I just treated it as a friendly in a sense as the clan wins

Bump

Ours got played just the wrong match format - welcome to take that result as a 2-0 to tinie_v17 still doesn't affect the overall score. Had we been aware the match vs our two players wouldn't be completed me and friendyboy could have subbed in and played vs each other. Unfortunately by this time friendyboy had opted to sub in another match vs _fresh_ to save another potential default.

I couldn't get anyone else online and me vs rewill would be void as both on the same side.

Just a question ...please don't bite my head off BUT: Could subs not be interchangeable say only on deadline day? That I'm sure would have assisted EVERY side to complete their fixtures.

Just a thought.

FBL Season 15 - Set 1

Default scores for set 1 are as follows:-

Dragon Flame Eminence A v Funky Pool Devils C

northman (0) v (0) blackcabman7


Pocket Dynamos A v Pocket Dynamos B

davyb0207 (0) v (0) walktall


Phoenix Revenge A v Phoenix Revenge B

rewill (1) v (0) tinie_v17


Funky Pool Devils B v Funky Pool Devils C

_fr34k_p0t_ (0) v (0) ric_flair


Dragon Flame Eminence A v Dragon Flame Eminence B

northman (0) v (2) dvz


If the default information provided or lack of it is anything to go by it is no surprise that these games went to default. I only received messages from one player for all the games, thus why the majority are 0-0. The only other one that got a point was due to game starting and player leaving.

If captains are not aware that no messages are being sent and players are not making the effort to play there is no point in the leagues being here.

I'm not making light of the fact that there were defaults. Nearly all from interclan games. I for one made the mistake of becoming complacent believing the games would get done. They didn't and we suffered 3 defaults. Maybe a tad over the top to say there is no point in a league with 5 or 6 defaults. Doesn't look like it will happen in the SL as the captains concerned had there medicine and will not be naughty again. Promise!

Yeah i agree but i can't force feed or babysit though pal, i'm already at step 2 and i'm not a Captain by asking them to message early when i update the fixtures. Can guarantee the clan won't like step 3 which is message clan everyday or every few days if they have sent a message, this then sends out a signal that i don't trust them which may prompt them to leave the clan. I'd rather take a hit and lose at default than lose several players but its just one player we're having issues with.

Problem is also most of our active is in B Team so A Team always struggles but we signed allypunk to combat that problem hopefully. I also contact people on Facebook if i have them to ask to sub in, times etc. Take this set, Skid and Greg spoke once before game and i asked both when they was free and got them to agree to a time (and Greg was only free last night so made a special effort) and last Sunday three clans helped prevent two defaults which took a strain on me and resigned to fact that i would have to do it every Sunday but feel i don't get much recognition for those.

As said though if i wrap them up, force feed them then more chance of leaving, leaving leads to struggle, struggle leads to possible fold which wouldn't help anyone.

Regarding the league i disagree as its the interest what keeps the league going, not defaults

Not having ago mate, just my discussion on the above

I think messaging our own players weekly is sufficient enough to check the progress with remaining fixtures. Obviously it's very easy to neglect the matches vs our own sides as we don't want to seem too overpowering or mollycoddle them.

There does appear to be a trend appearing with matches being unplayed by the same folk. That's not me singling them out but the defaults speak volumes themselves.

I also disagree with saying there is no point in there being a League, due to the players who do try and apply as much effort as they can to keep it alive. I do also see the reason for such a remark, with results and fixtures being unplayed it unfortunately does amplify the lack of effort made by some and the lack of action taken by some Captains too.

I will also add that the lack of action taken by some Captains is due to the consequence from cramming all fixtures and only permitted action in to 7 days of a 21 day fixture. Plus the rules encourage the lack of effort required in week 3 from Captains and players alike.

It shouldn't be like that, the permitted days of action should balance with the none permitted ones otherwise it's unfair and unjust to even be able to base any default scores upon them. They are IMO two separate entities and are unbalanced therefore incomparable.

a) possible solution there about effort, and trust goes up a bit but goes down from 100% trust.

b) yes i noticed, one in our own clan even

c) agree, lack of effort from captains maybe but i know how much captains try and get their players online. lack i agree but i blame the player more than the captain but they're responsible too.

rule is there to stop captains to put in inactive or players who make little effort but the rule isn't working as i still see it but it is a guideline for a default (can't predict unless you seen info from all players), still agree the rule is needed.

d) not really each clan knew the risk, problem for us is the player keeps being picked for fixtures then clans are forced to wait until week 3, captains fault rather than the rules.

"Plus the rules encourage the lack of effort required in week 3 from Captains and players alike."

disagree, only Scorpions has used the loophole, if you knew effort some clans go to then may change your mind, i still blame the captain for adding him BUT if the player is active and not make effort then it is the players fault more than captains.

e) its better than demanding for subs though and expect clans to give you a sub even if the player is active quite a bit in the set. i point to d) here.

The permitted days of action has to favour the original players otherwise inactive players will constantly be put in fixtures from the start again. If clans aren't going to learn from mistakes then it is their own problem and not up to the league runner to change the rules for them when the majority of the time the rule does what it is meant to. For the unforseeable inactivity there is an option to get around the 2 week rule since the original player can't play, which is the removal (temporary or permanent) to allow an active player in.

You cannot say that teams don't have the option to do anything until the third week because they do. It's just that option is a voice that clans really need to think about so that there isn't the subs early on for no reason like before the rule.

They are not two separate entities because there isn't a single day of the fixture where a clan cannot make a sub. It would make no sense to even compare days of action to days of non-action, you compare clans not the days because whether or not a clan could take action is an invalid variable to defaults because there is always something a clan could've done.

Default is based on effort, subbing is just a single aspect. Messaging, activity, other communications and arranging. There's multiple factors.

Lack of action comes from giving their own players too much lenience at the expense of the opposition and should be (and does get) punished. Fixtures aren't crammed, there is one week of subs for each set. Any issues in a match should've arisen by the two weeks with effective communication, and then subs can be made. Where captains "give time" to give their player a chance is taking time from the fixture so rightly punished.

There is a unique issue with games vs own clans because they are less urgent to play because they're seen as easier. Realistically, clans should be able to "fix" a fixture before it's even released, if the two lists are drawn up then shared so games can be swapped so that players are matched up against players they are likely to catch. If that happened then it's likely you wouldn't even have games in the third week.

If a rule doesn't do what it is meant to, it is broken.
If a rule does what it is meant to but a clan chooses not do what the rule allows, the rule is fine.

The current rules only give the option for a clan to be lazy in the third week, when the opposition have been lazy for the first two. Otherwise the clan has to try for the full three weeks. What you want is for clans to only try in the third week with the rule change you propose. That will just increase defaults.

Clans currently only take action when it is needed, you want clans to be able to take action when they don't need to. This will just hinder games with too many swaps and subs changing the matches.

agreed 100% and never thought of it like that for Clan vs Clan but i don't do lists or player removals, i just update fixtures and do subs after two weeks (beforehand and i tend to talk with my captain normally) but what i generally do is offer advice and up to the person if they want to take that advice

It's not something you usually would think of, but there's no reason you shouldn't because you can make swaps after anyway. But when incompatible players are just bunged in and left while the other games are sorted then you get issues.

Ideally it would be easy to just remove a player temporarily or permanently but that still doesn't prohibit any adverse affect on other fixtures.

Whereas I can see your logic with comparing the being lazy for one week compared to two as it doesn't add up. My point is IF the only option is to remove a player, bodge up other fixtures as a consequence then that's not really a logical only method to act.

Actions are carried out to encourage fixtures and teams respectively to complete and fulfil ALL their fixtures by the set Deadlines. Screwing up, hampering, forcing unnecessary change when "there's always another fixture released the following week whilst active ones are still expected to be played" is not in my opinion anyway helpful in the slightest.

Agreed the no subs rule was implemented to deter (hopefully) teams to not include inactive ones but we will always face that risk and possibility especially with the first fixtures of any season. There's nothing to base an opinion/decision upon and players can and are perfectly entitled to go inactive at any time.

I think the 2 week rule is unnecessary IF Captains are insistent on selecting the same crop of inactive player (s) then that's where the League Runner should act as one and enforce his rules or opinions. Instead the 2 week rule restricts Captains from carrying out their main responsibility and that's to do all within their capabilities to complete fixtures as efficiently as possible without restrictions.

to Zante

yeah problem i had was i assumed player B made effort throughout but didn't judging by posts, player A was a worrying player but had the opportunity to play, unfortunately player A sub didn't show deadline evening so it went to default as i could have subbed in. we was too lenient (as we are now) and only act if we notice inactive players or clans post problems.

we should have subbed at start of week 3 but too lenient as said so we waited until we had no alternative. alternate could have removed Player A from team but i didn't think of it and that isn't my forte to remove players or make decisions about the matches, i do what i can in week 3 to prevent a default but the previous two weeks are out of my hands.

by tone of my post i should (and will) take responsibility for the default and any consequences that came with the scores that Keith came up with.

You are saying that removing an inactive player causes issues for other fixtures, when in fact it is the player being inactive that is the problem. You want to be able to pick an inactive player, so the blocking of that if you have removed prevents inactive players being in the fixture.

Removing them doesn't affect future fixtures, because you can put them back in before the fixtures. The only fixture it would mess up is the league that is also under the 2 weeks rule (because you can simply sub them out of the league match not under the 2 weeks), but since they are inactive they would need to be taken out of that game as well. The only possible negative of removing them is if you wanted to put them back in the same fixture that they have proven unreliable, and the only way that would hinder a side is if they were desperate for subs which hasn't been the case yet. Otherwise why would you remove a player that is your best chance of playing the game.

There is no screwing up or hampering other fixtures because of the rule, only because of the player. No one else has an issue and most seem to agree with the current rules.

There is always the possibility, which is why we have the removal rule for when it is needed. It being the first fixture of the season makes it the easiest time to make a decision because removal in the first week means zero knock on effect with other fixtures so it should be a simple case of removing a player the adding them again straight away.

But players are largely active, the rule ensures that the clan with the inactive has to make up the ground and they are encouraged to act sooner. There has been no issues whatsoever when a clan has correctly removed a player. There has only been one issue (twice I think) where a clan hasn't removed a player that should've been removed and waited the two weeks. You can't blame the rules for being restrictive when they did not prevent that clan acting. Captains try to play their best instead of active players and it goes against them. That must be punished and it rightly has. To alter the rules would be saying that clans are right to keep inactives in.

The two week rules doesn't hinder captains, it encourages they to do their job right. If a captain carries on doing wrong, selecting inactives, keeping them in then a relaxation on the rules would only make things worse. Inactives would be in longer, since there is less punishment for not removing them.

It just doesn't make sense to amend the rules, any more leniency would increase the things the rules attempt to prevent. The rules have improved the leagues greatly.

If a player is inactive in an FCL fixture & they have existing FBL or SL ones surely removing the player from the team will not only affect the FCL but others also...would it not?

Captains jump on the fact a player is removed therefore seek a replacement player straight away. How is that assisting and helping anyone? The inactive player constantly selected that's an issue for the League Runner to take up with their Captain and deal with them privately and directly.

Still stand by the whole two week ruling being more a hindrance than assistance. Paint pretty pictures with all examples the fact is it helps no one and tars every team even those who don't select inactive players with the same brush.

We don't need rules to ensure we do things right. Making mistakes is what helps us learn from them. Rules are meant to be guidelines not stringent restrictions prohibiting Captains from carry out along with their players their main roles and that's to complete fixtures in an enjoyable manner.

Two weeks no subs stops fixtures being completed within those two weeks IMO. One week subs only forcing unnecessary pressure on the players but Captains to hope their opponents hierarchy cooperate within week three.

Aim is to get all fixtures played appropriately and with much enjoyment.

* Removing a player is not really an option IMO it's a last resort I think that's where we differ. You like to think it's to assist and encourage fixtures I see it as the opposite.

Edited at 14:33 Fri 12/02/16 (GMT)

Yes they would have games in the other leagues, but they would need subbing out of those anyway if you're at the point of removing the player. You can't be inactive in one league and active for another, if you need to remove a player then they shouldn't be in any game because they are holding up a match.

If a player is removed it has always been the case that a sub is made straight away. Having no player in a fixture is just about the worst thing a captain can do, the only way an opponent can prove activity is to ask for a sub. If a player isn't willing to get a sub when he had no opponent, then he isn't trying to play a game at all. If you are at the point of removing a player then you should've already thought about a sub, if not there's no harm in just putting an active player in. I don't see how you would want to punish the clan trying to get the game played.

It quite simply is not a fact that it is a hindrance. It only hinders those who themselves are a hindrance on games being played. To everyone else, it means active players early in the fixture, so fewer subs are needed and only necessary. You can't just base this on your own opinion. Since the rule has come in there have been: fewer inactives in fixtures, fewer subs (now it's only when necessary), fewer games going to the deadline weekend, and more clearcut defaults. All of which makes the leagues easier to run, and more enjoyable to play in. There is no enjoyment in having an inactive opponent, no opponent, unnecessary changes of opponents, people trying to get subs on deadline weekend after making minimal effort over the 3 weeks and then blaming you for a default.

You do when a captain doesn't think he's done wrong, you need them as guidelines and to reduce defaults and also reduce unnecessary subbing. If a captain is going to repeat the mistakes then he is not learning.

You can say 2 weeks no subs stops fixtures being played, but that is only when inactive players are involved. The rule has actually increased games played early because there's more active players. It used to be you'd end up with many games to play in the last week and the last weekend, now there is less.

The rule puts less pressure on those who actually try. Of course if you don't bother for 2 weeks then the pressure will be increased but that doesn't change if you remove the rule.

That's my point, all that unnecessary crap with removing a player who goes inactive due to no fault of their own, is it really worth it? Especially when there's always another fixture due for its release the following week. IF ALL fixtures were released at the same time then things might be a little different. (FCL, FBL AND SL same Deadlines)

It might help the fixture with the earliest Deadline but conflict the others. I don't see how removing a player helps in the slightest.

I won't be removing players just to accommodate fixtures, I'll accommodate my players and appreciate their efforts and know if they could have played then they would have done.

** The third week is the teams opportunity to act as one whether that mean players offering to sub in or support one another and blitz our remaining fixtures as quickly and efficiently as possible. **

Removal is not an option unless it's absolutely necessary. Like take andyw1 he's back now but we acted, same with shadows back soon. jamesmcgarry might have to be released but until an adequate replacement or I've heard from him then he's still very much welcome and part of the team.

What's all the whingeing about? None of the half competent captains have let 2 of their own players default against each other yet! Mountain out of a molehill!