im quite sure It wasn't before - it was during

halfway through the match - which was partly played on monday and brought up shortly after it was posted

Not only was it before the match was played, it was HOURS before. Not even close.


1. The reply I posted here, to Emma's first inquiry on this topic, was posted Tue 31 20:04 (see page 31)

2. My activity log for that night states:
Browsing from 19:45 to 20:30
Offline from 20:30 to 21:15
Browsing from 21:15 to 22:15
In game from 22:15 onward.

3. I watched that game live, as in - it took place while I was logged into the game, something the logs say I wasn't until sometime around 22:15. That is 2+ hours after the case with fatmike being brought up by Emma.

So give those conspiracy theories a rest already.

Edited at 07:02 Thu 02/09/10 (BST)

Ill say again ive been very busy last few weeks with two jobs averaging about 55-60 hours over 6 days so havent seen everything thats why i been so lucky to have janmb on board an were only human everyone makes mistakes

Don't start saying stuff like that mate, you will get banned from the league

from old nutters thread


I cant see anyone's post against swapping fixtures....



....and thats the reason gave at the time, with no mention of players suggesting it

I for one am completely for having fixture swaps - It was allowed because 4 active players could be missing each other due to time zone issues and both sides would be reluctant to sub out - now one side has to sub out an active player

EDIT - this is what i found on swapping fixtures -





Edited at 17:37 Sun 05/09/10 (BST)

The change was caused by the discussion that was taking place from certain players worrying about "tactical" subbing. And yes, we didn't think the swap would really be needed either, so letting that go was a nice move to silence some of the critics a little bit lol

We have gotten plenty proof that the rule is still very much a good thing tho, so definitely bringing that back in as soon as steph gives final go.

Well, as far as I know we haven't had any formal goden cue competition for ages, but yes, the player statistics currently include cup games...

I kinda don't see why not - as long as it is the same game format and a formal FCL game it should count imo

Dead easy to remove if we want though, just a matter of preference really.

Hey guys,

i am a competitive guy as a lot of you know, but i cant attempt to even win the golden cue in the individuals league because this season you have decided to count the cup games as well.

my team was knocked out in the first round, so is it my fault that i cant go on to win the golden cue?

i am just saying its a bit unfair if we all don't get to play the same amount of clan games. if i played the same amount as destiny i think i would be comfortably in 2nd or third place,

i personally don't like the choice you guys have made and tbh it sort of makes me not want to do the clan game thing anymore,

edited after reading the above post

Alot of players still try to win the golden cue and its always been just league results, I think it should include cup results as its part of the FCL but this can give players a disadvantage as the cup is only 5 aside so less players get the chance to play, also as mentioned by perfect_play, players in clans getting knocked out in the early rounds can forget it, so maybe keep it to the league where all clans play the same amount of fixtures.

Edited at 10:45 Sat 18/09/10 (BST)

missed ^^^^^ above thread.

Hes edited it now ^

I agree with the concerns above

Then again, players getting different number of games will be a problem even if just counting league games - it's just how it is...

How about this:

We keep the player statistics as they are - as just that: Statistics.


In addition, we could add an official Golden Cue table which I\d suggest being calculated as this:

The table is sorted by Points Per Game, not total points. To avoid players winning from a single, lucky game, we would have to require a minimum of games played to take part in this table, say for example minimum 5 games.

Thoughts?

I've been tempted to sort the player stat table by points per game for a long time anyway - that's the real score of how well a player has done over time anyway, but somehow need to sort out the problem with a player sitting with a single, very good (or lucky) game played.

Also keep in mind that all such tables are not only a result of how well the player has done, but also who he has meat. Even for the best players, the result is a two-way thing, factoring in both your own effort as well as that of the opponent... Hence the need for at least a few games minimum to be eligible for the golden cue event...

I agree with the points per game, if you want a golden cue winner why not have the player with the best average as long as he has played for example 6 games.

Would stop a player who had one or two big wins winning it.

My thoughts precisely

true im talking about this precise thing on snooker, someone suggested that win ratio could be better than total frames which i can agree upon but ive mentioned the fact and you guys have as well that what happens is 1 person wins and sits out rest of season to win this award it doesn't work out.

but the minimum games is a great idea, because my league is shorter than pools due to less clans i think 5 or 6 games is a reasonable amount to follow.

great points made and i hope this is changed next season but i wouldn't be proper fussed if it stayed the same.

I see the golden cue a bit like a top scorer in a football season, frames instead of goals tho, shouldn't matter who you play against or how many games you play, its about who wins the most frames in a season or goals scored, I just think if we keep it to the league results it gives players the opportunity to play the same amount of games.

an interesting debate going on here.

would it be possible to have a golden cue award, 1 for most frames won and 1 for best win ratio or is that a problem here?

I have already written another statistics page for this as a suggestion for further debate.

Main reason why I like the idea of points per game is that even if we limit it to league only, players still do not have the same opportunities to get a full number of games played.

My connection is down for the moment, will post link as soon as it's up

Line is back up.

Race for the Golden Cue table (not final, but basis for debate)

http://ankh-morpork.no/index.php?page=golden_cue

Yep I agree with this