How the Fair Play Committee members voted:<br />
- volunteers voted "Revert and punish": 0<br />
- volunteers voted "Revert": 0<br />
- volunteers voted "Fair": 6<br />
<br />
These reasons were chosen by the volunteers during voting:<br />
<br />
--
81 С
26 д
Good morning, this game works like this, the users who invested and have a high level of trade have a great advantage over the other users and have used that advantage for this trade and nothing can be done. What seems strange is that out of 12 members of the committee only 6 vote and then there are no justified reasons from the users of the trade, there should be a minimum of positive votes, for example 9 for the trade to be considered correct. Everything seems very strange and dark, something fails that little by little destroys the game, every day we see strange situations between users in a closed circle between them, always the same trade, in helps, etc, this is bad for the game to grow, which is what the owners of the game remind me every season. Every day it becomes more difficult to play this game, I am getting tired of fighting against the current, is my modest opinion.
--
81 С
28 д
Longxia: reverted trade you mention was not reverted because it was seen as unbalancd. Look at the reasoning. feishe: please explain why this particular trade is unfair. have you looked at the players? The "shiny" 10pot is scouted at 20yo. Those are hard to ever use in wl1 due to bad training and low xp. That makes the rest of the trade much more understandable ...
Full disclosure: I didn't vote, only 6 voted (maybe too fast, but the system is constructed this way), so not a unanimous decision per se. FPC lets vast majority of trades pass of every community even if we would not make it except if they are strongly disbalanced or we strongly suspect cheating/helping patterns. Both was not the case here.
--
81 С
30 д
Polis Katelynas
1.1
Тргување/размена/Играчи ставени за позајмица: 
1.1
2.2
2.2
https://www.basketpulse.com/lt/Trade/information/960470
Longxia: reverted trade you mention was not reverted because it was seen as unbalancd. Look at the reasoning.
