16:55

    Using your logic we should remove every rule then because this is a “fictional game”?

  • #14 2021-03-25 21:47

    Wrong question!!!

    mrcarlsen wrote:

    Using your logic we should remove every rule then because this is a “fictional game”?

    You wanted to ask raid-on if thinks that it's okay to do transfers with the intention of helping a friend, without any intention to benefit your own clan? Please refrain from asking different questions, because your value systems obviously solely stands and falls with the single opinion of raid-on.

  • #15 2021-03-26 08:40

    So far not a single person in this thread has made any argument that explains what makes banking okay. They just keep on repeating excuses for why a rule is impractical.

    I've asked raid on several times by now and he's incapable of giving a clear answer (like anybody else who supports banking). Probably because he don't have any good arguments that can explain why banking is fair.

  • #16 2021-03-26 08:47

    Banking is violating § 4.3:

    §4.3. Placing bids on players owned by a friend or a relative may be seen as a possible cheating attempt by an admin.

    Managers from same community that bids a Player where another manager also has bidden should be observed... If they sell the Player after a season or so Inside the own community at same price it IS helping a friend... Think thats very clear... Only thing we have to talk about is the borders of this rule... (when it is cheating and when its like Raid on said an "Bad" decision)

  • #17 2021-03-26 09:52

    Nope. Wrong approach. As long as there is no argument for prohibiting something, which can be discussed then, there is no reason at all for such discussion.

    mrcarlsen wrote:

    So far not a single person in this thread has made any argument that explains what makes banking okay. They just keep on repeating excuses for why a rule is impractical.

  • #18 2021-03-26 10:31

    Rooney89 wrote:

    Banking is violating § 4.3:

    §4.3. Placing bids on players owned by a friend or a relative may be seen as a possible cheating attempt by an admin.


    The interpretation which matters is: admins stated in previous posts that banking doesn't violate rules. Makes sense coz a chain of 2 fair legal transfers is needed to execute banking. Else admins intervene with rollback and nothing can be done successfully.

    Rooney89 wrote:

    Managers from same community that bids a Player where another manager also has bidden should be observed... If they sell the Player after a season or so Inside the own community at same price it IS helping a friend... Think thats very clear... Only thing we have to talk about is the borders of this rule... (when it is cheating and when its like Raid on said an "Bad" decision)


    The entire transfer list is observed. What admins consider a fair deal is considered to help everyone: buyer and seller. It doesn't matter who is buying or selling as long as transfers are treated the same. If you as user see something fishy, report. Nothing happens even days after deadline? Transfer prolly got considered legal and got approved.

  • #19 2021-03-26 10:36

    I already presented a lot of arguments why banking should be illegal. First and foremost it's against the spirit of the game and general rules which is here to make sure every manager has equal chance of success.

    When you buy and hold players for a friend without any motivation to benefit your own clan you're engaging in a practice that give an unfair advantage compared to other managers because this manager don't have to be online at deadline. It's exploiting the transfer list in a way that was not intended and the parties involved are deliberately transferring money between them.

    When you can just ask a friend to buy and sell players to suite yourself you're having an unfair advantage over others.

    Example (one of many ways this is useful): you want a certain player but are not able to be online at deadline. Your ask your friend to buy the player. He wins the bid fight over another user who wanted the player and made sure to be online at the time of the deadline. Next day your friend puts the player back on with 1 day deadline at a time that suites you so you can buy the player.

    So I think I've made myself clear why I think banking is wrong. Now, I see a lot of excuses why we can't make a rule against this type of behaviour but I don't see any argument for why it's fair. Because of your lack of willingness to answer my question, I can only assume that you guys can't come up with any good reasons this point.

    Last edited by mrcarlsen at 2021-03-26 10:37
  • #20 2021-03-26 10:42

    mrcarlsen wrote:

    When you buy and hold players for a friend without any motivation to benefit your own clan you're engaging in a practice that give an unfair advantage compared to other managers because this manager don't have to be online at deadline. It's exploiting the transfer list in a way that was not intended and the parties involved are deliberately transferring money between them.


    Unfair advantage? Everyone with cash can still overbid at any time. Cash is needed to make transfers happen. No one is excluded from overbidding at any time. A money transfer attempt gets rolled back. So a money transfer attempt technically can't result in banking but fair deals can.

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