BuzzerBeater Forums

I can't imagine how it could work. Someone would work as deal police? Which way would they look for evidence? In my eyes only possible solution is change in way that no deal is usefull for anyone. I mean change of enthusiasm and effort system so that system works itself without need of any police or other staff.

I have always thought that it is possible for BB to read individual mails posted in BB. If so, it would just be to report anyone who sends a deal where they offer a deal and they could verify it by looking in inbox of user. With such rules would it of course be vaguer and vaguer formulations to start up a discussion about a deal but surely teams would be very careful about it. Of course is there always a risk that discussions are held outside BB but especially for national teams would that not be that easy as it would first require that you know the person before you can get contact information. If someone ahead of matches sends a mail asking for email or so could BB easily ban that person as the intension is very obvious. BB have banned people for suspicions before. They banned several innocent Swedish users some years ago as they were student at same school as some cheaters and used same IPs so they surely can use bannings without full proofs.

So yes, I think that it would be possible to ban users for suggesting enthusiasm deals. I think that it would make sense and improve BB as well. And I have suggested this before in the national team forum but they are not interested in such solution which I think is bad.

Yes, I was wondering why it's going this way in Sweden. But there was sentence But maybe no one else is interested to be U21 manager of Sweden, who knows. at the end of the post.
So it's more about thinking why nobody else is interested. It's pity for community if they have choice just between bad and even worse candidate.
But you are true, my posts were unnecessarily too offensive.

The match ended with 23 points difference. You have already mentioned you could get better result with man to man defence and with your normal vs. our TIE it could be equal match. So I think there is nothing more to explain. If you don't see the difference I can't help you.
And it was first match of the season, in U21 nobody knows exactly the strength of each team unless the first competitive game is played as every country has sometimes stronger and other time weaker year of players. So at start of the season there is chance to risk little bit that the opponent's year is weaker one.

This is not good solution and I can't agree with it, because still there is plenty of room for being lucky as not being caught or unlucky as being caught. And there is 98 NT's and 98 U21's, poor person that would have to check all mails of these 196 managers and as you mentioned there are other ways how to contact opponent manager.
I can imagine for example using just PO normal and PO CT effort as much better solution as there is less space for any agreements (except for downgrading PO CT vs. PO CT to PO normal vs. PO normal).
But probably BB-staff is on the side of users that considers deals as tactical part of the game.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 11/15/2011 5:48:31 AM

Still waiting for you to explain how I possibly could beat your team with a TIE vs Normal or TIE vs TIE deal. We lost with more than 20 points and would be interesting to hear from a superstar how I beat you with TIE vs Normal. You just dismissed my coaching skills so I know what to learn from the expert.

Jag kan inget om Box and 1 on the inside, kanske är det en bra taktik mot Look inside, så jag har inget att säga om taktikvalet i sig. Det var ju look inside eller push the ball vi gissade på att Tjeckien skulle välja.

Men med Man 2 man tror jag som tjecken säger att vi hade presterat rätt mycket bättre. Hade vi spelat normal mot deras tie hade nog matchen blivit väldigt jämn. Inte alls omöjligt att vi hade vunnit..

Men jag börjar undra om det inte är massa missförstånd här.

Allt började för att Jokehim uppfattade det som att ett överlägset lag erbjöd en tie vs tie som vi inte hade något att tjäna på.

Därför blev Joke "rasande".

Sen förklarar tjeckerna att de inte alls hade den avsikt som Jokehim uppfattade. De hade kunnat tänka sig att komma med lägre satsning än oss.

Det som finns kvar att bli arg på då är deals över huvud taget. Men man kan inte längre bli arg på att Tjeckerna förolämpar vår intelligens genom att tro att de kan lura oss till en tie vs tie.

Raseriet borde därmed ha minskat lite.

Man kan tycka illa om båda sakerna, men man kan fan inte tycka lika illa om båda sakerna.

Men iom Jokes inlägg ovan undrar jag om han missförstått åt trodde att han fått erbjudande om TIE vs Tie, eller Tie från oss och normal från dem?

Med samma Ent är det ju stooooor skillnad på Normal och TIE. Så hade vi kört Normal mot deras TIE hade vi minskat förlustsiffrorna kraftigt.

This is not good solution and I can't agree with it, because still there is plenty of room for being lucky as not being caught or unlucky as being caught. And there is 98 NT's and 98 U21's, poor person that would have to check all mails of these 196 managers and as you mentioned there are other ways how to contact opponent manager.
I can imagine for example using just PO normal and PO CT effort as much better solution as there is less space for any agreements (except for downgrading PO CT vs. PO CT to PO normal vs. PO normal).
But probably BB-staff is on the side of users that considers deals as tactical part of the game.

1) You don't have to check all emails. Just the one email where you been reported.
2) 196 persons really are not many in my opinion.
3) Some people will get away with it but you will be very careful with who you approach which will drastically reduce the amount of questions. Very few would risk being banned for a TIE deal.

Vad som hände är att jag oavsett vilken deal någon vill erbjuda tycker det är bedrövligt beteende. Är totalt ointressant för min del om det är TIE vs Normal eller TIE vs TIE. Tog för givet att det var TIE vs TIE då detta är vad alla andra frågat om men tycker lika illa om TIE vs Normal.

Jag svarar deras U21 kapten tydligt med ett budskap att jag tycker alla liknande deals är patetiska. Vips dyker deras seniorkapten upp och undrar vilka idioter som valt mig som kapten. Eller som han skrev "it looks quite absurd that swedish users are able to elect six times in a row you as U21 manager even if you have absolutelly no results". Visst skriver han som sista meningen att det kanske inte finns något annat alternativ men då lär de flesta redan slutat läsa och det är inte heller det viktiga budskapet han vill förmedla.

Han idiotförklarar mig oavsett som kapten för svenska laget vilket jag tycker är en extrem anklagelse mot en person som endast svarat att man tycker TIE deals är en förolämpning i ett privat mail till en annan användare.

Stör mig enormt på denna typ av besserwissers. Jag betecknar inte min respons som raseri.

För övrigt möjligt att man-to-man och TIE vs Normal hade kunnat räcka till seger men tror fortfarande inte på det. Vi var trots allt i 30 poängs underläge innan hans reserver började spela. Tror inte dem varit intresserad av en TIE vs Normal deal i vilket fall men kommer aldrig gå med på en deal med klubblag eller landslag då jag tycker det är en förstörande faktor för hela BB som borde åtgärdas. Kalla mig principfast ...

ad 1) in my eyes totally unacceptable, acting just after the report is not solution, it still would be about being lucky/unlucky by (not) being caught. Who could send a report and who not? It could lead to accusation just to be sure that your opponent didn't play on agreement and finally it could lead to total crash of NT/U21 competition as almost noone would be interested anymore
ad 2) reading 196 mailboxes every week is not so many ...you made me laugh ... you can be volunteer for that job :-D
ad 3) experienced managers (in term of deals) won't stop offering deals as they already know who ask a deal for and who not
And one important thing, what would be a punishment for teams offering deals? And what would be the punishment if "police" find out that 2 teams played on agreement?

Last edited by rwystyrk at 11/15/2011 8:19:40 AM

1) It certainly won't be hard to trace all discussions between two users and certainly find the first mail sent between them. To develop a search format that allows for such filtering is not difficult. Just 196 managers for national teams you concluded yourself so certainly is not much job. Most of the mails will also be in English as few other languages are useful for two countries meaning that any GM could deal with the errand.
2) I have never said that national team managers should be monitored. The only time GMs (or BBs) should like in email is if someone is reporting an offer of TIE deals. If the receiving part don't want to report it then it will not be investigated. If I get an email from a Czech user with a message that can be interpreted as a TIE deal offer then any GM will easily be able to see that in my mailbox. So again, I never will suggest to check mailboxes of national team managers unless a complaint has been given. It will be handled just like they handle cheat reports today with the exception that they will only focus on reading mail conversations.
3) Punishment for agreeing a deal? Can it be anything else than a temporar or continous ban? What other punishment would stop people from doing them? The receiving team will only be banned if it is obvious that they want to agree on a deal. If a team gets banned for TIE deal it would make sense to also check older conversations with other teams and then if you accepted a deal you could be punished for it months later. Of course the hardest punishment will be for your own team.

I would very much like to see similar punishments also in the domestic leagues but I find it unrealistic to implement it because it will be too much work. Many people who plays in same league will be personal friends, either through BB or since before. So much more might be going on outside BB and there also are too many teams to make it a reasonable work burden for GMs. Also would mean that all issues must be solved within the community which potentially could lead to inner conflicts within the community.

But as I wrote, a huge difference with national teams where users are not tied up with each other since before in as large extent. Will be few risk-free deals you can offer.

Really strange ideas I can never agree with.
In time of trouble with decrease of userbase it would be really "usefull" solution to ban from the game other managers especially when a lot possibly affected managers bring them money for supporters.
And as I sad before, seeing NT competition with half of teams without control because of banned manager by this great new rule of deals would be really interesting and NT/U21 would become really prestigious :-)
We could rename NT competitions as "Catch me if you can".
But if you want to destroy this game your ideas are optimal.

I think both parties are slightly overreacting now. Just agree to disagree and drop it for now guys.