BuzzerBeater Forums

1) It doesn't matter if the advantage is 10% or 20%.
Any advantage caused due to corruption should be handled.

2) That player is a 28yo PF/C, with 68K salary.
He will never fit a NT that contains 130K (or above) of salary on that position.

In contrary,
the 25yo exception on the ISR NT is a player of 82K of salary that is still develping enough (due to his age).
He will get to the same level of salary (of 130K), or at least has a realy good chance.

3) Not surprising, that 25yo is part of the NT, as a sweetener for his manager, so he will continue training him.

The 28yo, with zero chance to get there is not.

He was just peeked for the sake of peeking.

4) If one would have said to you, wait until the election to your government.
Until then just be quiet about the government corruption.
In case that would be the claim.
Would you agree with that?
Probably not.

Summarizing my side;
A) Peeking is when reviewing skills of a player that there is zero chance that will ever be NT legit.
B) Even when only one manager suffers, and even if it affects only 20% or 10%, corruption is corruption, and is needed to be handled.
C) No reason (for the game) to stand still and wait for a corruption to end with the NT campaign period.
D) There is an easy solution - preventing it for hapenning by proper rules of peek-allowance.


Last edited by Pini פיני at 6/28/2015 5:09:19 PM

There is rules about how you can select players, how much, when if you want to avoid penality.

I don't understand this sentence on the context discussed.
That player should have not been allowed to be peeked without his manager acceptance.
If he was NT-legit, then it was a whole new ball-game, but he is not, and will never be. [and is not for a few seasons]
It is even not my player! I am not acting for my own benefit but for the benefit of the game.

What you define as "corruption" is not corruption.

I'll rephrase;
It might be or might not be a corruption
It is still something that might give unfair advantage and should be avoided.
And easily could be

If you drop players from the NT roster, the NT takes an enthusiasm hit.

If you drop players from the NT roster, the NT takes an enthusiasm hit.

Not if you do this before the seasons starts. Which was exactly the case.

1) Why it is possible with this rule?
Because on the league of the NT manager there will be a very limited number of players that are NT legit.
This one time request is far from "painful".

2) When it happens here and there, it willl usually bother one person or two, and it will be hard to prove and harder for the community to find it wrong doing.

3) Moreover, during that period, the team that being "peeked" will have disadvantage.
Do you think that team will get good or bad feeling for the game due to that action?
Can it make them so bitter that they will leave the game?
Does the numbers (of users) allow us to neglect that?
And once again, it is NOT about a player of mine.

I will add another option for hitting this issue.

When an NT manager peek your player, you are allowed to peek any player of his.
This will make him think twice instead of exploiting his role. All this without making his work "painful".

1) In case the subjected player being peeked plays at ths same league as the manager of the NT-manager who is perorming that peek, than:
a) He just cannot.
b) He gives that opponent an option to peek on one of his player until the end of the first week of games.
or/and
c) This player could be peeked only as if the season as started - causing the NT an enthusiasm drop in case the player is not used.

In addition you can add a definition of NT-legit likelihood and verify whether it is likely that a player will be peeked before even allowing this peeking. With and Without relation to the stated below (and before).

2) We need to remember few things;
a) There are very few teams that has NT-legit players.
b) The number of teams that (a) applies for and in addition plays at the same league as the NT manager is even smaller.
c) It is not that often that a BB-team manager will avoid assisting an NT manager (when his player is NT-legit), as he loses money when his player is not used.
So the combining all of the three reduces the group of players and teams relevant to this limitation to a very minimum number.

3) These amount of players and managers could even be handled by the local GM.
The GM will receive amount of requests that had not been replied to, and will verify: "Is Legit?". If that player is he will allow the peek.