My point is: You're so quick to blame me and expect me to make a decision - why not end your so called 'misery' and make a decision for yourself, if i'm soooo bad.

I've admitted made a few too many subs, admitted they need to be reduced, admitted I can see the error of my ways, signalled intent to try and address the issues.

Yet you still want blood... you know what you got no chance me quitting a league which i enjoy and on the whole as the statistics prove manage to get my team through fixtures without hardly any problems. The problem is the influence my subs have made to an overall result, is that tactical - yes it can be seen that way, does that mean ALL my subs are tactical 'no chance'.

I murdered five people, I've said I'll stop but you still want me to go to jail......

I'm quick to blame you as its universally apparent, YOU'RE TO BLAME!!!

If Chris goes down the road of taking your word for it that's his perogative but I know in my mind it will happen again.

I'd rather we changed the rules so you can't manipulate anything as your not willing to back up your word with anything of substance.

So making some substitutions and swaps on an online game is comparable to taking an innocent persons life - wow - you really do need psychiatry.

I don't think I'm too blame - I think I'm for a few things but not entirely. I think people's attitudes, reactions, egos, statuses, relationships are equally to blame.

The fact i stand up for myself and try to represent my team as best i possibly can and how dare I question a longer member over anything has a lot to do with it. I don't roll over and become a doormat, i stand up for myself. People don't like that and they go on the attack using subs/swaps as an excuse, next will be the way i write my fixtures, or member tagging. (sort of already been there). My attitude is wrong and i do bite quite a lot, which i know I shouldn't - will try and bite my tongue a lot more too.

It's a personal issue, nothing more nothing less. Hopefully we can just get on with our own teams and continue to get matches played as argument free as possible and with not many problems ruining them.

Is that wrong? Although its hopefully a friendly League and there's no prizes at stake, I would still like to think its competitive in a good way.

I would certainly make a sub in that scenario if the outcome mattered in some way. I am pretty sure so would anyone else if they truly believed they had a 'better' player available.

This is where there is a major difference between clans and is something that has to be accepted and understood. In some clans every player is of a reasonably comparable standard so it doesn't matter who plays, but for others there can be a big difference in abilities and so using your best players to their best advantage makes absolute sense IF you want to do the best you can.

In both of our preferred proposals posted though, we are giving the original players the chance unhindered to complete their match against their original opponent. If that isn't taken through choice, lack of own effort or circumstances outside their control then it moves onto the secondary option of unilateral subbing and/or defaults.

Yet the whole league suffers and are happy to attribute it to you?

The fact you think I'm comparing murder to subs and swaps shows the intellect we are dealing with. It's the ideology that 'I've said I'll not do it again so why on earth would you not believe me or punish me' that I'm showing. Something obviously well above your head.

I understand what your saying but murder is different to subs, i know your thinking, If you commit a crime, you have to do the time which is true but when you commit a crime you break the law (rules), In subs case it is within the law (rules) of the Clan League so Ash shouldn't be punished for it by being exiled from the league.

Everyone deserves a second chance and if it continues to that extent then fair enough, report him to runners and try and exile him from Captaincy but until then everyone needs to take a chill pill and back off

FCL - 1 match - 8/16 Players selected

Ideas to score as many points as possible - 6/8 have been completed, leaving just 2.

For example: _aquarius12_ vs beenjammin & friendyboy vs dvz

The scores are very close after the 6 have played - just become available are 2 players who had they been able to be selected from the start of the actual fixtures would have been they are: reminiscent & crazykid.

Knowing we aren't breaking the rules and have a chance to record a very unexpected overall win vs PROS we sub the 2 players in.

That's not illegal, it's giving the 6 who have played the extra belief we are trying to make their efforts and contribution mean something and try and get the TEAM as high up the table as possible.

ANY TEAM who have that opportunity surely would seize the moment? That's all we are doing. As chris has said some teams like Pros and Uprising have their WHOLE team to call upon, I'm not the best and if can get more points then i'll happily do it. Plus it's much easier to sub myself OUT than ask or do it to any other player. Called being a TEAM PLAYER.

Thats why we want to change the rules. in this example you wont play your match till you see how the fixture is going. Then u sub yourself out as it doesnt matter to you, but thats what removes the fun from the leagues tbh. If u want to put your best team vs Pros then do it when teams are requested

They are still representatives for the TEAM - in my example they have become available - why shouldn't we be able to play them? For the sake of the opponent crying 'tactics'?

Every sub whether you agree or not has an element of tactic behind it - whether it be to accommodate the oppositions player, Captain or simply to fulfil a fixture. Tactic is used to advance/progress/move forward - accomplish/achieve/fulfil.

The fun factor - jeez if someone subbing in an available player is 'killing the fun factor' then jeez some need take their own advice and 'get a life'.

Also - You change the rules to LIMITED and when that limited number is reached then you're stuck - you'll have to endure the possibility the match will go to default through no fault of 1 sides players regardless if they're active or online.

Edited at 16:18 Fri 30/01/15 (GMT)

Are you more or less likely to make a tactical sub if you only have two subs?

the problems occur ash beacuse the sucess and longetivity of the league has been based on players arranging with each other, then if not possibke subs swaps being made, you admit that u manipulate the rules, but iof every team did it then the league woukd suffer..

One of the problems is you pick players such as yourself who u have no intention of playing

If u see someone online and you have a better player than the said one in a fixture, you sub them in then girate them if the opponent says they dont have time to play at a paticular time

sometimes you swap and sub about too much, like 1 player having 3 opponents within a day

The easisest wat for things to wok is through arranging a mutual time where players know they have time to play without interruption, but sometimes u dont lert thet happen, but on other hand refuse it to happen to ur team, just pick the team u want to play, let ythem play and if any probs consult the other captain and then theres no probs

Depends on the match/opposition/amount of crap i get/ attitudes/ co-operation - weather/health.

Difficult to answer - Unlimited is better as I don't personally think I've exploited it as drastically as others like to assume.

There's ABSOLUTELY Nothing stopping me from changing the whole line ups NOW if i wanted and that's Unlimited - Do i do that NOPE. Why?

Because I dont want to manipulate EVERY match - we fall short, we fall short. IF the TEAM has an opportunity to record something special like a win over Pros and Uprising then We discuss possibilities - BUT that's not till every person selected is given their opportunity.

I could have manipulated the SL match versus Uprising when it went down too the final fixture: i subbed in jittzduay a few days before and their player were erigert. Some said sub out jittzdulay and i DIDN'T out of respect to jittzdulay for logging on when he said he would and okay he lost 6-0 we lost overall. I had the chance to manipulate that match - but didn't

I'm not Manipulating ANYTHING.

No, it's not wrong, that's my point.

That's why I'm saying find out whether people want those tactical subs first or not...

^^^^ IF it's not WRONG then WHY am I being BLAMED for 'Being in the Wrong?'

I've seen the 'what teams have subbed' lists and read most of the same crap I've seen before.......and am bored.

I'm not sure about this whole argument any more after seeing the lists.
As I'd said before the more successful and active teams have less subs, tho I didn't think there was a major difference between quite a few teams. Unbeatables are showing everyone how to do it tbh.

My thinking on the subs issue is now leaning towards either none, or some sort of restriction.
I've come to this conclusion on the reasoning that It is the Captain who picks the Team.....therefore when sending team lists in, the problem of games not getting played is down to who has been picked.

Obvious point you might say, but you build a team of players who you think you can rely on. Granted Real Life problems do arise, but these can be dealt with thro common sense.
Hence I left ub's coz I knew I wasn't gonna be on as much, and as the team was progressing well, I thought having a more regular replacement would prove more successful to the Team.

Again, the less successful teams would suffer, which is why my thinking also leads to a 6 team 1st Div with the usual suspects.
And blah, blah, blah Hippes is off again lol.

As for Ash, I think a lot of people need to change the record, chill out some, and see how the season finishes.
Would be a lot more enjoyable without any more crap about subs, especially if Ash is given a break ,

.........as he has said it will stop

The key point being overlooked is that the opponent has the opportunity to tie him down to play the game before any other games are played, let alone six, if that is what they want to do. If there is clear evidence of obstructing/avoiding the fixture then let it be punished through the default, or through an agreed substituted opponent.

And the bit in bold is also a key point. Put your best team out when you need to and rotate when you think you can. But having rotated, there is no reason why you dont tactically put someone in if needs be.

Edited at 16:55 Fri 30/01/15 (GMT)

That would still cause arguments... Thats what we are trying to resolve i guess

Now I accept that you shouldnt do it the other way round - ie put your weakest team out against the best opponents and then sub in your strongest players once the games come out and you see where the opponents are.

But I dont see anyone generally doing that anyway.

If they did then the only option would be to restrict subs, as eri wants, to say two or three, but of course the downside is that any clan that unfortunately finds itself with a number of unexpectedly inactive players is stuffed and also it leaves their opponents frustrated with no opponents to play.

There cant be any exception rules - ie subs allowed for certain clans, in certain fixtures, under certain circumstances - must be equality for all.

Totally Agree