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 2016-12-01 12:52

    I think the admins have done the right thing... Because the norwegian manager isn't a serious manager anymore, but you can't ban him because he waste his money in that way (no users benefited from him)...

    And if he wants he could get the player cheapest and this is a shit for us, because means that he still having a big amount of money. Now, we know that he can't stole another interesting players to others serious managers, imo.

    If there aren't two managers involved, there isn't cheats, it's only a silly way of administrate your budget.

  • #2 2016-12-01 15:11

    dant wrote:

    Just because a no name manager got him, isnt a reason to rollback, the player is wasted of course but since its csm agent no rules broken


    if the bidder doesn't plan to log into csm anymore after spending 3kk, then the player can be sold again by csm agent within a few seasons.

  • #3 2016-12-01 15:36

    I hope the admin team sees the irony here. On one hand you try to add more players to the game, while on the other hand you let a manager deliberate preclude these plans. Without punishment. Good job guys. Glad you followed rules instead of common sense.

  • #4 2016-12-01 16:29

    most people inhere just try to bring the admin team down. You rather want to talk trash than nothing.
    This was the only good decision. why ?
    khyn said it already :

    khyn wrote:

    Unserious bids on csm agent players have always been accepted. Why ? Because it can't be cheating since it doesn't involve 2 users. Nobody got harmed/got unfair advantage in this case.

    Everybody is whining about too much money in the game blablabla. And this is 1 way to get the money (slowly) out of the game. But then again, you see people inhere shouting for a rollback. So we can never do good for everybody. This guy wants money out of the game, the other one wants that player and is mad there is no rollback.
    So we did what we always did in the past. let this transfer go trough because he's a CSM-Agent player.
    But yea it sucks indeed that it's a great player.

    Last edited by kanar at 2016-12-01 16:30
  • #5 2016-12-01 16:55

    kanar I can only agree that this was the right thing to do if we talk about consistency. My first post was just for fun to add some spice here to discussions. It would be acceptable(atleast for me)to rollback this transfer and ban the user, but again w/o changing rules this would lead to shitstorm in later similiar cases.

    I really can't imagine how hard it would be push a rule like "If a godlike player with limits above 94(or 95, 96) in top4/5 is involved in any transfer that most likely will waste this player, it can be rollbacked" this just came in to my mind now, but some admin could open a topic, discuss with others admins and come to a decent rule that woudn't waste such players. Same goes for rules that involves semi analyzed tryouts, for bidding more than +5%, etc

    @ snif they accepted a transfer ~300k from FL money to top manager is there anything that can surprise you?

  • #6 2016-12-01 16:56

    snif wrote:

    I hope the admin team sees the irony here. On one hand you try to add more players to the game, while on the other hand you let a manager deliberate preclude these plans. Without punishment. Good job guys. Glad you followed rules instead of common sense.

    Oh yeah, rollback and punish him with a fine. I'm sure the minus 50k csm will make a world of difference in his economy. Or do you want us to create new punishments according to each case?

    I don't like this bids, it is show off and the TL is not a place for that. But with what we can do, letting this transfers go is still the best option, it is common sense.

  • #7 2016-12-01 17:09

    You're actually emphasizing the lack of common sense to be honest. Is the admin team serving the community or the play book? That is what you should ask yourself here. You are familiar with jurisdiction? It might be wise to take a different stance on this transfer. There are plenty of fish out there with 3 million or more in their csm bank account, most likely inactive and potentially inspired by this 'fun' move.

  • #8 2016-12-01 19:04

    snif wrote:

    I hope the admin team sees the irony here. On one hand you try to add more players to the game, while on the other hand you let a manager deliberate preclude these plans. Without punishment. Good job guys. Glad you followed rules instead of common sense.


    First off, we (as admins) don't add more players to the game.
    Secondly, you criticize our position while you don't even read what we write. I just wrote unserious bids on CSM-Agent players have always been canceled for years and you're just claiming we've just altered our stance...
    Thirdly, talking about jurisdiction and following the rules... If you take the spirit of the rule into consideration, you should understand it was done to prevent someone from getting an unfair advantage because of an unreasonable bid. It obviously involves 2 users. Again, nobody got illegaly richer here, so it was pointless to roll the transfer back. Plus, the user could've continued to bid on random players to piss the community off.
    Last but not least, with a rollback, we would've lost the player for ever. (most likely)

  • #9 2016-12-01 19:08

    There is no such distinction, the community must be served following a set of rules.

    I'm sure we would get a shitstorm if we started taking different stances on "similar" cases. It is something we always work hard to follow, and even when we do some of you think we don't...

    And this is not even an unique case that we have to go outside of the book and come up with a fair solution, it has happened before and will happen again.

    Like i said, i don't like those bids at all, but since we can't upgrade our tools to be able to remove such bids or some other elegant solution, we have to keep doing what we've always done in those cases.

  • #10 2016-12-01 19:09

    kanar wrote:

    most people inhere just try to bring the admin team down. You rather want to talk trash than nothing.
    This was the only good decision. why ?
    khyn said it already :

    khyn wrote:

    Unserious bids on csm agent players have always been accepted. Why ? Because it can't be cheating since it doesn't involve 2 users. Nobody got harmed/got unfair advantage in this case.

    Everybody is whining about too much money in the game blablabla. And this is 1 way to get the money (slowly) out of the game. But then again, you see people inhere shouting for a rollback. So we can never do good for everybody. This guy wants money out of the game, the other one wants that player and is mad there is no rollback.
    So we did what we always did in the past. let this transfer go trough because he's a CSM-Agent player.
    But yea it sucks indeed that it's a great player.


    Admins did the right thing and it is good in every aspect except that a great player is maybe lost. It's fine and I agree fully with them. The only thing that could be done better is to put randomly generated csm player with similar limits and training again on TL. That way we get another good player in the game and we got rid of 3mil + another 700-800k. That would be awesome, don't you think?
    Admins, could you do that? Then everyone will be happy for sure!

  • #11 2016-12-01 19:14

    We don't have any rights or ideas or just don't know when a player will pop up or how good / bad / trained they will be. So admins don't have any influence on that

  • #12 2016-12-01 19:19

    SAs? Someone must have that power

    Last edited by Kail at 2016-12-01 19:19
  • #13 2016-12-01 19:23

    There is no tool to make that happen. It would probably require a coder to go in the database and create a player from scratch.

  • #14 2016-12-01 19:45

    Quote:

    Everybody is whining about too much money in the game blablabla. And this is 1 way to get the money (slowly) out of the game.


    Havent you seen the whine about no players to buy? That whine clearly trumfs the too-much-money-whine 😁

  • + #15 2016-12-01 19:49 Post deleted by osis

  • #16 2016-12-01 23:06

    Quote:

    First off, we (as admins) don't add more players to the game.

    GA, SA and coders (are there any?) are not in the same team? Great working relationship.

    Quote:

    Secondly, you criticize our position while you don't even read what we write. I just wrote unserious bids on CSM-Agent players have always been canceled for years and you're just claiming we've just altered our stance...

    I did not claim such thing. Keeping it straight, I get your point of view. All I said was that you might want to change it in this case. Who is actually served by not doing anything about this dick move? Would the game be a tiny bit better of with a new great player to this game? I think it would have been.

    Quote:

    Thirdly, talking about jurisdiction and following the rules... If you take the spirit of the rule into consideration, you should understand it was done to prevent someone from getting an unfair advantage because of an unreasonable bid. It obviously involves 2 users. Again, nobody got illegaly richer here, so it was pointless to roll the transfer back. Plus, the user could've continued to bid on random players to piss the community off.
    Last but not least, with a rollback, we would've lost the player for ever. (most likely)

    It's not about the money, it's about the waste of a player imo. By not protecting these rare players by accepting such shit moves. In my opinion it's exactly the same thing as kicking them, which isn't allowed is it? There is simply nothing serious about this transfer. Especially odd while on the other hand CSM as an organization is pulling strings to actually add more of such players due to the lack of natural supply. You're probably right the player was not getting back on TL if it got rollbacked. Though imo there people around here with the power to remove bids.

    At last, if the troll bidding kept going it's not that hard to apply the usual methods available to admins.

    Let's see what happens if two, three or ten more players like these are transferred the same way..

    Last edited by snif at 2016-12-01 23:08
  • + #17 2016-12-04 11:47 Post deleted by Kail

  • #18 2016-12-07 19:40

    150k, for real?

  • #19 2016-12-07 23:27

    rebbyd wrote:

    150k, for real?

    haven't you heard, awareness doesn't matter.

  • #20 2016-12-08 12:45

    dominance wrote:

    rebbyd wrote:

    150k, for real?

    haven't you heard, awareness doesn't matter.

    Is it a joke or reality? I haven't played CSM for a couple of years.

    I guess your joking, I can just tell, but anyways

    Last edited by rebbyd at 2016-12-08 12:48
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