qpounder wrote:
".....and make then wait 2 months from that point."

The way I read that, it implies the need for feedback - which we rightfully can't get.

Cant see where qpounder wrote that
and that was responding to dgens point which qpounder hasn't seen

Fair enough, but still, we cannot have a league rule that based its enforcement on us tipping off funkypool staff and hoping they choose to follow up on it - especially when discussing a rule that is usually not enforced at all....

If we were talking about an FP rule that was black and white and always followed up on this would been far more possible, but on this particular topic it's nowhere near being a viable solution - unfortunately. I don't expect FP to mold their rules to suit one of many player-hosted events such as the league, nor would it really be possible, since there are so many more stake holders and opinions than just the league if you started doing that.

wait what?

His point was that players that make new accounts or new players can't join when the season is on, only on the break, where players new to clans can't join until the season break

I know

Again, the counter-argument to that is that it removes a significant obstacle for banned users to return without consent.

No it doesn't, a banned user could currently still have an account in the league, as long as its 2 months old

With that, they would have to wait until the start of the next season before they could return without consent

It isn't removing any protection, its adding an extra 'obstacle'

Correct, but that requirement is better than nothing at all. And it's meant to be an obstacle lol.

I like the way the rules are at the moment, I dont like the idea to let new accounts join between seasons and you cant stop new players to the league joining during the season as long as their account is 2 months old, theres enough clans already struggling for players.
I might have got this wrong but what your suggesting would mean if a player leaves a clan during the season that clan would have to find a replacement thats played in the league before as anyone new to the league cant join untill the season ends, its hard enough to find players as it is lol

Yeah, would maybe work accompanied with the inclusion of other things like larger clans, more leniency towards clans bordering on the minimum or being able to pick players from a feeder league (individual league consisting of players on the clan waiting list)

may i have your views on this
its already being stated that 12 players is the maximum for any team

in earlier discussions people said it may be a good idea to increase the size of the team

may i ask the league to have a max level of 15 the reason for this request.
if players are happy to be part of a clan and called upon if required due to holidays, bans and deactivations is this not the way to go forward as this will mean less unplayed matches

we as a team have struggled this season but have managed to keep a float but also have added to the team , we are ready to go next season but id like to think we dont experience this again. not all teams may need to do it, i just thinks its a good option and if players are happy to be part of a bigger clan then so be it, some players dont really want to play but would if called to do so, they just want to be apart of somthing inclusion

craig

Edited at 12:51 Fri 02/07/10 (BST)

I agree with Craig he makes a good point

yeah 15 sounds reasonable, its not OTT.

But you can make it 25 if you wish

Revisiting the topic of clan size is already on the table for next season.

Remains to be seen precisely where that debate ends up, but if the majority thinks increased clans sizes has more pros than cons, then by all means we should give it a try. It may kill a few of the clans either forming up these days or already struggling to keep enough players, but that's a natural selection process. Larger clans means fewer clans - that's the simple fact of it. And that's not necessarily a bad thing in the long run, just means there will be a bit of chaos in the transition until things settle in.

ive got a good and bad side of craigs idea:

Good Point:

upping the limit to 15 players might be a good thing because it would mean less defaults as possible and yes it may mean less clans but i dont see how upping the limit from 12 to 15 will affect the waiting list, except the fact that most of the good players would be taken.

Bad Point:

If we keep upping the limit eventually there will be no limit at all and IMO that would be as bad as snooker clans are at this precise moment in time, clans are really struggling over there because they have no set rules, no discipline etc.

Pool for me has the best clans because of this capping on limits, well ran league, set game types, set deadlines which snooker doesnt have expect for clan league but can you see where i am going with this.

Upping the limit to 15 is fine but no more than 15 because i dont want clans over here to turn out like clans on snooker.

rant over

Edited at 18:15 Fri 02/07/10 (BST)

Quick question: at the time, what was the reason for the introduction of the rule barring players whose accounts were under 2 months old from playing in the league?

Constant deactivations/new names

What zantet said, and more precisely to stop players banned from the league returning on other accounts. No rule can completely prevent that, but at the very least it can make it more cumbersome.

On a secondary note, constant name changes is a pita for league runners, creating a lot of extra work.

Just following up my comments on the MVP thread...

When defaults can not be decided and score lines will finish a draw I dont feel that the match should be decided on a playoff it should be implemented that a designated team of reliable and trustworthy individuals should be called upon to decide based on a default score and there average applied,

for example
panel 1 10-5
panel 2 9-6
panel 3 6-9
panel 4 7-8
and panel 5 gives 7-8 overall 39-26

if this were to lead to players being awarded the same points then the player that was awarded the win i.e. 3-2 in decisions, should be given the win score of 8-7. If it was to still be a draw with one frame as tied and others as win for each then scores in the win fames should count, and then if still no joy then ask me and I will tell you who should win! as chairman of my local pool league and secretary of the northern blackball pool association containing 8 counties i trust i would be fair and impartial, even if it meant giving win to MVP which i can assure you they get enough, food for thought.

I like the idea wayne mate with 5 panels and so on, and personally im right behind this idea.

And as for u bein asked if no1 can come to a decision mate haha thats hilarious you should become league staff and put you default scores across fully