I’ve noticed that my score for the month of June has been changed to reflect a lower total. At issue is a game between Boston and Texas on 6/10. Two games were scheduled that day and I played the over in the 1st game. The game was held up 4-5 hours due to rain and subsequently only 1 game was played. Illusion posted a message that game 1 was rained out and therefore no action. Several days later Willie Bee posts a message that the 2nd game was postponed and that it was the 1st game that was played. I live in the Boston area and can’t verify what actually took place. I spent about 10 minutes looking for the information but couldn’t find any and it’s not worth going on a crusade to do so. The game that was played went under so if indeed it was the 1st game then it was a loss. Posting a link in this case would have been sufficient instead of an uncorroborated paste.
This is the 2nd time that my score was lowered after initial rulings were reversed.
On May 10th I made a selection and 7 or 8 minutes later I edited my post to include a 2nd selection rather than initiate a new post. The rules at the time stated that posts may not be edited and “may” result in disqualification. Reading that, it sounds like the selections may or may not be counted, certainly arbitrary language. One selection was a winner and one a loser with a net of zero. Both picks were voided. Several days later they were both changed to losers with a net of -2.28. I can certainly see voiding out a winner if a rule had been broken but counting it as a loser on a minor infraction is BS. The rule has since been changed to reflect that all selections in edited posts are counted as losses. Plain and simple. At the time it was an arbitrary decision by the moderator(s) which was done, but later changed.
Unfortunately for me, the -2.28 that was assessed in the change was the difference between me finishing 1st in May and finishing 4th. Changing a winner to a loser for a minor infraction in view of the rule at the time was unfair.
There appears to be a conflict of interest here, especially in view of the fact that original rulings were subsequently changed. I have no problem with changes if they reflect fair play. If in the case of the over I played, if indeed it was the 1st game, then it should be counted as a loss. Two things come to mind here, Willie Bee pasted several lines from ESPN saying it was the 1st game that was played and what I also think were his edited quotation marks around “day” game to further make his point. Second of all my score was changed without any notification or explanation from the moderators. If Illusion posted that my selection was no action, then a message to the change would also have sufficed. There was nothing but a deduction in my score which I figured out myself.
Moderators that manage a contest, make rules, interpret rules; change rules, make arbitrary decisions and reverse original decisions should NOT be making selections in the same contest. I have no problem with SBR employees participating in contests that they aren’t grading or making decisions in, but I just made a case for a conflict of interest. I think it common sense that those administering a contest should not be participating in it.
This is the 2nd time that my score was lowered after initial rulings were reversed.
On May 10th I made a selection and 7 or 8 minutes later I edited my post to include a 2nd selection rather than initiate a new post. The rules at the time stated that posts may not be edited and “may” result in disqualification. Reading that, it sounds like the selections may or may not be counted, certainly arbitrary language. One selection was a winner and one a loser with a net of zero. Both picks were voided. Several days later they were both changed to losers with a net of -2.28. I can certainly see voiding out a winner if a rule had been broken but counting it as a loser on a minor infraction is BS. The rule has since been changed to reflect that all selections in edited posts are counted as losses. Plain and simple. At the time it was an arbitrary decision by the moderator(s) which was done, but later changed.
Unfortunately for me, the -2.28 that was assessed in the change was the difference between me finishing 1st in May and finishing 4th. Changing a winner to a loser for a minor infraction in view of the rule at the time was unfair.
There appears to be a conflict of interest here, especially in view of the fact that original rulings were subsequently changed. I have no problem with changes if they reflect fair play. If in the case of the over I played, if indeed it was the 1st game, then it should be counted as a loss. Two things come to mind here, Willie Bee pasted several lines from ESPN saying it was the 1st game that was played and what I also think were his edited quotation marks around “day” game to further make his point. Second of all my score was changed without any notification or explanation from the moderators. If Illusion posted that my selection was no action, then a message to the change would also have sufficed. There was nothing but a deduction in my score which I figured out myself.
Moderators that manage a contest, make rules, interpret rules; change rules, make arbitrary decisions and reverse original decisions should NOT be making selections in the same contest. I have no problem with SBR employees participating in contests that they aren’t grading or making decisions in, but I just made a case for a conflict of interest. I think it common sense that those administering a contest should not be participating in it.
