In-Game Rule: Bid Rigging Is Not Allowed

Bottom line: Coordinating with other organizations to fix who wins a player transfer, fix bid prices, or otherwise manipulate an auction undermines fair play and is forbidden. Even if the game mechanically prevents direct collaboration between orgs, any attempt to simulate, disguise, or work around those protections is invalid and punishable.

What is prohibited (short list with examples)

Bid suppression (agreeing not to bid). Definition: One or more orgs agree in advance that they will not submit an offer so a designated org wins. In-game example: Org B agrees privately with Org A to stand down on Player X so Org A can acquire them for less.
Complementary, cover, or courtesy bidding. Definition: Submitting intentionally weak or inflated bids solely to create the illusion of competition. In-game example: Org C places a deliberately high offer for Player Y to make Org A’s lower offer appear competitive even though the outcome was prearranged.
Bid rotation. Definition: Orgs take turns winning auctions according to a prior schedule or understanding. In-game example: Two orgs agree that Org A will win Week 1 transfers, Org B will win Week 2, regardless of each org’s true intent or valuation.
Bid signaling. Definition: Using prearranged signals (message codes, tiny bid increments, timing of bids, public posts) to tell rivals who should stand down. In-game example: A team appends a fixed suffix to public chat messages to indicate it will not compete for a named player.
Market or roster allocation enforced through bidding. Definition: Dividing categories of players, regions, or types of transfers and enforcing that division through coordinated bidding. In-game example: Two orgs agree one will only bid on Region A players and the other only on Region B, then intentionally avoid each other’s auctions.
Kickbacks, side deals, or compensation to losing bidders. Definition: Paying or promising future benefits to losing bidders so they will lose now. In-game example: Org D “loses” a transfer and later receives guaranteed revenue sharing or exclusive content from the winner as compensation.
Sham bidders or controlled alternate accounts. Definition: Using fake or controlled accounts to submit phony competitive bids to mask the true arrangement. In-game example: Creating a front org or alt account to place an apparent rival bid that is actually controlled by the intended winner.
Exchange of nonpublic, bid-sensitive information. Definition: Sharing private budgets, maximum offers, valuation models, or instructions about who should bid or stand down. In-game example: Two teams privately exchange their internal offer ceilings before an auction and then decide who will bid below those ceilings.
Withdrawing or modifying live bids on instruction. Definition: Coordinated changes or withdrawals during a live auction to let a preselected org prevail. In-game example: A bidder retracts a live offer after receiving a private message from a rival telling them to do so.
Combination schemes. Definition: Any multi-facet scheme that mixes rotation, cover bids, kickbacks, signaling, or shams to share spoils. In-game example: Orgs rotate wins, use cover bids to hide the plan, and then exchange game items as payback.

Enforcement and penalties (in-game)

Enforcement is automatic where possible and supplemented by moderator review. Penalties may include one or more of the following, depending on severity and evidence:

Immediate invalidation of the implicated bid(s).
Reversal or rollback of the transfer and restoration of items/currency where possible.
Temporary suspension of bidding privileges for the offending org(s).
Fines in in-game currency that are removed from the offending org’s account.
Reputation hit or ranking penalties that affect matchmaking and visibility.
Permanent ban for repeat or egregious offenders.
Public listing of confirmed offenders in the game rules log.

Detection and prevention (how the system protects fair play)

The system analyzes bidding patterns for red flags: consistent cover bids, suspicious timing, repeating winner sequences, matching IP or device fingerprints across accounts, and linked alt accounts.
Automated heuristics flag likely collusion for moderator review.
Large or unusual side transfers, post-transfer deals, or patterns of reciprocal benefits are audited.
Players can report suspected collusion; reports trigger queued review with evidence collection.

Even though orgs cannot collaborate directly, attempts to create indirect coordination (signals, alt accounts, side payments via marketplace, external forums) are treated the same as direct collusion.

What to do if contacted to coordinate

Refuse to participate.
Document the contact by taking screenshots and saving chat logs.
Report the incident immediately through the in-game reporting tool.
Do not send private account credentials, alt accounts, or in-game items/currency to another org to influence an auction.

Allowed behavior (examples of safe activity)

Independently evaluating players and submitting bids based on your org’s own strategy and budget.
Publicly announcing interest in a player, as long as it does not include secret signals, side deals, or instructions to competitors.
Using any game-provided mechanisms for cooperative purchases that are explicitly permitted and implemented by developers as transparent, auditable features.
Forming public training academies or content partnerships where there is no exchange of bid-sensitive information or back-door compensation tied to auction outcomes.

Final note

This policy is designed to preserve fair competition and a healthy in-game economy.