Preses konference

Icon Maiņa/Aizdotie spēlētāji: supers & Sosna
-- 70 S 21 d.
Komanda izteica maiņas darījuma piedāvājumu
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
Spēlētājs:
Uzsāka spēlēt jaunajā komandā pēc maiņas darījuma -- 70 S 21 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
Spēlētājs:
Uzsāka spēlēt jaunajā komandā pēc maiņas darījuma -- 70 S 21 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
Spēlētājs:
Uzsāka spēlēt jaunajā komandā pēc maiņas darījuma -- 70 S 21 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
Maiņas darījums tika akceptēts -- 70 S 21 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
μπαλακι εχει γινει ο πονηρος...και ο quing...περα δωθε πηγαινουν... -- 70 S 22 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
Πονηρός πέρα δώθε!!! -- 70 S 22 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
Maiņas darījumu atcēla Godīgas Spēles komiteja (FPC) -- 70 S 23 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
Godīgas Spēles komiteja (FPC) nolēma, ka šis darījums ir negodīgs un abas darījumā iesaistītās komandas saņēma brīdinājumus. -- 70 S 23 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
I think the committee is completely wrong! Why is this trade reverted when the one that I take Qing from Sosna was OK? I check the player (my mistake I didn't't ask his exp before the first trade) and I found out he doesn't fit to my team. In the end Falconi was trade for Chuang... Is this an unfair trade? -- 70 S 23 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
Yes, this is an unfair trade, because the FPC will never consider the needs of both parties and the purpose of the trade. They don't want to know and don't want to know why the two parties make the trade. They will only consider whether your trade is legal based on whether the trading chips are equal. -- 70 S 23 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
Falconi+Poniros for Qing, then Qing for Chuang+Poniros. It is Falconi for Chuang. Why isn't that fair, depending on each clubs needs? -- 70 S 23 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
It isn't cheating, it does not break any rules, it is good for both teams, how can this been characterised as unfair? -- 70 S 23 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
When you see the deal, it's fair, you might vomit blood, because it looks like it's even worse than yours, and I think so. https://www.basketpulse.com/cn/Trade/information/949306 -- 70 S 23 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
Dear FPC can you explain the term "trading chips equal" that fulfills the trade to be legal or not? The RT average strength rate of the two traded players from one team is around 270 including a young player with long term contract versus the RT 294 of just one traded player of the other team, regardless the purpose of trade that the other team referred to as this thought was unknown to this team to go through the trade. I am an old member of this game and i have seen large amount of odd and strange exchanges with RT difference more than +50 or young players being exchanged with +30 aged players of the same or less RT strength rate. Both teams of this trade exchange are few of the "oldest" teams even in comparison to teams being part of the FPC and don't think they don't play fair that game all that time. Unfortunately the game despite the changes lacks of integrity and liability and leads a lot of the "old" members becoming less and less active and abandoning the game at the end, as it offers promotional, bonuses and motivation activities only to the payer members..i guess this is more "fair" though..All the best..have a nice day everybody.. -- 70 S 23 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+2
This is not an unfair trade. Sosna's players had 3 jumps between the 2. What criteria do you use, or is it just willy nilly as it seems? The FPC gets most right, but this is not a feather in your cap at all. -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
Okay I am just subbing for the FPC temporarily and let’s lay out the facts. What ended up happening is one player for another with 41% salary difference where the trade level restriction is 35%. The FPC is not going to allow teams now or in the future to utizlie trade system like this to circumvent the salary restrictions.

For you that only see one trade here, it was two, where two players basically went from one team and then the other and returned.

Lucky that the two teams only had a revert considering and not a level reduction. A lot of press conference chatter that I see is usually assumptions of the facts but lack a lot of details.

I do not think a reasonable person would want to allow trades such as this to basically circumvent the salary cap. Especially with all of the fake teams out there. Or wheat? Does the community just want a free for all where everyone can easily cheat? With your comments I think that is what you all want, a game where cheating is allowed. I am not saying these two teams were cheating, but what was done if allowed would be something that cheating teams would take advantage of and abuse. So sorry, unless you want a free for all cheating to be allowed, these two trades and any like it will be reverted: -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+2
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
Come on! If you just say this in order to justify the nonsense. The purpose as is easily understood wasn't to swap Falconi with Chuang (i could easily add a useless young player to make salaries work, if it was).

I thought Qing would be good enough for my team but dew to his luck of exp he wasn't, so I tried to give him away. I proposed trades to almost everyone having an exchangeable player who i think could be more useful to my purpose of ascending.

Th FPC was created to prevent cheating. As it turns out, in many cases the FPC play the role of supermanager who judges if the managers (no matter how experienced they are) made a bad trade, which in most cases is judged as bad from the FPC because the committee has more info for the players (internal pot and exp) than the managers involved! -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
Why have a rule of 35% and then it is allowed to circumvent the rule with this time of shenanigans? Use some logic, think big picture, quit thinking about only you. -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
*typing on phone - auto correct sucks :D.

* with this type. -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
It really should be common sense Best regards. -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
You know that this is not the reason that caused the reversion!!! You are just searching to find something to justify a wrong decision. Almost everyone understands that there was no cheating and no breaking of rules! -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
This is absolutely the reason. You still are failing because of your anger to see the entire picture. Let me try one more time. There are many cheaters in this game right now, far more than you likely would believe. 35 teams have been closed due to cheating this season, I found at least 45 more that probably should also be closed. If the FPC allows loop holes for cheating teams to circumvent, not saying your teams are cheating, then we might as well not try to limit it at all and have a free for all where everyone cheats.

If we allow this it sets a precedent to others that this is allowed, cheaters then have a loop hole that they will abuse mightily.

We cannot tell always which teams are for sure cheating because of VPN’s. So instead of a guessing game of who is legit and who is not, tighter restrictions on what is allowed and for sure making the rules that do exist, such as salary restrictions, be followed.

Hopefully you know get the point, think big picture here, don’t get swallowed up with your anger.


This is a great game, could be so much better if members would just do the “right” thing. If that was the case, there would be far less restrictions and more freedoms. Not much different than our society. The only reason why we have rules is some people make poor decisions these people limit things in our daily lives because of rules just as they do here. There is no argument to be had, given the current situation the verdict is very logical. Have a great day! -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
I won’t be responding further. -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
No I was not searching, a rule was broken, maybe unintentionally but it was broken by basically trading two players that you can not legally trade one for one today because their salaries are too far apart. End of story. -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
So the following trade should make everything OK. It would finally be Flaconi+Lappas for Chuang and salaries work fine. The FPC will not revert it, right?
superflights
logo

flag Miu Qing
Salary: 17500 Eu
Contract: 4 S Age: 27 y.
RT: 294 Height: 190 cm.
Potential: 10

flag Fotis Lappas
Salary: 2323 Eu
Contract: 1 S Age: 20 y.
RT: 111 Height: 200 cm.
Potential: 6
Sosna
logo

flag Quan Chuang
Salary: 17292 Eu
Contract: 1 S Age: 36 y.
RT: 282 Height: 201 cm.
Potential: 6

flag Konstantinos Poniros
Salary: 9738 Eu
Contract: 5 S Age: 26 y.
RT: 254 Height: 194 cm.
Potential: 4 -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
I posted your trade proposal to get feedback from FPC, sometimes the process I can be a little slower than what users want, be patient. -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
By the way, did you error here? You said Falconi and Lapad for Chuang

But what I see is Quinn and Lappad for Chuang and Poniros? -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
*Quing -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
Falconi is already at Sosna -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
After the two trades, it will be Falconi and Lappas for Chuang -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
spikot: do you realize you admitted doing wrong? I recall the rule states that every trade must be legal _on its own_. You are not allowed to do two trades to reach the goal of an agreement. What you are saying is just that. Foul play -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
I wrote previously "The purpose as is easily understood wasn't to swap Falconi with Chuang". But TheCoach said that the trade was reverted because of the salary difference, so adding Lappas to the trade nullifies this argument.
I already wrote that I acquired Qing, saw that he doesn't fit to my team and tried to give him away (I think that numerous managers can confirm that i offered to trade him). I offered to Sosna because he had Chuang at the exchangeable players and he accepted when other managers declined. -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
And all trades I proposed are legal_on_its own_. -- 70 S 24 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+0
my suggestion, is to sign up to the Muli's philosophy.
Learning from Gen. Sheridan: the only good Trade, is NO TRADE AT ALL -- 70 S 25 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+2
In the courts of law they say "it is better to leave a guilty unpunished than put an innocent to jail". The FPC changed this to "do not let any trade, to prevent a similar cheat!" -- 70 S 26 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+2
More than a week has passed and I'm still waiting for an answer.
If the reversion was made for salary reasons, as TheCoach said, then the proposal above would fix things. -- 70 S 33 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
No the reversion was not made because of salary reasons. It was made because its not allowed to use trades as a "loan" method for a few weeks as explained above. Otherwise everyone will exploit this in the future. So we needed to stop it directly. The 41% salary difference was a secondary reason. Not the main reason. So i guess Qing and Poniros cant be traded back again after such short period :( Which is the allowed period for such a trade/loan back and for? I guess FPC must contact darius for an answer and set an acceptable one. -- 70 S 33 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1
TheCoach, TY for pointing out the 2 trades. I redact my previous statement. -- 70 S 38 d.
-- (Tulkot) (Tulkot EN)
+1