BuzzerBeater Forums

BB Global (English) > Is Transfer Bidding in Groups Unethical?

Is Transfer Bidding in Groups Unethical?

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
41073.4 in reply to 41073.1
Date: 8/1/2008 3:03:38 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
22
I think that GMs should to follow that behaviour..

there can be automaticly saved hidden history of bidding

and

if one user bid on a same player like the other (both in the alliance), this behaviout will be clearly seen from that history...

and if is that happening few times (same users bids on a same players again and again), this behaviour should be banned

it is kind of easy for a programming

Last edited by Iordanou at 8/1/2008 3:08:57 AM

From: Thijs

This Post:
00
41073.5 in reply to 41073.1
Date: 8/1/2008 4:44:04 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
9292
Good to know even Torooo has problems.... But anyway: I really don't see anything wrong with it. You could have done the same, and we will just have to wait if and which players he buys back before we can tell anything about the arguability of 3BE3DA's ethics. His players are on the TL and his "mate" didn't overbid on the prices compared to the latest transfers. Maybe 3 just wants to build a new team, and was planning on selling these players anyway... That someone else with a lot of cash from DII is willing to help him get that cash early available isn't a problem for me. The player you wanted isn't allowed to play in the play offs and there are more fish in the sea for you! As both early bids are bollow the markets max, they will probably both be overbid and otherwise Elmira will lose a lot of it's possibilitys for next season. But that's his risk. In my opinion it would only be wrong if 3 bought back a 1k player from Elmira for far too much, or if both teams are runned from the same IP..

This Post:
00
41073.6 in reply to 41073.5
Date: 8/1/2008 8:52:54 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
458458
Collusion is wrong in any sport.

Proving it is another story, but I certainly agree with the original poster that it goes against the spirit of sportsmanship and becomes gamesmanship.


Once I scored a basket that still makes me laugh.
Message deleted
This Post:
00
41073.8 in reply to 41073.6
Date: 8/1/2008 2:55:23 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
11
I really hate to say this..... Collusion isn't written in the rules as wrong. I harken back to previous discussions about Mutual TIE's (a form of collusion) and the group made a valid point of it's not written in the rules and until it is, it's not illegal.

If multiple owners want to push the prices, to insure where a player goes, raise the price on a guy, or help each other in a match - there is little to govern that and prove anything. This game is based on money and it just seems as though there are more ways to generate enough cash to survive.

Reston, I would advise maintaining the high road.... This way we can still play competitively in our division.

From: ned
This Post:
00
41073.9 in reply to 41073.8
Date: 8/1/2008 3:57:55 PM
Freccia Azzurra
IV.18
Overall Posts Rated:
823823
Second Team:
Slaytanic
Why don't make unavailable the money till the transfer is really concluded?
With this simply rule we can avoid early bid and unfair bid wars.

1990-2022 Stalinorgel - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV-Xppl6h8Et
This Post:
00
41073.10 in reply to 41073.8
Date: 8/1/2008 8:15:08 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
458458
There is a big difference between illegal and wrong.


Once I scored a basket that still makes me laugh.
From: jimrtex

To: ned
This Post:
00
41073.11 in reply to 41073.9
Date: 8/1/2008 8:48:03 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
44
Why don't make unavailable the money till the transfer is really concluded?
With this simply rule we can avoid early bid and unfair bid wars.

The ability to use money from a pending sale adds a great deal of liquidity to the market. If you had a player who might be worth $3 million, your market would be limited to teams with $3M in cash, and would cut out teams who have $1 million in cash and a player worth $2M.

It would be difficult to hold off completion of the first sale, until the 2nd sale is completed, and besides the 2nd sale might be contingent on a 3rd sale, etc.

You could let a buyer take a loan from the bank. But you would have to have some way to evaluate your ability to repay to loan, either through ordinary revenue, or a sale of a player. If you could figure out a way to do that, you wouldn't need to have early sales. You could go to the bank and borrow $3M to bid on the player you want to buy, with some repayment schedule, and some of your players as collateral.

This Post:
00
41073.12 in reply to 41073.10
Date: 8/2/2008 6:27:12 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
11
Your absolutely right. What is wrong however is subject to opinion.

Keep in mind that I didn't say I agreed with the practice, but understand the purpose.

This Post:
00
41073.13 in reply to 41073.8
Date: 8/4/2008 4:19:36 PM
New York Jests
IV.30
Overall Posts Rated:
219219
the group made a valid point of it's not written in the rules and until it is, it's not illegal.


True it is not illegal, but the BBs can punish you for prior actions that occured within the old rules (see: "Day Trading Transfer Fee")

From: Pallu

This Post:
00
41073.14 in reply to 41073.3
Date: 8/4/2008 6:07:15 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2525
I'm confused.

Let's say that 3BE3DA had $2M in cash, and then the bidding went to $3M. So he had to put a couple of players on the market, and his accomplice bids $1.2M on them (and we'll assume fair market value). So now 3BE3DA can bid $3.2M, and you can't raise.

So 3BE3DA has the player, $1.2 in debt, but $1.2 in receivables, for a net of $0.

So where does he get the money to bid on his own player? In HT, he wouldn't be able to bid, because it treats a self-bid as two separate transactions, where he is treated first as a bidder, and then as a seller.


I think you shouldn't be confused. You are right.

"Early bids" on players can help to have enough available cash/credit for a bid war. But once you have spent the money for a new player you cannot use the money again and buy your own player(s) back.

Therefore I think that the threadopener has misinterpreted the situation.

Let me add that I do find it surprising that it is ok to name teams in such a case. Wouldn't it be be adequate to discuss such an issue anonimously? Especially because it obviously is an open issue whether early bids are unethical or not. GM?

Disclaimer: no, I have not used this technique, I do not know any of the teams involved, etc...

Edit: the naming issue was not directed to jimrtex.

Last edited by Pallu at 8/4/2008 6:08:29 PM

Advertisement