BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > income

income

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
90694.23 in reply to 90694.22
Date: 5/20/2009 7:16:31 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
284284
So im allowed to 'spoil' a discussion, once in a while, just for the sake of 'fun', or whatever other reason LA had, by speculating that the topicstarter was bored and therefore opened the topic?

edit: Specially when i first mingle in the discussion on a normal way and suddenly switch 180 degree and totally think different about the topic subject..

PS, im not here to be the annoying guy, i just really dont get it that this is accepted as 'normal behavior'. Specially because he could have stayed away, or not started to discuss.
You said it yourself, there are 100 topics like these around midseason time. Everybody knows that. So what point is LA trying to make to say something like that in the middle of the discussion? And for all i know, the topicstarted was not bored...Im in the Semi-finales, also discussing in this topic, and wasn't bored..

Last edited by Maupster at 5/20/2009 7:38:55 PM

Ben je op zoek naar een BB-Buddy die jou alle kneepjes van BB bijbrengt? Neem dan deel aan het Buddy-sytem. Pm mij voor meer info
This Post:
00
90694.24 in reply to 90694.21
Date: 5/20/2009 7:51:25 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
It doesn't work like that. If only those who likes changes, more changes, no matter what would post and all would agree it could make BB men more willing to consider those changes just because "people want it". That's why being enthusiastic about not so good and unbalanced suggestion (matter of taste of course) is potentially dangerous and everyone has right to post as negative post as he/she wants.
Edit:typo

Last edited by docend24 at 5/20/2009 7:53:12 PM

This Post:
00
90694.25 in reply to 90694.24
Date: 5/20/2009 8:02:48 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
284284
This i a different subject than the one i reacted on LA. We were talking about it that you suddenly didnt get it that the topicstarter even started the discussion. Well you did knew why obviously; he was bored ;)

If we, or if not, should be enthousiastic about a suggestion wasnt the problem LA.


and everyone has right to post as negative post as he/she wants.

I have no idear what i have to say on this one. Better to say nothing i guess.


Ben je op zoek naar een BB-Buddy die jou alle kneepjes van BB bijbrengt? Neem dan deel aan het Buddy-sytem. Pm mij voor meer info
This Post:
00
90694.26 in reply to 90694.25
Date: 5/20/2009 8:20:30 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
within limits of civilized discussion of course (I decided not to write this in the previous post because some people, not you, tend to understand posts the wrong way)

I guess I don't understand you. I'm basically saying it's a shame how many suggesters don't think twice before posting a suggestion that either doesn't bring anything to the game or unbalance things. Income from scrimmages is one of those, not the only one of course.

The density of those suggestion appearin in post-season is significant too. Connect those two facts is legitimate. Nobody called any names.

Sometimes I think I should evolve a pattern of replying simply "This is madness!" to those kind of suggestions. It's strange but it would be beneficial to both sides. (sarcasm included)

Last edited by docend24 at 5/20/2009 8:27:53 PM

This Post:
00
90694.27 in reply to 90694.26
Date: 5/20/2009 8:27:57 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
284284
Im not saying you are wrong on that one. The timing isnt right, for the topicstarter. And who knows, he was bored, or he wasnt.

But why would you say that so suddenly, if the discussion is already running and some nice idears were opted. I just dont get that. Just let it go next time.

No hard feelings. Greets.


Ben je op zoek naar een BB-Buddy die jou alle kneepjes van BB bijbrengt? Neem dan deel aan het Buddy-sytem. Pm mij voor meer info
This Post:
00
90694.28 in reply to 90694.27
Date: 5/20/2009 8:31:00 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
154154
Just let it go next time.

Yes, sir!

This Post:
00
90694.29 in reply to 90694.26
Date: 5/21/2009 1:53:27 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1414
I can't understand...

t's a shame how many suggesters don't think twice before posting a suggestion that either doesn't bring anything
....
Its a suggestion after all!!! Its coming up to discuss it, You say its a bad idea, (good ideas come from bad ideas and opposite, this is the heart of "improvement") Thats a negative vote. Where is the shame and the ,so called, madness??

doesn't bring anything to the game

... others do not agree with you. How can you "state" that for a matter that is still being argued? Have we tried it and saw the unbalanceness or you just pressume it will happen?

And bottom linei if its a such bad idea.... why so much discussion?


Last edited by Velerefontis at 5/21/2009 2:04:36 AM

This Post:
00
90694.30 in reply to 90694.29
Date: 5/21/2009 2:10:57 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
2525
I vote against the idea.

More money will always seem an attractive prospect to the managers, heck even I want more money, but with global injection of weekly income just throws up too many question marks and negative points. If the sole purpose is to 'help' new teams get on their feet then there are other ways to go about it. This one will just increase the inflation rate without anyone gaining anything substantial from it in the long term.

This Post:
00
90694.31 in reply to 90694.30
Date: 5/21/2009 3:21:48 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
1414
The idea is to help everyone equally. Maupster made an excellent point with a system that will provide both teams profit , not depending on "where do they play", but "what division teams are"...


"Lets say Div III plays against III: x amount is split 50/50 Div II against IV: 70/30. Div I against V 90/10"


.... a formula that will keep the balance.

This Post:
00
90694.32 in reply to 90694.30
Date: 5/21/2009 3:22:25 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
196196
did you say inflation!!

im low cash and rich on players so i gotta say Yes (to whatever was suggested & providing it is indeed inflationary with no immediate downside to teams beginning with S in Japan)

;-)

This Post:
00
90694.33 in reply to 90694.31
Date: 5/21/2009 3:34:56 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
2525
The idea is to help everyone equally.


That's where the problem kicks in. Increasing income for everyone might give you more cash and provide the illusion that it is providing you with badly needed 'help for badly run teams. Until you realize that the 1 dollar you save is negated by the one dollar increase in the price of goods. Giving out money is among the most attractive changes to be made, but one that is also saddled with far reaching negative effects.

@ Superfly,

That makes it two of us. ;)

Advertisement