A default that was nearly three months ago, correct decision? yeah i agree on terms with the bonus points but to change the default decisions to when they were not the problem.

the_diamond was offline almost all the time, did not message opponent and no sub was issued. Eagles even tried to sub but unforunatly it was invalid but they tried.

with 3 differant accounts
hmmmmm
i have no vested intrest in this at all

just fairness seb got enough stick off me,,, ive done what in the past been biased on the default panel i think not

now either put up or shut up on tht one


show me one default ive ever sat on tht ive commented on my own team simple none

where ive shown biased simple none

show me lol at you

Still sam wasted his time playing a match.

Jay they didn't even have the right people in the games so how could they be the right decisions lol come off it?!

Again 1 was a game played with an illegal sub that dextr it appears put through to teach mikee a lesson which can't be allowed to stand and the other was a default decided with the wrong people in it that it appears was solely based on the sub issue that had no bearing on the game getting played....your player wasn't on for the whole fortnight in the_diamond game so that is why fighting eagles should be rewarded with the win in that one.

Edited at 10:47 Fri 03/02/12 (GMT)

You mean the_diamond mate .

He was online most of the time, his opponent had spent more days offline than he did, and to my knowledge the_diamond also sent a message to his opponent. They could not catch each other online.

Like i say though this default was three months ago, the decision was made and i totally agree with the taking away of the completion bonus as i have said on here and to Sarah + many others. I just don't see how you can bring new evidence into a default that was not submitted as evidence in the first place.

3 months ago it was fixture set 3

and it wouldnt matter when it is,, it was wrong end of

on top of tht it was only looked at because of a default bonus given wrongly any way

so what does it matter

was the default right or wrong

was the default bonus given yes so its wrong

a new panel doing there job right and ppl condem it behave

applause to them ,,,, the original default was biased and wrong

this has righted a wrong so whats the problem

the_diamond had been on like i just said. New evidence should not even be considered, there is a deadline on it for a reason.

I have messaged Sarah about it like i said anyway as i am a little confused as to why it has been changed now, i will talk to her about it and take the final decision on the chin, it does not really harm Pythons, we are in good position still and now after lots of hard work i think i have finally got a very reliable team that can get the next set played with no defaults.

Biased from who Craig?

My main point is new evidence that was used, when it should not be.

I don't care about the bonus i actually agreed with Sarah when she mentioned it to me a few days ago, and i have said about three times here about it.

Excuse me Lee it was put through no questions asked it should stand. If there was a problem with any it should have been addressed..It wasn't so why 3 months down the line do this..totally wrong.

I asked when i made my original post of the defaults decision, that if anyone had any queries to offline message me, and i would explain the default.

The basic facts are :

1) The fixture was queried - as league runner it was my responsibility to investigate this

2) My findings were -
2 games in the fixture were invalid
A bonus had been given when both teams were at fault for the default

The fairest way to resolve these issues was to reopen the default, which both captains involved agreed with, before i did this.
Independent default staff were used, so there would be no biasm.

The decision has been made and is final, so please now move on

Any other questions please offline message me

Sarah
League Runner

Im going to put this here to safe time, no offence Sarah.

Yes i agreed to it, but i was agreeing for the completion bonux to be looked at, that was all.

New evidence has been used to get to this now final decision, which i think is wrong and is why i am questioning it. Clans involved both had there chance to send in information on the default and the deadline passed, which means no new evidence should be used.

Would like to say again though that during the time of this default i was no way included in it, i never have and never will post on a default that concerns my team, even though if the other team deserved the score i would give them it.

Im not wanting or looking for an argument i just want to no why new evidence is being used to decide a default from months ago when the deadline was passed, that is the rule that it can not be used.

You weren't a reliable team then jay, you had just taken over and the_diamond wasn't active in that set.



That was late in the fixture on your own thread with underdogs also asking for a sub as the_diamond had been off 6 days.

Is another one saying the opponent hadn't received a reply to messages but it was looked into and a fair result given.

The problem has been nobody took a blind bit off notice (ah it's only fbl) but when the points got close and was looking scary they jumped. Total Hypocrite's.

Yeah Lee mate im not going to deny that he had been offline for a bit but he then became active not long before the deadline, by which point Eagle player had not been on for days either, i asked for a sub to get the game played he refused and then the invalid sub came, both players were offline around the same amount of time in total.

Give me strength

Right forget it i have made more enemy's today.

He quoted it from Python thread, it was a mistake made by Mike that ages ago.

Which is why he got 3-1 jay, not 5-1. It wasn't your fault as you were taking on somebody else's mess at the time but the scores are fair defaults.

Im confused.... are you saying instead of the_diamond getting th e 5 - 1 he got the 3 - 1?