In response to your first quote, yes you could be right about a blessing, have spoken to them and hotdave is appointed the captain, i have known him a while and he is reliable and i think he will do a grand job.

As for the other quote, i told everyone in the league about the wait it would be as you know, it was mainly down to them all wanting the FCL and FBL to run near enough along side each other.

Shouldn't let cree take back over mafia in my opinion, will just make for an unstable clan that will have to put up with him folding it or deactivating every five minutes and just cause loads of defaults.

Just a quick in about people starting Games and not finishing them, could we not adopt the same rules snooker hve in this scenario, where he game gets replayed if its a close game and "if the player in question remains inactive" or if the opposing team don't want to give up a big lead another player subs in to finish It off.

Just in case there's interest, the rule sounds like this:



So the player must be removed from the clan for this to be allowed and both sides have to agree (so that it can't be abused).

Thanks seb, I still think its a great idea :-)

Clans are either a team competition or theyre not. If a clan picks a player to play that cannot play by the rules for any reason at all then the clan should be punished as a whole to some extent - not only in the interests of their immediate opponents but also for every other team in the division. Why not make clans be a bit more responsible and selective regarding who they sign/select?

Separate point for discussion, which was also raised in the last close season...

Within the last period of a fixture (one day, two days or whatever) the restriction on who can make subs should be completely removed. If any clan still wishes to ensure that only the Captain or Vice makes the sub then thats up to them and, accordingly, is 100% their risk if the game goes to default.

The restriction is removed IF the clan captain posts to allow their players to sub in for that fixture towards the end of the deadline.

We had the same discussion about that snooker rule last season or the one before that and most where against it, i am not a fan of it myself in all honesty but it works for snooker none the less.

probably because its a snooker rule

but joking aside i think its a good rule and it works, remember the rule is only in effect if the person is banned or removed from the clan by the captain and both captains must agree either from current score or 0-0 so if one doesn't agree it goes to default as normal, win win.

i would say give it a trial through pre seasons if you like, if it works consider implementing it, if not then you have the bragging rights

I am not looking for bragging rights on the matter, i will how ever implement this rule as a trial in the pre season to see how it goes. The main issue all leagues have is defaults and this is another way of trying to lower those defaults.

I do not agree on the if a captain removes a player in that game though if it is partially played - That would be the captains fault and he/she could remove them are they are losing badly and yet to finish the game only to sub in a better player to finish it off or win from a restart.

both captains must agree for the sub to take place, if the other captain feels they are abusing the feature they can say no to the sub and then the person involved must play it or go to default so if both captains agree then they mutually 100% agree with the choice made

Point im making is that the captain that has removed a player from a partially played game should not even get the choice to sub in someone else to play the rest of the game or even restart the game as it was their choice to remove the player.

How can it work successfully? If I am Captain what incentive do I have to agreeing to a restart when I can take all of the rest of the frames on the default?

There has to be some form of punishment to a team that causes such an issue to occur. Absolving clans of responsibility for this happening is not the way to go.

Regarding the making of subs...

In three games last season we (The Underdogs) went into the last day of a fixture in the position of being unable to get games played because there was no opposition captain online and there had been no general permissions posted for the making of subs/swaps. This is an online game where anybody (including Captains and Vices) can disappear offline at any time and in unforeseen circumstances.

To actively pursue a rule where if that happens you risk causing the dreaded defaults, as opposed to doing everything possible to avoid them, is frankly ridiculous.

Correct. The incentive on snooker is the completion bonus which doesn't exist here anymore.
So there is no incentive- it just helps get games played.

A captain can always say no if thats case or keep the lead you have and sub in a player to finish remaining frames, if still no then normal rules apply.

so basically if your captain chooses to restart or carryon from current score then its not the runners problem.



On Snooker it helps prevent defaults, in our league any player of your team can sub but generally we only want captains or vices doing subs.

im all for reducing defaults (check my FBL ideas and you will see).

Have to say that the Super League rule of dealing with partially played games (used successfully twice to date) is the best so far employed.

It strikes the balance between punishing the clan causing the problem and not awarding 'free' points to the opposition. It also takes away any grey areas regarding Captains mutually agreeing to something.

Thats not to say that somebody cant come up with a better way though!!

I agree that the snooker way of dealing with partially played games will work less effectively here because there is no completion bonus.

But where is the grey area when both captains have to agree? If they agree- done. If they don't- not done.

Say a player leaves a game and the clan that stands to gain all the remaining points says no to finishing with subs will it go against them in a default ?, if so its unfair as they really dont have much choice but to let the opponents use a sub.

I say we need to stop looking at how to finish the games and concentrate on how to stop players leaving games, put some sort of punishment in place for players that leave then dont finish, could be a fixture ban or banned from leagues all together, at the end of the day do we want players that do this in the leagues.
If you can't finish in one sitting don't start the fixture.

Obviously the reasons for leaving and not getting it finished would have to be taken into consideration before dishing out any punishment.

Edited at 18:43 Thu 13/09/12 (BST)

shouldn't do no as its just a normal default, in the case on snooker (normally) is if for example someone refuses to play and that game was only one what went to default then the completion bonus maybe awarded but of course that doesn't apply for FCL.

shouldn't let negative thoughts go through your mind when making your choice

Because its a no-brainer. There is nothing at all to be gained by agreeing to it. Therefore it is pointless.

The grey area is potentially because it is not something that can be applied across the board as a level playing field for all. For example my team played dgen's team and he didnt agree to the subbing in for a partially played game we had. The next fixture your team is playing dgen's and the same situation occurs but this time he does agree to it. This is now the last fixture of the season and you are able to overtake me with the points earned from this game. Fair?

Edited