defaults are based on effort to play the games and after storming off, not responding to personal messages or posts on the clans forum and logging out when I logged in no question would have been 14-1 default.
You're just coming up with ridiculous scenarios and as I said earlier why do we have to cover the 1/10 event instead of the 9/10 reason.
If you know there is a 1% you might have your dinner within 2 hours then don't agree to play....what is the big deal with dinner?!

but isn't it covered by the players avoiding opponents and not replying to messages will be harshly punished section?

not a stupid idea at all it would make team pick and think about making sure team reliable and lee who u to say it stupid i think it would work better than what we got now plus save arguments. of 14-1 defaults

Then the default would have been given 14-1-I'm glad we are agreed there. To have it automatically go to 14-1 for logging off would be unfair, the player may have chased you and you avoided him, where the default would try to give the right result, but if it was pre-decided, it would necessarily not give a fair representation of the effort of the two parties.

As I just said, dinner is the most common example, so it is the one I am using. It could be any non-emergency reason...read what I put, rather than turning on the offensive over my examples.

24 hours in a day, dinner takes about 40 minutes to eat, you're going to eat it sometime in the evening, I may be crap at maths, but I know that it's more than 1%...

Your stats are totally made up too, you have no grounding on which you are using 1/10 and 9/10.

Using defaults based on effort to decide the result is the fairest way to deal with it.

to keep you alive?

what if parents go out, you start playing then they bring in a takeaway and then force you to eat at table?

more like likely the player who did that will lose by maximum points anyway.

My post says if you know there is a 1% chance that you might have dinner coming up then don't start your game, nothing to do with how long dinner takes maybe you should read posts properly

You again totally avoid the point if he had have come back and come up with some ridiculous excuse...(probably a power cut or relative falling down the stairs ) then it's a totally different game and he's got a very good chance of going on and winning it.

You can't do that in any sport once you start a game it's down to who plays the best on the day.

A more experienced player that used to play for us did it and I can see why now because when you do have a nightmare and stick with it you get thumped but when it's you who is playing great your opponent just logs out and comes back when they are playing better.

Might as well just log out when everythings going wrong

Yeah, well...shuddup! I'll concede I got lost in your numbers and skimmed over that part maybe a little...But what if you can only get on between 6-9, which is prime dinner-eating times (for me anyway)?

You're talking about fairness, how can you penalise someone if something serious has actually happened, that is hardly fair.

A football game, called off at half-time because the pitch is waterlogged, it will get played again a different time, form will change. Snooker-matches are in sessions and form swings in them, it is similar to this, where the games can be completed in sessions. Tennis, a game may run over in time and have to continue the next day due to light issues or rain or just due to the time...there are occasions in sport where it happens due to time. It just so happens that with pool, other circumstances can come into play, not just time.

Maybe, if a player has a history of doing it, the league runners/clan captains should have a look at it, but you cannot fairly penalise every log out.

Edited at 17:33 Sat 09/07/11 (BST)

In none of those examples the decision is made by one of the players and with snooker the agreed upon games have been played in a session, no team can just up and leave a game and leave the other team waiting around till they decide they fancy finishing it.

Okay, a Test match in Cricket, the batting captain could appeal to come off due to light in order to disrupt the flow of the bowlers, or the fielding captain for the batsmen. And tennis, a player will appeal to the umpire over rain/light-yes the final decision rests with umpires, but the players play a role in it. Or, you can disrupt the flow of a game with toilet breaks in tennis or in snooker (granted, the time isn't as long as a day or two, but the physical exertion in tennis, a few minutes makes a lot of difference in a game).

But they are examples where form is disrupted and a game is played at a different time where form may be different.

Form may change when a game is interrupted, but there is a chance that it may not be an issue as well.

Once again, as it stands, defaults are the fairest way to deal with unplayed games, whether started or not. And you cannot do anything about punishing someone logging out without unfairly punishing people for circumstances that are out of their control.

This is ridiculous.
1. If a player leaves and never comes back to get it done, defaults take care of it.

2. If a player leaves because he's not on form, there's simply nothing we can do about it. If we automatically award the rest of the frames, we might punish people who legitimately have to go or where it's beyond their power (mentioned internet cutoffs etc.). You have no evidence whatsoever that this it is 90% one way or another. A completely made-up stat.

3. If people leave due to form, at least the frames are still played at another point. I find this scenario a lot more fair than someone who gets cut off being punished with a potential 13-14 frame loss.

With any rule, you make sure that no one is unjustly punished. Your suggestion would keep open that possibility.
When players leave due to form, it's not very sporting, but it's certainly not as bad as people getting cut off at 1-1 and losing 14-1 because of it.

PS- Power cuts: Remember not everyone lives in England or Europe or the US. I lived a number of years in countries where power and especially internet is not nearly as stable- Venezuela, Dom. Rep. etc...

1)yep apart from in the case of the pre-season friendlies where a clan folds and the players join another clan without a 2nd thought.

2)you get 336 hours to arrange and play an hour game. What you're saying to the whole league is if you're playing baddly just log off and try another day. It's not a made up stat because i'm not giving it as a stat it's an opinion

3)I don't want to see any player unfairly punished but i don't believe it should be allowed that people can just log off when they are playing baddly or their opponent is playing well and get no comeback whereas people who play games in the right spirit and take defeat on the chin get thumped through carrying on sportingly and the ones that aren't playing in the right spirit get rewarded with a 2nd chance at pulling the game back.

Maybe the only thing we can do is dark_angel's suggestion and get teams to report any part played games and the reasons for it so if a player keeps doing it they can be caught.

Reasons for players leaving a game can be so varied that you can't really pin it down to 1 specific rule. I mean for example a player can be losing badly and quit but then come up with an excuse of any nature. We can't penalise those who genuinely lose connection or have a genuine emergency just on the fact they may have been losing. For example in these friendlies I was playing a guy, he was 10-0 and left but I knew exactly why and he'd told me early into the game how much time he had, should he be penalise? NO!

On the other hand, as the game, if in ordinary circumstances (league match), finished unplayed then he would've been penalised on the default score.

Myself and James have been discussing making stricture use of the default ruling whereby if a player has 2 against their name and it is adjudged to have been their fault per say then they will have a fixture suspension and depending on the severity of the default it could be more than one.

We're also looking at bringing in a general rule whereby if a team is the cause of 3 or more defaults, twice then we will look to exclude them from the league for not being reliable enough.

The whole situation with people quitting has been going on for seasons, but you can't be 100% on the reason you left as it is a virtual game.

My 2 cents worth

By being the cause of, or at fault, to what extent do you mean? If both players have had attempts to play but it goes to default and one player has made more of an effort, does that count as the other being at fault or the cause? Or would the differences in effort have to be more clear? I think, provided it is the latter, those rules would make the league much more reliable.