Commissioner Sanctions: What to do?

Vitalis · Post by **Vitalis** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 9:52 am

An issue came up in my league concerning a not so ethical behaviour of two coaches where one coach deliberately disregards his own possibilities of winning/openly helps another player.
The origin or nature of the underhand deal is at the moment unclear and it is not relevant to my question here:

Do you have examples or suggestions that could help when
* something must be done to discourage this
* an educational effect must be obvious
* you don't necessarily want to exclude the two players
??

Thanx for any input.

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:19 am

You mean someone helped his opponenet to win?

If so this counts as match fixing and the result of the game should be stricken from existence

I also suggest fining the teams involved...

Well thats what I would do - but our league expects the commission to act... and publish its results...

Post by **voyagers_uk** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:26 am

that happened to me once, a team deliberatley conceded a match so that the opponent would have a decent team with which to play in the final.

As the final opponent I was peturbed but laid the fist of justice down royally upon the guilty party who I faced...

So it had no real impact. I would advocate bounties on the star players of each team.

Vitalis · Post by **Vitalis** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:45 am

Just to remove some confusion.

The game involved four active players on one board.

Four teams. Five balls. Four endzones. Consecutive turns.
It's a houseruled variant of Dungeonbowl we call Mega Dungeon Bowl (MDB) that is usually reserved for friendlies, semifinals and final of the Dungeonbowl tournament.

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 10:52 am

Ah - we too have 4 way blood bowl

There is nothing wrong with ganging up in this situation

Vitalis · Post by **Vitalis** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 11:07 am

The underhand agreement/ganging up stacks the deck too much.
The result is a complete waste of time for at least one of the participants.

This should be reason enough not to tolerate the situation.

Bifi · Post by **Bifi** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 11:23 am

Cancel the results of the match and let the "criminal" pay some fine (or ban any matches for him for a month).

Grumbledook · Post by **Grumbledook** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 12:28 pm

in fumbbl we will usually retire the teams involved if they persist in it we will retire all their teams and if their coach ranking is rather good then we reset that as well

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 12:49 pm

Vitalis wrote:The underhand agreement/ganging up stacks the deck too much.
The result is a complete waste of time for at least one of the participants.

This should be reason enough not to tolerate the situation.

I disagree.

If you're going to have multiplayer games you have to accept this. Thats why we don't do it very often.

Having said that its sometimes a good way to finally get to grips with the top team.

In a 4-way if one party thinks they can't win they are bound to help the team which they hate the least....

neoliminal · Post by **neoliminal** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 12:58 pm

I like to think of the real world results of such deals. I suggest you post an article about the event from a "reporters" point of view.

The likely results are:

* Lower FF for the teams involved, as fans take a dim view of such actions.
* Fines from the league.
* 1 game suspension for the roster players most likely involved. (Miss Next Game)
* Removal of all SPP awarded that game for the teams involved... they didn't really learn anything about actual BB.

If you keep this in the realm of the game world, then players don't feel it as a personal attack.

ScottyBoneman · Post by **ScottyBoneman** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 2:23 pm

neoliminal wrote:I like to think of the real world results of such deals. I suggest you post an article about the event from a "reporters" point of view.

The likely results are:

* Lower FF for the teams involved, as fans take a dim view of such actions.
* Fines from the league.
* 1 game suspension for the roster players most likely involved. (Miss Next Game)
* Removal of all SPP awarded that game for the teams involved... they didn't really learn anything about actual BB.

If you keep this in the realm of the game world, then players don't feel it as a personal attack.

There is a lot of 'depends' here:

1. Was the team 'helping' a low armour team that had blown their chance to win and was looking to escape alive? (I doubt Rat fans would disagree)

2. Was the team 'helping' a hitting team that concentrated on racking up CAS instead of playing the ball.

As mentioned above, in a 4-way all the rules are out the window any time I have played it- there aren't even Refs in the Death Bowl. I am not a big fan of these kind of games on any regular basis, but if they are not working out for you, don't play them.

Fixing games in a 2 players is seriously a problem, though unless its a 'learning game'.

Vitalis · Post by **Vitalis** » Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:29 pm

First a thank you for all the input.

Here's how it was played out in the league.

The commisioners wrote

Ovenpå MDB-balladen har kommissærerne fastsat denne straf - og nej, den kan ikke forhandles:
1) Marcus var ham der kunne have nægtet at sælge sig selv. Derfor mister han den betaling som han fik for udåden, samt sine winnings for kampen.
Altså: 170K ud af kassen.
2) Alle disse penge går til dusører på Pouls spillere, fordi de så konsekvent opretholdt deres lyssky aftale.
3) Thiberg slipper, for selv om han godt nok var den første der bød på Marcus, så blev hans onde plan aldrig ført ud i livet.

Which roughly translates to something like this

After the MDB-brouhaha the commisioners have set this punishment - and it's nonnegitiable:
1) Marcus was the one that could have refused to sell himself. Therefore he loses the payoff he received for the misdeed and all winnings for the match. Ie. 170k out of the treasury.
2) All the money is used as bounty on Pouls players, because they so rigorously upheld the shady arrangement.
3) Thiberg gets off, even though he was the first to bid on Marcus, his evil plan never saw the light of day.

duff · Post by **duff** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 6:53 am

In a 4 player game it'normal for 2 or more players to make alliances...
and break 'em

For this sort of player I'm afraid I'd have to tell the players who were ganged up on "stop whining" it's part of multi player games!

We have a lot of match fixing and rigging in our legue, Bribes to allow touchdowns or go light on clobbering, Rigging 3rd half draws and that sort of thing. We figure it's all part of the corruption of the game.

noodle · Post by **noodle** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:41 am

I agree with DUff. Its quite ridiculous to punish teams entering into alliances in 4-way games and totally unfair.

In addition the punishment is extremely over the top...

Having said that - well done! I like it when league commissioners do that. I fined two finallists 10K each for taking too long to finish a final, then doubled one of the fines because the coach complained...

muahahahahaa!

And thats half the fun. Our league commisioner is bribable too....

plasmoid · Post by **plasmoid** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:53 pm

Hi Duff and noodle,
I'm one of the 2 commishes, so I have to disagree:

In DZ, Jervis states that any coaches found to have rigged a game should face severe punishment!
We follow that rule.

In a multi-player game there is ofcourse a grey area, but when 2 teams walk side-by-side for around 20 turns without ever attacking eachother, and the final TD was scored by a player from one team handing off to a player from the other, then we think that it has gone too far.
Martin

Talk Fantasy Football

Commissioner Sanctions: What to do?

Commissioner Sanctions: What to do?

OK. Some further details.

Something wrong with 'Nothing wrong'.

Re: Something wrong with 'Nothing wrong'.

Judgement Day