BuzzerBeater Forums

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.

1) My suggestion would not lead to close as much work as you are implying
2) If managers knew that they could be banned if they tried to do TIE deals they would avoid it. I think that the threat of being banned will lead to very few people trying to set up such deal. If it is allowed to read BB-mails it will be too easy to punish people for people to want to try it.

So I strongly disagree with your described scenario.

Your opinion is that TIE deals is a part of the game and you are entitled to have that opinion.

I disagree with such opinion and I think that it is a disgrace to the game.

However, it is allowed and you are fully allowed to support TIE deals.

What I don't think is ok is to come here to our forum and try to make a fool of me.

I can certainly accept that you have a different opinion than me regarding TIE deals. I think that you should be able to admit that my way of dealing with TIE deals is possible. You think that it is a very poor idea. That is something different than to say that my suggestion is not possible to implement. You should also be able to understand that I never suggested that GMs should read every bloody mail in the mailbox of national team coaches. They would only read reported emails just like they read cheating reports today.

I think that we should be able to stop the discussion now. If you want me to clarify something without implying that I am an idiot I will be willing to do so.

You are wrong in your expectation of what managers would do. It would just mean that they would be looking for making deals by ways that are not under control of GMs. And sometimes even taking risk can worth the managers.
I really don't like any suggestion which is not automatic and need some person who have to do some tasks to fullfil it (no matter if it takes 2 or 20 hours a week). If in general deals are not wanted (we will see I post polls on NT coaches forum and on global forum as well) I'm open to any suggestion which can solve (or at least improve) the situation in automatic way (e.g. by changing enthusiasm and effort system - I can imagine several ways how to do it).

(couldn't answer sooner, sorry)

Rwystyrk is sometimes a bit hotheaded, not the most polite poster (some may be lost in tranlsation when one or more parts of debate are not native speakers) and says things how they are, how he sees them and is mostly spot on. Other than that having him is one of the greatest things which happened to our community. Not just his knowledge and achievements which speaks volume but he has been a workhorse for u21 and not NT. I would recommend to look up who he is in BB before immediately discarding what he says.

I see refusing any kind of deals provided by rules as sing of incompetence. It basicallly means that Jokehim (and others who do that) is not comfotable compete with others on the same basis so he makes an excuse based on morale. That's quite ok to do with a club (although it affects others in aleague, but many things do, and everybody is allowed to play any way he/she wants) but non-excusable in NT/U21 where he has a responsiblity for work of not just himself but work of whole swedish community (and maybe few foreign owners of swedish players). Putting one's beliefs over succes of a NT is quite selfish, and unaccceptable. You either do the best within rules nto to disrescpect hard work of others or you don't candidate. Saying that results don't matter is quitting and sign of a loser. You do what you can for succes of national team you lead and succes that's mainly the results while not tarnishing your NT reputation by breaking deals which would put your NT in unfavourable position longterm (which is the only thing I could see legitimate to be pissed off on somebody and calling them unsportmanslike).

The difference between Czech republic and Sweden in this game is less than 300 managers (and we had far fewer when current NT was builded). That's not so big margin (although there smaller you are less you can do with a bad year draft crop u21wise) the real difference is longterm plan, dedication and not hiding from challenges. Jokehim's u21 is among lowest seeded european teams, rwystyrk's NT is reigning continetal champion. I rest my case, it's not my business how you want your NT to play. Just respect other approaches to the game and don't be xenophobic to them Jokehim way.

We respect how you guys play the game, its you who doesnt respect us for playing the game we want. Do you really think we would elect Jokehim 6 times if we disagree with how he runs the team?
And i know who your NT-manager is, that still doesnt give him right to come here and complain and try to make Jokehim look bad. Perhaps he is your little king and can make whatever he wants in Chech, but he is only a human... and kinda rude :|

Just as you are free to make and break deals, we are free to choose not to make deals... btw: How the heck can you even say its more unsportsmanlike to break deals than keeping them? Sure, you who asked was perhaps hurt, but all deals have loosers, and the looser in a TIE-TIE-deal is the 3rd country who gets an ent-disadvantage cause they played normal in a simular game. Breaking a deal is just as much of a "crime" as rigging a game so a 3rd party loose. Or does your morale say against that?

If we should adapt your philosophy, always accept and play TIE-deals, then we could just remove the whole ent-thing and play normal games.



I guess you do realize that without deals the game would be more fair, since then all would compete at the same terms and now its pretty unfair.
Im also guessing you wanna answer like "everone can make a deal" and thats excactly my point. If everyone can make them... why not play without them at all. Then you dont have to mail your opponent before every single game asking for a TIE.

The result would ofcourse be that it would give the descision about TIE/Norm/CT to the NT-coach instead of the paperwork. If you dont think about how we could ensure no deals blablabla... wouldnt a no-deal agreement make the games more interesting and make use of the skill of your NT-coach more?
Instead of, from min 1, you know its TIE-TIE... you would wanna see the match and see if your TIE will pay off or your opponent tricked you and played normal cause he thinks he can steal a win!

Rwystyrk shouldn't go here and post what he posted (btw he already appologized) but without Jokehim going on our board crying and calling us out there wouldn't be any foregoing debate. I believe a debate should be handled in a thread where it starts (or could be moved somewhere else if it is offtopic and IDs involved are willing to continue there) but it shouldn't be at any cost expanded to other threads. That's to me worse than saying "you are doing it wrong" nontactful way.

Ok, let's make it clear - by breking a deal I mean a situation when someone reaches an agreement woth the other side (no matter who made the initial contact/offer) and do something else, typicali not playing a TIE despite a TIe-TIE agreement. If you thing that's more honourable than keeping promise, then you are a hypocrite.
The game is designed as it is. It is not like every game is played with an agreement but many times that's the smart way to do so. It still requires a consent from the other side - a plain no is ok and it can be justifiable. Calling someone disgusting is not. Refusing all offers on principle is sabotaging a team. Third parties can do the same in their schedules and if the game award willing and smart what's the problem with that?! The unfair aspect is the schedule which makes weaker teams willing to go CT at certain times (quality of decision making influences that but the point is still the same) leaving the other side little to do something against it.

I don't really know why do you bring up breking agreements the way it suggest czech NT does that. That's very poor from you and shows real moral integrity (or better a parody of that) behind that no agreement regime.

I can't believe my eyes that you would like to ban agreements while keeping enthusiasm systems at the same time. do you realize there is an outer world beyong BB and people comunicating other ways than BB-Mails too? Those who would want to make agreements regardless would just move there. That's why agreements are part of the game - they have to be as long as enthusiasm system is present. I personylla don't care whether enthusiasm is included or not, one of the advantages is that ability to manage it right way is another tactic option giving underdogs a way to close the gap here and there.

You never know for sure that it's TIE-TIE and that's important and vital point of that. You have to risk to some extent without that it would be way to predictable. And not just because it's not always to best option to play TIE, although many times it is (even when expecting a certain loss - scores often matters too).

Last edited by docend24 at 11/15/2011 2:10:40 PM

Vilken fånig konversation!

Skit i att svara på deras inlägg. Dom är så jävla uppblåsta och fulla med skit så en bonde hade anställt dom direkt.

Jokehim, du gör ett bra jobb. Att vi har ett dåligt spelarunderlag har med aktiviteten bland oss alla att göra, inte att du faktiskt tar ut det bästa vi har.

Visa att vi är enade i frågan och ignorera dom, finns inga vinnare i en sån här argumentation.

You don´t understand that no one is really interested in running our worthless U-21 team. Jokehim is the only candidate, and therefor he is the best candidate. You say he has a responsibility as our U-21 coach to do everything he can to succeed. That´s just not true. If we didn´t have him, we would be doing even worse.

That´s our reality.

You think there would be a big short-term difference if rwystyrk was running our U-21 team? We know he´s great, especially in getting paid on the transfer ;) But I don´t think he´s a supercoach that would do miracles with our U-21.

Would love for him to take over our NT next season though. Build som bridges between the Swedish and Czech community...

We are ok with the way things are. We have a nice competitive national league. Not a team who wins every year and a team which everybody looks up to and are happy to help out when it comes to BBB.