Guest Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 There have been a number of threads recently discussing topics like fighters returning signing bonuses when they don't fight, org owners rating fighters, auto-accept for people not responding to fight offers, and other topics related to poor sportsmanship and selfishness on the part of fighters who are signed to a contract. The fact that there has been discussion about so many different kinds of abuses shows that we have a real problem. Most managers here are honest and decent guys, but the ones who aren't are being allowed to act like jerks without any consequences. It hurts not only the org owners, but in many cases, the other fighters who simply want to get a fight booked so they can fight. We have mechanisms like org rating and inactivity clauses to prevent bad org owners from ruining the game for people, but there is absolutely nothing addressing the far larger problem of bad managers doing things to make life difficult for others. While people may have their opinions about each individual suggestion, the one thing that I think we can all agree on is that there needs to be SOMETHING to prevent or punish managers who intentionally violate their contracts or hold other fighters in limbo. Rehash old suggestions. Make new suggestions. I don't care, but let's get something in place to address these problems. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilflet Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 those that sign fighters, take the signing bonus and then drop the fighter without ever fighting need to be addressed first imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougSupreme Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 those that sign fighters, take the signing bonus and then drop the fighter without ever fighting need to be addressed first imo That's already in place. If you wait until the fighter is retired, you automatically get the SB back. If the fighter is picked up by another manager, they are still under contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Auto-Accept Fights: After 3 Logins, if there is no response given the fight becomes Auto-Accepted Manager Ratings: Org owners would rate managers in their org on a scale of 1-10. If the Org Owner rates the manager 1-5, they must provide a reasoning for doing so. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonSash666 Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Auto-Accept Fights: After 3 Logins, if there is no response given the fight becomes Auto-Accepted That sounds more than perfect. Manager Ratings: Org owners would rate managers in their org on a scale of 1-10. If the Org Owner rates the manager 1-5, they must provide a reasoning for doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 i find this thread kinda funny my FIRST contract as a manager the ORG was trying to take advantage of me and was literally setting up my first fighter up with people whove trained projects for like the last 6 months, not only did he give me a horrible contract he was harassing me through messages on why i was declining fights, like as if it even needed to be explained. this topic is definately a double edged sword because it goes both ways. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 i find this thread kinda funny my FIRST contract as a manager the ORG was trying to take advantage of me and was literally setting up my first fighter up with people whove trained projects for like the last 6 months, not only did he give me a horrible contract he was harassing me through messages on why i was declining fights, like as if it even needed to be explained. this topic is definately a double edged sword because it goes both ways. Like I said in the OP, there are bad org owners, but there are far more bad fighters. The issue of bad org owners has been mostly addressed through inactivity clauses and org ratings, but the bigger problem of bad fighters has been ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilflet Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 That's already in place. If you wait until the fighter is retired, you automatically get the SB back. If the fighter is picked up by another manager, they are still under contract. Has it? Theres the thread that says years ago it was going to be implimented "soon" but as far as i can see never announced it had been put in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 It has been implemented, but you only get the signing bonus back after that fighter's inactivity clock has completely run out and only if they haven't fought at all. I believe the time frame is 90 days. No org owner is going to keep an inactive guy clogging up their rankings for the full 90 days, so nobody actually gets their money back. This rule would be far more effective if you could release someone and get the signing bonus back after 14 days of inactivity. A yellow clock means a release in my org. If you can't manage to make it online for two weeks, I release you. If I think you are a decent manager who isn't trying to pull a fast one, I will also send a PM saying you are welcome back in the org if you ever return to the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougSupreme Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 It has been implemented, but you only get the signing bonus back after that fighter's inactivity clock has completely run out and only if they haven't fought at all. I believe the time frame is 90 days. No org owner is going to keep an inactive guy clogging up their rankings for the full 90 days, so nobody actually gets their money back. This rule would be far more effective if you could release someone and get the signing bonus back after 14 days of inactivity. A yellow clock means a release in my org. If you can't manage to make it online for two weeks, I release you. If I think you are a decent manager who isn't trying to pull a fast one, I will also send a PM saying you are welcome back in the org if you ever return to the game. I used to keep fighters until they retired. usually they fall to the bottom of the org list anyway, so it's really easy to see who they are.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Inactive fighters are a pain in the ass. Other fighters ignore the big ugly yellow or red clock and ask to be matched up with them, then refuse to accept other offers because they are waiting for the three week inactive guy to come back. It is much easier to release guys who go inactive for two weeks. 95% of them never return anyway. As it stands now, the choice is between keeping those pains in the ass or releasing them and eating the loss. Right now I eat the loss even though I shouldn't have to. However, to me, this is far down the list of problems with orgs. Org owners rating fighters (with their name attached to prevent abuses) is an absolute must add. They can rate us, but we can't rate them. It isn't right. Fighters hold way too much leverage in contracts right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Glorified popularity contests is a bad idea, imo. With orgs you've got a big sample size so it balances out; with fighters or managers your sample size is gonna be tiny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Glorified popularity contests is a bad idea, imo. With orgs you've got a big sample size so it balances out; with fighters or managers your sample size is gonna be tiny. That's why orgs would be forced to have the owner's name attached to ratings as well as an explanation of negative ratings. I can think of a number of managers who I have signed, had problems with, then found out later that other orgs have had similar problems with this manager. If those previous orgs had been able to attach a rating, I never would have signed those guys in the first place. An unjust bad rating wouldn't even be that big of a deal. If I got a PM from a manager saying "I know I have a negative rating on my profile, but Org Owner X unfairly did this for personal reasons" I would still sign this fighter. I might offer him a smaller signing bonus and a three fight deal instead of a five fight deal, but he would still have an opportunity to redeem his name in my eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minark Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 An unjust bad rating wouldn't even be that big of a deal. If I got a PM from a manager saying "I know I have a negative rating on my profile, but Org Owner X unfairly did this for personal reasons" I would still sign this fighter. I might offer him a smaller signing bonus and a three fight deal instead of a five fight deal, but he would still have an opportunity to redeem his name in my eyes. That's the only thing I really don't like. Unfairly rated managers would be punished with a need to redeem themselves. In Jacky's case it's pretty fair to rate him shitty but a decent manager who has done nothing wrong but angered a bad org owner will get smaller contracts and owners will be worried to sign them. I like the idea of branding the Jacky's of the game as shit managers but I also dislike the idea of good managers having to have a need for redemption. It's kind of a catch 22 for me. Just for example, everyone here knows Lance Templeton is a stand up guy and an amazing manager. However, does anyone remember when an org owner ranted to the forums for like 4 pages about how bad of a manager he was and how he screwed his org over? If this manager rates Lance Templeton badly I don't see it being fair that he now has to contact org owners explaining, accept lower signing bonuses, less fights and have to take larger inactivity clauses. Just seems unfair to those guys either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eveas Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Sample size is a huge issue for rating managers. I am also against auto-accept. Many people put bad arguments as to why it is wrong, but I did see a couple goods ones. Mainly phone logins when someone is unable to get to a PC. Mine can do it, but I have seen many without the touch screens to accept fights properly. Can't we just be a little smarter about who we offer signing bonuses to and how much. Let a manager establish themselves first before you trust them with that $300k bonus or better yet simply shift that pay to their base pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Sample size is a huge issue for rating managers. I am also against auto-accept. Many people put bad arguments as to why it is wrong, but I did see a couple goods ones. Mainly phone logins when someone is unable to get to a PC. Mine can do it, but I have seen many without the touch screens to accept fights properly. Can't we just be a little smarter about who we offer signing bonuses to and how much. Let a manager establish themselves first before you trust them with that $300k bonus or better yet simply shift that pay to their base pay. You are looking at things from the perspective of an org with mostly established managers. In ID restricted orgs, there are a lot of newer managers. The signing bonus is a HUGE part of the contract. Most fighters want some immediate money that they need for getting into a good gym. Besides, losing the money from a signing bonus is not really my big concern. Signing bonuses in my org are between $2000 and $5000, so that's not the issue. For me, the issue is that it is a pain in the ass trying to get a fight card filled when certain managers refuse to respond to offers for over a week. Yes, I know I can just release these guys, but that doesn't solve the problem. Now they will just go to another org and do the same thing all over again. I'll be forced to do some recruiting and inevitably end up signing more guys who pull this shit. However, if orgs could see a fighter rating, they could avoid these shady characters. I agree that the sample size is much smaller for orgs to rate fighters, but the punishment for an unfair rating is seriously not that severe. Seriously, if I saw a fighter who had received a bad rating from only one org owner, I'd offer him a 2-3 fight contract with a low signing bonus instead of a 5 fight contract with a big one. Within a month or two, he would've proved himself and would be getting the same contract as everyone else. Most of the objections to this are coming from good, solid managers who log in daily and treat org owners with respect. Perhaps they don't realize how large a problem this is and how much of a headache it causes for org owners, especially those running ID restricted and dealing with a lot of unknown managers. Another helpful thing I think would be to have an "average response time" stat that only an org owner can see. Either that, or "% of offers that go unanswered for more than 3 days". This cannot be manipulated by an unfair and petty owner. It would simply list how long it takes that owner on average to respond to fight requests. I know that people will object saying "I often leave fight offers open for this wonderfully legitimate reason". That's fine. Maybe your life is busy. Maybe you can't respond on your phone. Maybe you like to ponder fights before making a decision. That is completely your choice, but as an org owner, it is also my choice to only deal with managers who respond promptly. If you can't do that, I deserve to know before offering you a contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A2TheJizzle Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Personal ORG blacklist. If, as a org owner, you have ran into a fighter who's manager is hard to deal with, there should be a way for org owners to blacklist this manager, the manager won't know this is done, only the org owners. That way, when you are on a big contract hunt, sometimes people don't bother looking at the manager, just the fighter, so if you end up offering a contact to a blacklisted manager, you get a little pop up warning. Ok it's not the best idea in the world, but it will stop org owners bad mouthing managers they don't like just to try and hurt them, because you know it will be done with the other suggestion of rating a manager. This way it's all down to that orgs experiences and they are not swayed by anyone else, and they may not have a problem with one manager that a few other org owners have a problem with UFC don't blackball and avoid fighters because of other company's experiences with them, and other orgs don't blacklist fighters because of ufcs experiences with them. Just a quick idea for you while I'm sitting on the toilet! What do the rest of you think? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 That's the thing, it doesn't solve the problem. I already know who I have personally had bad experiences with in the past. I want to know who others have had bad experiences with in the past so that I can either avoid them or offer them modified contracts. You are correct that the UFC sometimes (not always) ignores past behavior, but you better believe they are putting personal conduct clauses in the contracts of these fighters. For example, I would be willing to bet that if Nick Diaz ever comes back and works his way into a title shot, he'll only get it by signing a contract that gives enormous penalties for missing press conferences. Athletes with a history of problems have been required to sign contracts that contain curfews or become void with positive drug tests. As an org owner, I am also willing to take on a fighter with a bad history elsewhere, but I want to know about the bad history so I can offer a contract that covers my ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A2TheJizzle Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Yeah you have a point, but I was looking at it the other way and not getting org owners with a grudge to make other mangers look bad, maybe mike can set up an "athletic commission" where all bad cases are submitted to with both sides of the story, all privite, with the select few making the call / fine or other? I know it's a bit of a ball ache, but I think it's worth looking at other ideas! I'm not against rating managers like the org ratings, I think it is a good idea! But as I said I'm all for looking for others too to give mike a choice or to hopefully give him a better idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eveas Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 You are looking at things from the perspective of an org with mostly established managers. In ID restricted orgs, there are a lot of newer managers. The signing bonus is a HUGE part of the contract. Most fighters want some immediate money that they need for getting into a good gym. We are thinking on different scales. Like you said, in your org it isn't a problem due to your bonuses being under $5k. For a noob that is great, because it is more than enough to last the couple weeks they might wait for their 1st fight in a top gym. I am more discussing when the money matters like those $300k offers that have been floating around. I don't know how frequent they are, but I know I have been sent quite a few of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Yeah you have a point, but I was looking at it the other way and not getting org owners with a grudge to make other mangers look bad, maybe mike can set up an "athletic commission" where all bad cases are submitted to with both sides of the story, all privite, with the select few making the call / fine or other? I know it's a bit of a ball ache, but I think it's worth looking at other ideas! I'm not against rating managers like the org ratings, I think it is a good idea! But as I said I'm all for looking for others too to give mike a choice or to hopefully give him a better idea I know Mike has said he doesn't want to waste time settling petty disputes between managers, although I'm sure he could appoint some "commissioners" to do this if we wanted to go this route. I'm not stuck on one idea either. I've suggested auto-accept, which would say "If you logged in three times without accepting, a three day clock begins. At the end of those three days, your fight gets auto-accepted." Most people are against this idea (mostly because the falsely believe it would affect inactives or because they think three logins plus three days is somehow unreasonable to make a decision.) However, since I can't seem to get people to understand what I'm actually proposing, I've moved on to focusing on fighter ratings. If that is also not popular, I'm open to just about anything. Fighters currently have the power to sign a contract and then sit on the sidelines in blatant violation of their contract. It happens quite a bit. I hate keeping these jerks on my roster screwing up fight offers and making other fighters in the division think there is a possible opponent out there, but if I release him, he is going to go out and abuse another org owner. I'll be in support of any idea that punishes them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMATycoon Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 I like the idea of forcing people to make a decision either way on their fight offers. That would be easy to program. We can just have a counter in the main menu script that allows you to view the menu say 50 times before it locks you on to the fight offers page and doesn't let you view any other pages until you accept or reject that particular fight offer. That doesn't stop people perpetually rejecting offers but I think it's a nice start. We can also add a rating system, that's fine, but it's a system with flaws. There is no way in hell I'm doing an atheltic comission - I already waste far too much time dealing with people's bickering If it was someone else doing it for me, those people are likely to get pissed off with it eventually and probably leave the game, so I lose that way too... it always happens with forum mods, editors etc. Give people jobs to do and it stops being fun to come to the site. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Im for the forcing of decision thing for sure but once you are locked and have to answer please let us still view the opponent before we make the decision. =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 i find this thread kinda funny my FIRST contract as a manager the ORG was trying to take advantage of me and was literally setting up my first fighter up with people whove trained projects for like the last 6 months, not only did he give me a horrible contract he was harassing me through messages on why i was declining fights, like as if it even needed to be explained. this topic is definately a double edged sword because it goes both ways. did you look at the fighters in your weight category in that org to see if they were around your ID or skill level before accepting the contract? (usually the common sense thing to do so your not stuck in unreasonable division with unfair fights) org owners want to know why you declined fight offers because to the owner it just looks like your declining every fight offer and it wouldnt look good to them where if you contact each other giving a reasonable reason instead of ignoring him or whatever then you could resolve getting fair reasonable fight offers Auto-Accept Fights: After 3 Logins, if there is no response given the fight becomes Auto-Accepted Manager Ratings: Org owners would rate managers in their org on a scale of 1-10. If the Org Owner rates the manager 1-5, they must provide a reasoning for doing so. i like the idea of auto accept i have had plenty of fight opportunities where the opponents manager didnt accept just left it even when they have actually been logging in and not inactive so annoying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMATycoon Posted December 14, 2012 Report Share Posted December 14, 2012 Im for the forcing of decision thing for sure but once you are locked and have to answer please let us still view the opponent before we make the decision. =) Yeah, we'd have to let you view the opponent's profile and fights... Getting more complicated to program but can be done 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.