Over the last few days, the forum has been overflowing with reports of loopholes which, with the best will in the world, we can no longer understand whether they are still banned or have become legal.

This uncertainty is becoming a bit unhealthy for the atmosphere of the game, with direct or indirect denunciations, innuendo, etc...

Without being exhaustive:

• sale of a player at a derisory price by a quasi-inactive player to a friend (or supposed friend), sometimes followed by resale at true value in the minutes that follow or exfiltration as a loan
• loans disguised as cheap sales with a view to recovering the player once he has been trained
• federations full of players from the same cartel or the same club
• weekly payment of financial aid by a cartel to certain members (leading to confusion between the cartel's cash flow and personal cash flow, which is the definition of the offence of misuse of corporate assets)
• daily loan (or sale at a derisory price) of a player who adds up the physical preparation courses and returns to his original club once the endurance points have been accumulated
• creating level 1 clubs to take advantage of low prices and recycling purchases and resales from a friend (or yourself if you have multiple accounts)
  etc, ....... I'm bound to forget!

Before the game goes down the drain, it would be good (and I'd even say essential) to have an official communication from the MDJ as a matter of urgency (and not just from the admins, who I don't think have a clear idea of what they can do themselves) here or in the News section about what's actually allowed and what's forbidden, and when it's forbidden, what the penalties are.

myforsans: Depuis quelques jours le forum regorge de dénonciations de failles dont avec la meilleure volonté du monde, on ne comprend plus si, au jour d'aujourd'hui, elles sont toujours interdites ou bien devenues légales.

Cette incertitude devient un peu malsaine pour l'ambiance du jeu avec des dénonciations directes ou indirectes, des sous-entendus, etc...

Sans être exhaustif :

• vente à prix dérisoire d'un joueur par un quasi inactif à un copain (ou supposé tel), suivie parfois de la revente à la v...

It's crazy, this willingness to bury your head in the sand just to put on a show...
The answers to your questions have already been given by the admins 50 thousand times.
But apparently you like to play with the limit, or maybe you don't know the definition of a loophole, in which case it's ridiculous.

My personal opinion;
Our MDJ is currently busy trying to sell his game.
Deregulating the transfer market makes no sense apart from the massive creation of multi-accounts. The creation of multi-accounts will fictitiously increase the attractiveness of VF.
Increase in potential "customers" = attractive game for a possible sale.
This phenomenon + the virtual absence of official information since the announcement of this famous voice last season leads me to believe that

Zeus: C'est quand même dingue cette volonté de faire l'autruche tout ça pour se montrer en spectacle...
Les réponses à tes questions ont déjà été données par les admins 50 mille fois.
Mais tu aimes jouer avec la limite apparemment ou alors tu ne connais la définition d'une faille, et dans ce cas ça en devient ridicule.

But you're completely off the mark.

Asking the MDJ to intervene officially on all these issues is totally natural. Aymeric announced the deregulation of the market on a Tuesday night voice chat and since then it's been up to the admins to deal with all the ensuing issues.

It seems more like it suits you to keep everything vague.

You'd think that if he'd wanted to contradict the admins he would have done so a long time ago.

Creating other accounts is forbidden. The problem is detecting it.

If market values are completely free, that means you can buy and sell at whatever price you want, for mutual aid or whatever.

The only rule, to date, as explained, is that you can't buy back a player sold less than 56 days later.

If the player has been transferred, for example, you would have to block the earnings from the physical preparation camp event, in a similar way to the collective training sessions (the famous medical check-up). That would remove a few worries.

We could also block the maximum number of clubs a player can play for per season, but that wouldn't go in the direction of the 'total freedom' we're aiming for.

Myfor talks about a point that many are trying to drown out.
The +2 each endurance season thanks to a loophole on the loans.
I'm bringing up the subject again here because I have the impression that no-one is aware of the cheating that's going on at this level...

hazard14: Myfor parle d'un point que beaucoup essaye de noyer le poisson.
Le +2 chaque saison d endurance grâce à une faille sur les prêts.
Je relance le sujet ici aussi car j'ai l'impression que personne ne se rend compte de la triche qui est en train de se faire à ce niveau...

Nobody notices the fish, it's a flaw, and it's a big problem that's been amplified this season. But no one except Aymeric can do anything about it.

In the meantime, yes, unscrupulous people are gorging themselves and there's nothing in the rules that forbids it. And that's far from being the only problem.

Galywat: Personne ne noie le poisson c'est une faille, et c'est un gros problème qui est amplifié cette saison. Mais personne sauf Aymeric ne peut y changer quoique ce soit.

En attendant oui les gens peu scrupuleux se gavent et il n'y a rien dans le règlement qui l'interdit. Et c'est loin d'être le seul problème.

Personnellement je m'attendais au moins à ce que le nouveau règlement anticipe ces points mais absolument pas. Mais bon quoiqu'il arrive ça aurait fait une tâche extrement energivore pour...

Ouais enfin jouer propre pour avoir des 85ng 20 endu pendant que des mes vont avoir des 85 ng mais 30 35 endu et voir les fanfaronner car il gagne sincèrement il y a en ras le bol

hazard14: Ouais enfin jouer propre pour avoir des 85ng 20 endu pendant que des mes vont avoir des 85 ng mais 30 35 endu et les voir fanfaronner car il gagne sincèrement il y en a ras le bol.
Je suis d'accord ce n'est pas le seul point à éclaircir il y a pas mal de soucis lol

In any case, the new rules are an invitation to cheat.

It has become so easy to implement. Nobody can stop it. It's infuriating. It's going to demotivate a lot of players. A lot of them will take advantage of it and we'll artificially have a lot of new players.

Broken loans for the +2 endu, that's still a flaw, even with price deregulation. And those who are at fault at the moment did so before this change.

Marcus Aurelius: Les prêts cassés pour le +2 endu, ça reste une faille, même avec la déréglementation des prix. Et puis ceux qui sont en cause en ce moment les ont effectué avant cette modif.

Yes, but it's not like it's new.

It's not that difficult to code. It should have been done a long time ago. Today it's just that from +2, which was already an exploited flaw, you're going to get to +10, +15 or even more for the more 'daring'.

The message from myforsans is broader. And there's already a topic for this other subject. We can create 10.

I hope aymeric reads even a tiny part of what's being said, because this is getting seriously out of hand.

It's a good thing I don't play much personally, because I put myself in the shoes of people who play intensively, and to be honest, whether individually or as a group, it's enough to make you seriously disgusted.

Cheaters are going to be in the majority very soon and they're going to have a field day. Even if cheating is a poor choice, given that almost everything is authorised or can be controlled.

Good luck to you all.

The logic behind having seen penalties sometimes commensurate with cheating
You have to block the system and reset the players concerned, and if it's a blocked agreement, you have to organise the agreement for cheating.
For some cartels, no details were given for 4/5 players .....

junior: La logique pour avoir vue des sanctions parfois a la hauteur de la triche
Il faut bloquer le système et réinitialiser les joueurs concernés et si c'est une entente bloqué entente pour triche organiser
Pour certaines entente on as pas fait de détail pour 4/5 joueurs .....

Then if the cheating is proven to be collective I'd like to see the penalties.
The fym lost its agreement and its money after 4/5 members exploited a loophole.
So I'm waiting to see the names and the penalties. To see if this is consistent with the near past.

minadinho: Puis si la triche est avéré en collectif j’aimerais voir la sanctions .
La fym a perdu sont entente et sont argent suite à 4/5 membres qui ont exploité une faille .
Donc j’attend de voir les nom et les sanctions .voir si cela reste cohérent au passé proche .

AFU had agreement blocked then remove
LPA 1 , 2 and their academy blocked and soon to be abolished

bluethunders26: AFU ont eu entente bloqué puis supprimer
LPA 1 , 2 et leur académie bloque et prochainement supprimer

Perfect if it stays in the same vein 👍
I'll be following it closely 😁

Yes, if the +2s were carried out on a large scale, an exemplary sanction is required.
Throttle the players and impose financial penalties if a cartel has organised it on an industrial scale.

jul068: Oui si les +2 on été réalisé à grande ampleur il faut une sanction exemplaire.
Raboter les joueurs et sanction financière si une entente l’a organisé de façon industrielle

Same for all, if it is done in number must the abolition of the agreement.
Like all the others.

minadinho: Parfait si cela reste dans la même lignée 👍
Je vais suivre ça de prêt 😁

Up close! :) :)
,.... because close (or two loans) is precisely what could be at issue :) :) :)

So the 2 of them !😂

bluethunders26: AFU ont eu entente bloqué puis supprimer
LPA 1 , 2 et leur académie bloque et prochainement supprimer

You often confuse AfU and LA. It was LA that was deleted, not AfU😉

junior: La logique pour avoir vue des sanctions parfois a la hauteur de la triche
Il faut bloquer le système et réinitialiser les joueurs concernés et si c'est une entente bloqué entente pour triche organiser
Pour certaines entente on as pas fait de détail pour 4/5 joueurs .....

The KO is essentially due to the management of the MDJ. When you don't correct historical feats, at some point you can't systematically blame the players. (And I'm not talking about my own case).

You're all patting yourselves on the back, but none of you are pointing the finger of blame at the MDJ.
Naturally, most of you have good memories and know that a ban or financial penalty is not far off if you dare to criticise the game's management.
But it's still surprising to see the direction the game is taking.

Authoritarian drift has a long history in the game, and a lot of players support it. But when you all get down on your knees when certain people applaud the racket of a cartel by the MDJ, I'd tend to say that the community is only getting what it deserves.

Historically, it has never spoken with one voice, and even today, when it's obvious... the parochial wars are going to avoid the real problem today.

The latest stories as a reminder:
My ban on wind, commercial dispute, publicising my personal invoices, deliberately misleading communication, extortion of funds against the LR (to scare everyone).
The lomax ban = evidence in all directions with factual cheating for months... it took a bit of pressure on the vforum for MDJ's protection to jump onto his account (the admins couldn't do anything)
The various cases of obvious cheating today. Like Facom, which swings 1 billion a year with the blessing of the MDJ.
Amaguiz multiplying loans x15 on certain players with the same club to reach 67 68 matches per season. Still no communication or sanctions.
Obvious cheating that is not sanctioned or not publicly.

Now comes the +2 problem... A subject already identified but the MDJ has not solved the exploit.
Using it wasn't clever, but you probably had people who didn't know about it.

Systematic punishment without a clear framework is counterproductive. Banning for life is not the solution.
The important thing is communication and a clear framework.
At the moment, none of this is in place.

minadinho: Pareil pour tous , si c’est fait en nombre faut la suppression de l’entente .
Comme tout les autre .

Is it a two-letter agreement that doesn't have Legion in its name???

Lahi: Vous confondez souvent AfU et LA. C'est LA qui était supprimé pas AfU😉

Sorry for the confusion

Alexandre67310: Est ce que c’est une entente en deux lettre mais qui ne contient pas Légion dans son nom ???

No idea, so I'm waiting to see!
I'm a long way from vf at the moment but given some of the comments I've read I'm starting to have my doubts!
After LR cheater! we all know it and so I wouldn't be surprised if it's you.... or the fym 🤣 on the other hand lesson givers who supposedly have a reputation and exemplary values that would be a lot funnier 😁

decibel: Le KO est essentiellement du à la gestion du MDJ. Quand tu ne corriges pas des exploits historique, à un moment tu ne peux pas systématiquement mettre la faute aux joueurs. (Et je ne parle pas de mon cas)

Vous vous tapez tous dessus mais aucun pointe la responsabilité du MDJ.
Naturellement, la plupart on bonne mémoire et savent que le ban ou la sanction financière n'est pas loin quand on ose critiqué la gestion du jeu.
Mais on peut quand même s'étonner de la direction que prend le jeu.

La...

I went to see what you were saying, and now the admins are letting all this go through?
It's huge

minadinho: Aucune idée , pour cela que j’attend de voir !
Je suis loins de vf en ce moment mais au vu de certain commentaires que j’ai pu lire je commence à avoir un doute !
Après LR tricheur ! ont le sais tous et du coup je serais pas étonné si c’est vous…. ou la fym 🤣par contre des donneurs de leçon qui ont soit disant une réputation et des valeur exemplaire ça serais bien plus marrant 😁

The suspense is unbearable. But that's not the most important thing. Marcus had two Englishmen in the federation.

The funniest thing about all this is that, as usual, the members who complain about the new rules will be members of the cartel who will benefit the most from this new rule.
I'm convinced that in parallel to these messages of complaints, the discords are already full of strategies ready to be put in place to abuse and over-abuse this new provision.

Unagi: Le plus drôle dans tout ça c'est que comme d'habitude les membres qui se plaignent des nouvelles règles seront des membres d'entente qui profiteront le plus de cette nouvelles régle.
Je suis persuadé qu'en parallèle de ces messages de plaintes les discords sont déjà plein de stratégie prête a être mise en place pour abusé et sur-abusé de cette nouvelle disposition

Big CSC

Unagi: Le plus drôle dans tout ça c'est que comme d'habitude les membres qui se plaignent des nouvelles règles seront des membres d'entente qui profiteront le plus de cette nouvelles régle.
Je suis persuadé qu'en parallèle de ces messages de plaintes les discords sont déjà plein de stratégie prête a être mise en place pour abusé et sur-abusé de cette nouvelle disposition

So I'm with you 100%.... this new system is going to benefit the big clubs much more than the small ones, which are going to die of being small (except, of course, by inflating their membership with multicolours galore).
What's more, the first 'abuses' (sorry, I'm told they're not abuses) that can easily be seen in broad daylight are almost all coming from clubs in large associations.

Unagi: Le plus drôle dans tout ça c'est que comme d'habitude les membres qui se plaignent des nouvelles règles seront des membres d'entente qui profiteront le plus de cette nouvelles régle.
Je suis persuadé qu'en parallèle de ces messages de plaintes les discords sont déjà plein de stratégie prête a être mise en place pour abusé et sur-abusé de cette nouvelle disposition

I thought I read that disguised donations were banned despite the new regulations, but maybe I'm wrong 😀

Multi-accounts, .... not multi-colours!

Alexandre67310: J’ai cru lire que les dons déguisés étaient interdits malgré la nouvelle réglementation peut être que je me trompe 😀

I'm not complaining.
I understand that this new rule is intended to encourage mutual aid.

Unagi: Moi je me plains pas.
Moi j'ai cru comprendre que cette nouvelle régle était dans le but de favoriser l'entraide

The problem is that when it's with a multi-account, it's self-help.
..... Ah well, apparently the admins have all the tools they need to detect them!

Alexandre67310: Est ce que c’est une entente en deux lettre mais qui ne contient pas Légion dans son nom ???

And to think that we were trying to ease this miserable atmosphere...but you're obviously on a loop.

We're going to pretend that this wasn't an attempt at veangence (what was it?) and that you would therefore have contacted the villainous perpetrators to seek an explanation before seeking sanctions with the admins.

In short, you've been beating around the bush for 10 days and 15 posts. Let's go and drop your bomb, shall we?
Given that things are slow on the admin side, it would be a good idea to get your barely concealed accusations out in the open...

Send your best friend if you're afraid of the consequences, as he's not risking anything by denouncing you, he's already talking to a multi of multi. Let him write us a nice, clear, concise piece of paper so the world understands who did what 😅

Watch out for the CSCs though

What's really extraordinary is to be giving lessons to everyone (even those who weren't asking for them), while at the same time being far from irreproachable.
Some set themselves up as paragons of virtue, but their own position is highly questionable.
And yet, everything's fine, move along, there's nothing to see.
And for the icing on the cake: those who dare to highlight these little 'optimisations' find themselves the target of reprisals.
Transparency is definitely a good thing. But only when it doesn't bother anyone.

Nitnelav: Ce qui est quand même extraordinaire, c’est de donner des leçons à tout le monde (même à ceux qui n’en demandaient pas), tout en étant loin d’être irréprochable.
Certains se posent en modèles de vertu, mais leur propre positionnement est très discutable.
Et pourtant, tout va bien, circulez, il n’y a rien à voir.
Et pour la cerise sur le gâteau : ceux qui osent mettre en lumière ces petites “optimisations” se retrouvent cible de représailles.
Décidément, la transparence, c’est bien. Mais seule...

But what exactly are you talking about?
It's so vague we don't understand! Can you be more specific?

Deck: Et dire qu'on voulait apaiser cette ambiance minable..mais visiblement vous êtes en boucle.

On va faire semblant que ce n'est pas une tentative de veangence( de quoi..?) et que par conséquent vous auriez contacté les vilains auteurs des faits pour chercher une explication avant de chercher les sanctions avec les admins.

Bref ça fait 10jours et 15posts que vous tournez autour du pot. Allons-y pour lâcher votre bombe non ?
Vu que côté admin ça patine, il faudrait exposer au grand jour vos ac...

I had nothing to do with it. I gave the modus operandi to the admins for lomax. Then some people went to see if others had exploited the flaw. For my part, I'm more interested in minimising the errors made on your side, so you'll have to read what I write. And I take responsibility for my own files. My record doesn't show any CPs apart from a lunar rant by a magpie, the only thing I'm criticising is having pressed an empty button. But the responsibility lies mainly with morten, with an aluscinating post to destroy all credibility of the admins and Aymeric, who does Aymeric's thing.
Optimised with short loans like you did for me is border, a slap on the wrist, a 10m fine and we move on.... There's been so much worse in the last two days in my opinion....

I love the white knights of morality who make transfers as soon as the rule comes into effect! :)
Love to mummy Demi! Then you'll be back for another lesson in morality! :)

Stop your parochial bickering and agree on things to make them happen between you.
The CP subject is not important for the game to survive, the free market will atomise it.
Agree on REASONABLY penalising those at fault and we'll move forward.

As someone who has a real knack for seeing the opportunities in every rule change, this one has no limits....
Focus on priorities

Magpie: Mais tu parles de quoi exactement ?
C'est vague on ne comprend pas ! Peux-tu préciser ?

Errors made by 3 or 4 CP players.

Instead of taking responsibility, you do what we did at the Fym back in the day.
Defending every player in the agreement tooth and nail.
It always ends badly. The players are responsible for their actions, not the cartel.

As head of the agreement, you have to be there to support the admins in their decisions and not put negative pressure on them by looking for mistakes elsewhere to defend your agreement.

Your attacks on Marcus seem to me to be completely unfounded, after all if a LR or another player has screwed up he should suffer the consequences.
In short, what you've been criticised for today is your positioning.

I'd like to add something that I think we should think about next time. If an agreement puts in place countermeasures to avoid sanctioning one of its players, it should become a collective sanction.
Voluntarily removing players from a federation to blacklist an agreement is part of this.

We can be good team-mates, we can support each other, but setting up a system to defend the possible misconduct of someone in a cartel should be outlawed as it leads to clubism.

decibel: des Erreurs commises par 3 ou 4 joueurs des CP.

Au lieu d'assumer les choses, tu fais comme nous avons fait chez les Fym à l'époque.
Défendre bec et ongles chaque joueur de l'entente.
Cela fini toujours mal. Les joueurs sont responsables de leurs actes et non l'entente.

En tant que chef d'entente tu dois être la pour accompagner les admins dans la décision et pas mettre une pression négative en allant chercher des erreurs ailleurs pour défendre ton entente.

Vos attaques sur marcus me se...

But at what time are we allowed to have "the errors" and the names of the CPs?
Your story is too easy, I'm opening 15 topics in 5 sections of the Vforum. I'm implying that a certain cartel is using loopholes en masse and I'm smearing the cartel.

Throw out your accusations once and for all, it takes a long time to give birth.

We would at least have received a PM from admin asking for an explanation, if not from you, but it's not your aim to understand, what you want is veangence at all costs. Always ridiculous.

Deck: Mais à quelle heure on a le droit d'avoir " les erreurs " et le nom des CP ?
C'est trop facile votre histoire, j'ouvre 15 sujets dans 5 sections du Vforum. Je sous entend qu'une certaine entente utilise des failles en masse et je sali l'entente.

Balancez vos accusations une bonne fois pour toute, il est long l'accouchement.

On aurait au moins reçu un MP d'admin pour demander une explication, à défaut d'avoir un MP de votre par, mais c'est pas votre but de comprendre, ce que vous voulez c...

Surely you can answer this question for yourself?
Have you used a short loan to have an event done on one of your players and thus accumulate events?
The question doesn't seem complicated, so let's see what the answer is.

Deck: Mais à quelle heure on a le droit d'avoir " les erreurs " et le nom des CP ?
C'est trop facile votre histoire, j'ouvre 15 sujets dans 5 sections du Vforum. Je sous entend qu'une certaine entente utilise des failles en masse et je sali l'entente.

Balancez vos accusations une bonne fois pour toute, il est long l'accouchement.

On aurait au moins reçu un MP d'admin pour demander une explication, à défaut d'avoir un MP de votre par, mais c'est pas votre but de comprendre, ce que vous voulez c...

Reminds me of a way ... 🤔🙄

Let's be clear.
I don't think anyone is fooled by this barely concealed crusade against CPs, following the situation you've been through with Jex. So let's be clear.
This has been going on for several months now. It started with Max's temporary ban for organising an IE on Day 1. From that moment on we knew that we wouldn't stand a chance and that one day the slightest fart would be punished.

After months of research, it seems that you've finally decided to launch yourself into something visible. And it doesn't stop. Even if you keep quiet so as not to fuel a sorry spectacle, it just keeps coming back. Even the embryo of a joint conversation has come to nothing, but the objective remains the priority...

In any case, it doesn't matter. The position will always be the same. If a CP commits an offence, and it's proven, it's very simple: he takes responsibility! If there's a defence to be made, we'll present it to support the member if he or she wishes, but if there isn't one, it's simple: he or she assumes responsibility! And if they're really cheating, we'll cooperate without any worries. That's always been the rule. Unlike others........
That said, for the moment, there are no offences. Just imagination, wishes, beliefs and hatred. So it's hard to go any further.
So when we know exactly what we're accused of (let's be honest, bugger all), maybe the members who might be targeted can start to defend themselves? Rather than casting aspersions, barely concealed, and without anyone being bothered.
So it'll be quite simple. We won't go so far as to make fools of ourselves as to support a member against all odds if they've obviously contravened. And we won't issue any press releases, etc., that would be pathetic.
These members will take responsibility if there's a problem. But right now, there's nothing, and no one has been contacted by an independent admin. So stop your provocations and innuendoes. Your repeated attempts have had their effect, so wait for the feedback and stop ruining the discussions.

Finally, as far as transfers are concerned, I'll say it again, all I did was apply the rules. The MDJ clearly explained that he wanted to strengthen mutual aid. Here's a case in point. I'm well off financially, and I'm passing the benefits on to my friends. And if that makes people angry, that's fine, it's just the rules. Even if I'd rather it had never come into force, it has. So we play with it, and that's the way it is, whether you like it or not.

Let's hear it...

I'll take all the blame, if you're able to tell me "Deck you're being targeted" and your elements 🙂

Deck: J'assumerai toute les accusations, si t'es capable de me dire : "Deck tu es visé " et tes éléments 🙂

It's not hard to set up, there's a loan history, a match history and an event history.

If the new rules are supposedly designed to attract new clubs (I'm talking about the real ones, not the multi-account ones) ..... If, once registered, this newcomer browses the forum for a while, I don't think he'll be back any time soon, except perhaps for a laugh.

decibel: Pas dur à établir, il y a un historique des prets, historique des matchs et un historique des événements.

Yes, great. You don't answer.
Since you've done the investigation, send in Inspector Derrick. Open the eyes of the Vfien people

decibel: des Erreurs commises par 3 ou 4 joueurs des CP.

Au lieu d'assumer les choses, tu fais comme nous avons fait chez les Fym à l'époque.
Défendre bec et ongles chaque joueur de l'entente.
Cela fini toujours mal. Les joueurs sont responsables de leurs actes et non l'entente.

En tant que chef d'entente tu dois être la pour accompagner les admins dans la décision et pas mettre une pression négative en allant chercher des erreurs ailleurs pour défendre ton entente.

Vos attaques sur marcus me se...

"I would add one thing that I think should be considered for the next time. If a cartel implements countermeasures to avoid sanctioning one of its players, this must become a collective sanction.
Voluntarily removing players from a federation to blacklist an agreement is part of this.

When did an agreement decide to implement a countermeasure to blacklist another agreement with the federations? Doesn't a coach have the right to select whoever he wants?

Exactly, no, a coach can't select whoever he wants. There are limits per club and per agreement.

myforsans: Justement non un sélectionneur ne peut pas tout à fait sélectionner qui il veut. Il y a des limites par clubs et par entente

That's not the point. He's talking about blacklisting an agreement... I can very well respect the number of 5 players per agreement and not take any players from an agreement. What's the problem with that?