I think you can break the loans after your LDC match or even the day after, as the cassation procedure seems quicker when it's the borrower who breaks the loan.

To answer the original question (if anyone's still interested), Aymeric said that using loans in this way wasn't really the idea, but he didn't say it was banned.
However, he also said that he was going to prevent it by introducing a time limit before a loan could be recalled/terminated.

I don't know the answer.
That's why I'm asking

Legally, it already seems highly questionable.
Morally, I'm not even talking about it.

Maybe it's because he's been watching your players? 🫣

Think about getting a loan manager too.

And zip it up, Lothar!

The problem actually stems from an "improvement" made by Aymeric. When I started on VF, you couldn't call back a player on loan, and you couldn't cancel a loan when you were a borrower. And that was a very good thing.

So yes, from time to time we'd get an admin to intervene because we'd loaned a player in progress to a guy who hadn't logged on for 5 or 6 days ...

But frankly, allowing loan reminders, and even worse, loan cancellations by the borrower, is a bad thing. I should point out that this has been my position ever since this kind of reminder became possible. And that I reported it internally when I was in charge.

All you have to do is look at the fact that all the problems we've seen recently (the proliferation of endurance courses in particular) stem from this, in the first place.

It was a really bad idea. And since then we've been stubbornly sticking plasters on this wooden leg, which is a real shame.

That's what I said to myself afterwards, you're certainly right.

If you ever need it, I know 2 or 3 friends who can make it up to 45 if you're interested.

And Jeff is right to look into this because at the time when Aymeric banned loans of less than 7 days (I think? I can't really remember and it's not the sort of thing I remember), some clubs found a way of getting round it. As for buying and selling from club A to club B to get round the ban, he had the clubs transfer via clubs C, D, E and so on.

Whatever happens, people will always find a way around the rules, that's just the way it is. It doesn't matter what's done. That's always been the case, everywhere.

Very good summary and complements what Demi mentioned, loan referral prevents a player sent on training from being wasted, but it creates this kind of totally immoral and illogical possibilities too, moderately simply a tiny financial sum (to be confirmed) that some people are prepared to take on for a little extra benefit.

Is this really a flaw? I don't think so (it doesn't require any action not planned or desired by the game, just the very rapid activation of the dismissal). It seems to me more like a very unhealthy use of a feature. Maybe review the cost of sending a player away, with a price that decreases over time, so that a player who is sent away from a loan very early on pays the full price, then reduces the cost according to the time spent in the club to arrive at a reasonable price after 7-15 days (which would avoid the gain of a short-term loan, and would stop them without any really necessary follow-up by an anti-cheating admin in the event of illegality to the rules, and I'm aiming for another problem at the same time with this measure...). Or simply add it to the rules and punish (which doesn't seem to be the case at the moment from what I've read).

What's more, we're talking here about 24-hour loans for a match, which is totally unrealistic, but we should also one day seriously look into the issue of friendlies VOLUNTARILY scheduled over cup matches to slow down the LDC or certain cups and better manage the squad, a technique that is clearly a flaw here (to skew the algorithm that organises matches), and which we saw during the summer tournament that Aymeric was able to fight against. It's just as illogical (I've never seen PSG postpone a friendly against Villeurbanne in order to postpone their match against Real in the LDC to the following week because it suits them better). When you play several games, you simply think at the start of the season about which fixtures to sacrifice if your squad can't keep up (that's also management), but I find it totally immoral to use a loophole in the scheduling of friendlies to change the date of a match, without the opinion of your opponents, who sometimes find themselves with their arses between two chairs in the end, having to sacrifice a competition too because it's been delayed by the use of a loophole by other people. And yet, this loophole is used and almost legalised by an incredible number of managers, some of whom even become victims when they are denounced for the immoral practice of using it...

The line between optimisation and exploitation is often blurred. (and I say this because I've often lost it).
I'll give you my version.
Optimisation is staying within the law and what the game allows to do as well as possible.
A loophole or exploit is the fact of taking advantage of a legal or illegal game mechanism to bypass the laws of the game.

When you make a 24-hour loan, not to get a player to play but to give him an extra endurance or recovery event. For me, that's totally exploiting a loophole, you're using a short loan to avoid a law of the game.
I know that's going to make some people scream, but as I say... there's a fine line.

I don't see why it should affect the deal, don't worry about that. On VF, there have been some HUGE things and the agreements have sometimes been spared. Others have been breached multiple times and nothing has happened. So here, an isolated gesture by a player for something that seems SO far from what has been practised in terms of "optimisation"... and if you're only talking about jabbering, then yes, there is and always will be. But who gives a shit about that to the power of 10?

Yes, everyone knows about this file and if it's been stopped, I suppose it's for a good reason (unless it's just for lack of time and its complete uselessness). That doesn't prevent cheating. As Jex says, shame on works when you have people with a modicum of self-esteem. So it's pointless.

As for the fact that I'm appearing, yes. It was in the good old days of the auto click that 95% of people used. I had the bad idea of warning a fellow player that he should stop because I didn't think it was allowed, even though the mechanics of the game allowed it, without reporting him to the admins. It's always a shame to take 100M for a prevention message that doesn't benefit you in any way, but I accepted. And that hasn't made me bitter or vindictive or anything. I even laugh about it on a fairly regular basis with my fine brother Clamsii, who took the same thing. It's no big deal.
What's more, in this case, all the youngsters detected by the colleague had ended up in another agreement (that of the 'mole' who was banned) which got nothing. It's a shame too, because I would have thought it would have been logical to remove the fruit of the cheating. Well, that's a logic that not everyone necessarily has.

Come on, I'm off, work in less than an hour!

You don't need to justify yourself to him or to the OMstar community, we don't give a damn, he's only doing this to cause trouble**** because it's his last card to play as all the flaws he's using have been fixed and/or are being monitored ;)

Yes, I did it to have a bit of transparency, and so that everyone could see what was going on. I also thought it was less intrusive than adding a 'V' to the nickname.

In the meantime I've had the opportunity to change the wording of the rules myself and to be able to post indicative penalty scales.

I can confirm that! Demicaramel too !!!!

And not only that... But I like it all the same.

What's the point of this message, apart from provocation? I'd rather write a paving stone with ideas like the one that's still to come, than simply provoke and try to create tension.

I'm not trying to stir up trouble, on the contrary, I'm denouncing the practice used and another one in passing (which clearly wasn't aimed at Estac, by the way, if you took it the wrong way, I didn't even realise that his situation described what I was denouncing, and that fits in with the end of my message, which mentions that this has become a common practice for many players, unfortunately). Instead of trying to create new drama and tension in the community with your unconstructive thinking, perhaps you have an opinion on my post and its content, particularly the potential proposals for improvement (particularly the proposal for overpayment to cancel a short-term loan)?

Incidentally, to continue on this subject of suggesting improvements (and if anyone asks me why I don't post on another topic, the reason is simple. I did it 2 or 3 times at the beginning, with no impact in the end apart from getting provocative or inappropriate comments like this one - is it motivating to spend time writing something, only to get replies like: "too long, I didn't read it"), here's one possibility, for example, which would consist of blocking certain dates (impossible to plan matches on them) for as long as we're still in the running in a competition:

This season, we normally had on the current automatic scheduling format:
LDC
T1 15/09
T2 17/09
T3 19/09

1/32e 22/09
1/16e 25/09
1/8e 28/09
1/4e 31/09
1/2 03/10 => Postponed to 04/10 because of the start of the championships and the league cup final on 02/10
Final on 06/10

**League Cup
1/64th (at most) => 16/09
1/32e => 18/09
1/16e => 21/09
1/8e => 24/09
1/4e => 27/09
1/2e => 30/09
Final => 02/09 (earlier if fewer rounds)

**Championship
Starts on 03/10

3rd unofficial cup or more (in French)
Maximum of N cups at the same time?
Unofficial cups no priority over other cups?

Free dates (IE or youth friendly, everyone does what they want)
14/09 (IE impossible because J1)
20/09
23/09
25/09
29/09
01/10

• dates when you are eliminated from a competition

Naturally, when this distorts the rounds before 03/10, the championship goes off in all directions afterwards. There should never have been any problems with the initial planning of the match algorithm without the use of the friendly flaw, which delays certain League Cups by 15 days, and the LDC potentially by 15 to 20 days.

In short, it's not by playing in a sectarian way that we'll all move forward together, whatever the case. We may all be from different agreements (or guilds, to use real multiplayer community terms), but we're playing a multiplayer community game where the aim is to meet, chat and discover new people. Whether Magik or Rom are CP, LR, Fym, LV or any other guild, I don't really care. What matters to me is that I can play peacefully, enjoy myself and meet new people from all walks of life, while pointing out contentious practices and cheating that have no place here and suggesting potential improvements, some good, some bad.

When the players here understand that the community and atmosphere is the main part that keeps a game and a guild alive (and it takes time, it took over 8 years on another game with over 300k active players where I am), everything will be much nicer. That's the message that really struck a chord with me in Aymeric's last voice message, which mentioned the need to open up discord a bit more, and therefore exchanges between players, to break down this sectarianism. There's nothing to stop you from being in guild A, hanging out more in chat rooms or on the forums of guilds B, C and D, and having a bit of 'good-natured' rivalry between A and B. And I think he's got it totally right!

As for Decibel (Jex?), I can only agree with the end of your last message. On the other hand, this sentence clearly implied the mass use of the physical preparation course that you mention (normally solved) under loan, which some use or have used...
"(which would avoid the gain of a short-term loan, [...], and I'm aiming for another concern at the same time with this measure...)".

I wasn't aiming at you, I had stopped the thread at Magik's beautiful tearful message, sorry if you felt targeted. What you're proposing existed before. Breaking a recent loan was mini 5M so that limited the manoeuvre.

Hey, can we have 2 training periods per season for a player?

m enfin sanguy jouer des ie contre des multis( avere qui était supposed et supprime et tj actif ) dans d'autres ententes
the cartel is also responsible in this case?
It's not an open secret about the choice of ie and matches, is it?
I'm asking this, and it must piss you off that I'm saying this because it's me, but it was also just 1 question
or is it just me?

I don't think anyone has ever been in favour of sanctioning an entire agreement for the actions of a single manager...

I've been saying it for 10 seasons but nothing happens!
How else can you explain all their titles ????

What magik are you talking about?

You're right to mention it...
If you look closely, there's also this goalkeeper on loan just for this match

F. Males

Worst of all, this player #joueur?jid=513539&matchs played two games on 19/10 ( 90 minutes for IE and 1 minute for a friendly) which shows that he was recalled just after IE ...