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 2012-05-14 17:18

    Yeah, will be nice to see what are they gonna do now.

  • #2 2012-05-14 18:31

    It's better with sentences.
    Express yourself. It looks like you have something to say.

  • #3 2012-05-15 15:22

    Spending all the money in an untrained player (and jumping from 20k to 50k) can be seen as an unserious bid, that is all the big story.

  • #4 2012-05-15 19:26

    im trying to change one player, my pos5 is on tl

  • #5 2012-05-16 02:09

    Hilarious. Yet another case of coded anti-Portuguese bias. I've had 2 or 3 transfers pretty close to this that never got rolled back. I am sure many more have happened. I even reported my own transfers as suspect just to cover my bases.

    3 Full seasons of Hard LC and he's maxed before 28. 4-5 seasons of solid performance with minimal upkeep. 50K is not unreasonable, unless that was all he had in the bank.

    Last edited by Curtisuxor at 2012-05-16 02:10
  • #6 2012-05-16 03:15

    It's all he had, but he would sell one of his players (which is currently @ tl) and would re-balance his assets. Everybody did this in the past, everybody will stil be doing it in the future. The problem is admins still don't know how to handle such delicate cases, the seller and the bidder are from the same community + same country. We've had tons of these before, but they prefer to rollback just in case, with no reason or proof that it was cheating (I bet they haven't even talked to tz asking what was he trying to do with this buy, big mistake). Now the player is sold for +2,5k to another manager...

    All in all, another sad episode harming one of the already few active users we have. A shame.

    Last edited by Martino at 2012-05-16 03:16
  • #7 2012-07-31 07:23

    Ahw would 800k be rollbacked on Geronimo as well? Please describe that 'huge' difference between 800 & 900?

  • #8 2012-07-31 10:38

    Its not about the huge price i guess.

  • #9 2012-07-31 11:31

    I guess one of the issues on geronimo was a inactive user bidding.

  • #10 2012-07-31 12:42

    I guess youre right!

  • #11 2012-07-31 15:29

    Is there a rule which says inactive users are not allowed to bid?

    edit:

    §4 The transfer list

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

    Why?
    The CSM transfer market is based on supply and demand and is a free market. An unserious/unrealistic bid will be rolledback if it is much more than the market price as this is unfair to other managers selling similar players on the transfer list.

    What are examples for unserious bidding?
    a. Wasting your money when leaving the game.
    b. Attempting to get a bid rolled back to annoy the seller.
    c. Bidding on a friend or family members player to help them out.

    I suppose you cling on that point? There is stated 'leaving', not 'inactive'.

    Something else. I reported some of these transfers in march/april:

    ##Supreme • Muted! - silverblade (GA):
    2012-04-08 22:00 - Sold Loud` (id: 7328062) to xle · טеиті υиσ. for 115 000 csm
    2012-03-18 21:30 - Sold Ridd` (id: 7830939) to xle · טеиті υиσ. for 250 000 csm
    2012-03-18 21:30 - Sold Vince` (id: 753590 to xle · טеиті υиσ. for 230 000 csm

    Roccia didn't start to compete after he bought these players, and he wasn't for quite some time before he bought those. He didn't get overbidded in any of these bids, because they were sold pretty overpriced.

    In my opinion this shows the arbitrariness users have to face. If you follow TL very closely I wouldn't be surprised there are dozens of transfers made by inactive/leaving managers, though I highly doubt they got all rollbacked.

    Don't get me wrong, I love to see Geronimo to end in a (potential) CL-clan. Nevertheless it's completely wrong if it seems like the position of the seller and/or potential buyer within the CSM community has an influence on the outcome of an admin's decision and intepretation of the rules.
    If rules can't cover up for the loopholes in the game anymore, you need to start working on these loopholes. F.e. in any football manager game you can't buy Messi with a 3rd div English club. Ofcourse, a player has got somewhat of his own 'will' and therefor certain demands. The results is the transfer would never happen. In CSM this 'will' isn't too realistic I'm afraid, but you can consider some restricments on the amount you can bid when this is such an issue.

    Inactive players can't bid >100k. Players from div 3. can't bid >300k. Connect the maximum of bidding on a manager's media rating or mission points. Or any other way.

    There are probably all kind of examples were such restrictments are unfair. Still I prefer such restrictments settled in the gameplay and count for every manager above the intepration of the rules by an admin.

    Last edited by snif at 2012-07-31 16:21
  • #12 2012-08-05 15:55

    Quote:

    Inactive players can't bid >100k. Players from div 3. can't bid >300k. Connect the maximum of bidding on a manager's media rating or mission points. Or any other way.

    so im not allowed to buy me a team with money i own, now that im in league 5?

    there are always dodgy transfers.. sometimes an admin feels its ok and sometimes he doesnt. depending on the presented situation they're seeing in their adminpanel.
    ofc it would be good to see admins spending more time with "backgroundsearch" but you forget that there's always alot todo .. in RL and CSM. you cant spend all your time for one case.. or waiting for a user to answer your mails... they're just volunteers who like admin rights

    maybe add some "comment"-function to a transfer so a buyer/bidder or seller can add a reason why he puts his player on tl, or why he is bidding that much.. something more automatic so admins have more input when seeing the transfer in their panel.

  • #13 2012-08-05 20:23

    I totally agree here.
    Even if the buyer has 0/5 activity, if he pays the right money for the player, the transfer shouldn't get rollbacked.

  • #14 2012-08-06 17:28

    as long as its a reasonable price, that other users are also paying, there's no real reason for a rollback.
    you cant dictate a user where and why to spend money on... even if its harming their finances. thats a manager mistake and he will be punished for it or not by csm-system.

    when they're just wasting their money on a player thats not worth it there should ofc be a rollback, thats also what the rules say.

  • #15 2012-08-06 21:16

    matze-lala wrote:

    as long as its a reasonable price, that other users are also paying, there's no real reason for a rollback.
    you cant dictate a user where and why to spend money on... even if its harming their finances. thats a manager mistake and he will be punished for it or not by csm-system.

    when they're just wasting their money on a player thats not worth it there should ofc be a rollback, thats also what the rules say.

    I can not agree more here. Inactive managers or managers from lower division should be allowed to get such monster as Geronimo as well, as long as they are grabbed in a fair bidfight. It now seems the transfer of Geronimo will be rollbacked untill any John Doe gets tired of it and the player ends up in a team which is at the same potential as the player itself. As you said, the admin team should not be allowed to dictate an user where and why to spend money on.

    The CSM system corrects those teams eventually. What might help is players who are in bankrupt teams get back on TL way sooner as they do now. Something like right away, to pay off 'creditors'.

    In addition we might reconsider if 0 activity should be rewarded with a sponsordeal at all.. It does not require that much of activity to arrange 8 pcw's every 4 days.

    Last edited by snif at 2012-08-06 21:28
  • #16 2012-08-07 11:36

    Quote:

    Inactive players can't bid >100k. Players from div 3. can't bid >300k. Connect the maximum of bidding on a manager's media rating or mission points. Or any other way.

    That's actually a pretty good idea!

    P.S. had another laugh about silverblade's cheat transfers I reported them as well, but you know, if an inactive (rebuilding/eco) manager bids 30-50k extra on overpriced player it's normal! If the seller is an admin.

  • #17 2012-08-07 12:42

    about the inactive players, i kinda agree... but why shouldn't div.3 teams be allowed to bid more than 300k?

    maybe they want to build an awesome rebuild team, how should they buy it?

  • #18 2012-08-07 13:17

    Get to higher division, and start from there? :p

  • #19 2012-08-07 13:22

    awesome idea :p

  • #20 2012-08-07 13:26

    it would be an extra money waste, wouldn't it ?

    + then it would be unfair compared with different nations
    for example:

    if ur german player and start rebuild(depending on what u buy, but lets assume that u want to start really fresh and ull buy 13-15 yo godlikes) he cant buy really godlikes if hes on 5.x and he has to buy oldie team to make it 3.x div. At the same time, Estonian managers can buy whatever they like, cause we basiclly dont have lower than 4.x div(at least you wont fall out of 3.x div)

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