BuzzerBeater Forums

I'm not offended easily.

I am not even the one who got exploitedly "peeked".

The ISRs' NT are not a success, compared to NT community size, etc.
But that is beside the point and just relating to what you've written.
What this first lines come to say is that I think it is an issue and far from me being "tunnel-visioned" due to personal event related to the topic.

-----
Regarding your four counter points;
1) You contradict yourself multiple times.
a) You are saying that they will give the peek anyhow, but we should not enforce it.
b) You say that it will not give to much advantage, but you find it not fair to give the same "not too much advantage" to the team that had been peeked.

In addition, we mainly speak about the time before season starts.
This period is when there are a lot of candidates, and it is hard to get all information in time and process it.
This is why the "break-even" rule gives the counter peek only to teams that are on the same league as the NT manager.

During the season, the list is much shorter, and then there is just no reason to say that the NT-manager "can't wait".
In addition, it is much less likely that he will peek a player just for the sake of gathering information of an opponent he has on his league.

And once again, none of the cases is not a reason why "break-even" rule is not fair.

2) Does a player if 1K is NT worthy on basically any NT?
This is just taking your question to the extreme.
Of course it is possible to set a limitation rule comparing current NT players with the player NT-manager requests to peek at.

The other half of the argument I just did not understood.

3) "Knowledge is power." And it is even not my line...
If there is no advantage in that then how can you be against the "break-even" rule?

4) Again, I'm not sure I understood your whole claim, but you surely not saying that an NT player who is being trained until age of 26 (and beyond) is comparable to a U21 NT player, who by definition has less than four sesons of training.

-----
So to have this conversation focused, I will re-iterrate the main points;
a) "Break-even" rule
If peeking a single player does not give advantage, there is no reason not to give counter-peek for the team that had been poked.
If it does give advantage, then by all means it is not fair to give one team advantage over the other. Which is also a point that supports this part of the suggestion.

b) "Is-Legit" rule
To minimize exploitinig the role, this rule will define which players on the same league as the NT-manager could be peeked w/o the approval of its manager.

This comes as a second priority to the first rule.

It keeps getting to the same "so what" argument.
This ("so what") argument is as good argument to any topic.

It is something that may, and did, cause damage.
The Spaniard did pointed that it is far from being a local or personal issue. And we cannot say that it is a small community or something close to that. can we?

In addition, and as said, it is not my player that had been peeked, and in any case this rules will not be made on the spot and surely not be set retroactive.
Hence, how that could be due to a personal thing? (the "personal" argument is also a theme here)

Regarding the "priority" argument, I always find it not relevant to the discussion on BB forums, and in any case is the last issue that should be raised after agreeing on the need. So, are we there yet?
In any case, priority is not defined only by importance, but also by work-hours/years.
The "break-even" rule is something super easy and short to implement.

Manon said this and i approve.

How high do you prioritise this over other changes to the game like GE tweaks or developing an app?

What I don't understand is why are you putting so much effort into such a deep detail? And into a situation that is not at all common?

For instance, you have Italy. Currently the largest BB Community. NT approval rating is at 62%(an unexperienced guy would tell you this is bad). But at a closer look, the current manager got 69/129 votes when elected, which is roughly 53%. So basically quite close to the approval rating.

The purpose of the above numbers is. How can you control the fact that the other 60(!) guys won't just make up subjective rules against this guy who is currently managing? Like, say, limit his control over updates of players? Or completely compromise his team in the league he's playing in?

You are not viewing this from an NT manager perspective. It's a narrow perspective. I've been U21 coach for 8 seasons now, i can tell you this. We don't really need more people to make it harder.


In your previous reply to me, you said:

1) You contradict yourself multiple times.
a) You are saying that they will give the peek anyhow, but we should not enforce it.
b) You say that it will not give to much advantage, but you find it not fair to give the same "not too much advantage" to the team that had been peeked.

where is the contradiction? I never used the word fair or unfair, nor have i said I was for or against it. It's true that I suggested you should not enforce it.
I can tell you this. We had the same issue, and our NT manager transfer listed 5 or 6 of his best players with price like 10 million. This is why I said that almost anyone will help solve this issue without the necessity of this thread. Again, I fail to understand why you are consolidating your opinion.

2) Does a player if 1K is NT worthy on basically any NT?
This is just taking your question to the extreme.
Of course it is possible to set a limitation rule comparing current NT players with the player NT-manager requests to peek at.

The other half of the argument I just did not understood.

What I was trying to say is that it leaves room for "foul play". Let's take Italian community from my example above. What happens if the 60 managers that don't approve decide to buy NT players and not let them play for NT? Obviously, this leads to poor results from the NT team, etc, etc.

3) "Knowledge is power." And it is even not my line...
If there is no advantage in that then how can you be against the "break-even" rule?

I know it's not your line
I never said I was for or against. I am just presenting what would happen if the rule you suggest goes through, and that you need to work out some details before I can agree or disagree with you.


To conclude, I am not agreeing or disagreeing(at least not completely). All I am saying is, with my experience as U21 manager, all I see is things working slower and more difficult with your method. Try to look at it from the staff's perspective.

Manon said this and i approve.

How high do you prioritise this over other changes to the game like GE tweaks or developing an app?

I gave my POV about that on my respond to his post. Take a look.

What I don't understand is why are you putting so much effort into such a deep detail? And into a situation that is not at all common?

1) Not relevant
2) Because this is who I am. When something is wrong I am trying as hard as I can to fix it.
3) Also explained on my post to Manon that even in case I had something personal about this, I surely would not benefited from this to-come rule.

How can you control the fact that the other guys won't just make up subjective rules against this guy who is currently managing?

Actually what you've written is strengthening my point from another perspective and I will explain.
But before that lets make it clear that the break-even rule is not a subjective rule. Each peek result by counter-peek.

Now back to the explanation about how does that strengthening my point.
Even today one can sabotage his NT by keeping bad shape to NT-legit players.
Hence, it is less likely that one intentionally will not give information when his player is NT-legit.
And again, it has nothing to do with the "break-even" rule.

I've been U21 coach for 8 seasons now, i can tell you this. We don't really need more people to make it harder.

Counter-peek does not make it harder. It gives your league's opponent the same opportunity you have exploring his players.
Regarding the Is-Legit rule, as said - it could be less tight at start, and surely there are players that are U21 that you will never find them to be U21 NT-legit.

where is the contradiction?

a) If NT MGRs will give peek opportunity anway, no reason not to allow that by a rule.
b) Ig there is not much adantage in this peeking, you can't say that it is not fair to give the same opportunity to the other team.

I never used the word fair or unfair.
Nor have i said I was for or against it.

When quoting or relating, one not need to use the same words but to relate to the spirit of the conversation.
BTW - This is also apply in court and to any agreement done by two sides.

Your test surely does not supports them, so I can say that you are against.

I tried to search to what I've related on the "fair/unfair", and on my quick look have not found any.
So maybe it was due to another post I've read.
In any case, sorry for (if) being wrong with that.

What I was trying to say is that it leaves room for "foul play".
Let's take Italian community from my example above.
What happens if the 60 managers that don't approve decide to buy NT players and not let them play for NT? Obviously, this leads to poor results from the NT team, etc, etc.

I'm fail to see the connection between the argument and my suggestion(s).
Please elaborate.

Summarizing;
"Break-even" rule does not make it slower for the NT managers. It just make it fair.
"Is-Legit" rule will make it slower for a very small amount of players, as they are not all reside on the same league as the NT manager's team does and not all will not share this information.

1) Same could be said the other way around.

NT managers who use plans to use their NT role for their own team benefit will be detered.

When calculating both options, I think it is safe to say that we are not sure whether better MGRs will run the NT, but we can say that the peekin will... break-even, and the NT manager will not get that unfair advantage.


2) In addition, it seems that you did not fully understood the suggestion.
The NT will not need to expose ALL of his players to ALL of his league's peers, but only one player per one player peeked by him and only to the team that had been peeked.
Not to mention that it is just logical that if one side see information on one team due to NT role, the other will get the same opportunity of counter-peeking.


3) A manager who goes to the NT clean-handed, will have no trouble to expose his players (as been written as one of the arguments against this suggestion).
Moreover, why should one who expose an NT level player have a problem to be peeked by that same team for one of his players?
I fail to see why, except that he will lose his (unfair) leauge advantage.

Because that is not an unfair advantage, that is his role as NT manager. He is forced to take players from other teams. He is not forced to show his players.

No connvetion between the dots.
The fact that he needs to view other players' statistics due to his NT role still gives him advantage over those teams.
No reason not to balance that out with the "break-even" rule.

You are asking for rules to be created and enforced, code lines to be written, because you think some NT managers, allegedly, are abusing the system.

The break-even rule has zero to do with that.
It is just to balance information between two teams on the same league.
The NT manager surely remembers his NT player skills, when he will play that layer's team. Hence, he surely use that information.
For a fact our NT said that he uses this information (his precise line was - "I don't understand how I was bitten up on the rebound, and I know the skills of Player X").

PS - not the first time that the argument of "lots of work for nothing" is raised.
I find it irrelevant to discuss time (which is small) when we know almost nothing about how it is coded, etc.

And because of all that, you are at risk of having lesser qualified candidates.

Again, you could state that the chances of having corrupted managers (as NT MGRs) is lower...

More than that, the risk of less qualified manager on the NT teams (if at all) is much lesser risk than losing users due to the fact they will feel they lost, demoted or lost playoff spot due to this unfairness.

You can discuss with the other people who are seemingly disagreeing with you here.

Not quite...
The Spaniard fully agreed with what I've written (and said that it was an issue in his nation), and it not like there was too many on this debate.
Not to mention some of the others are NT MGRs and as are a bit biased on the topic.

Having 3-2 on votes against my suggestion(s) does not stands as a result.
The only result is the one the BBs take.
And they may even change there minds now or later.

Last edited by Pini פיני at 7/1/2015 6:30:33 AM