1 month is fine in my opinion liams been here before god anyway just in disguise

steph, the majority of people on here, IMO, are and always will be behind ya 100%.

those who have a problem have no appreciation for what you do to make this experience even more enjoyable. yes its just a game.....but i dam well like it!

i have full faith in yer ability to be impartial and those around ya too.

sooo give er wiggins

and before anyone thinks of commenting on 'hippesville is a nutter' then don't.....am supporting the nutters....not playin

I dont mind this, I just think that (and we have had this discussion many times before) the same rule should apply for everyone, no exceptions.

If someone deactivates drunk or not then they have 7 days to change this and it is their own fault anyway. Banned users obviously done something wrong in the first place so shouldn't be allowed back until their 1 month probation period is up.

I know there will probably be exceptions but I still disagree.

that is right playes should not be newbies

I dont mind this, I just think that it unfair on the players that had 2 sat out for the 2 months last season
if you enforce that in one season then it should stay for the rest of the season to come
rules should not keep swapping to help the players that keep deleting there names or banned users
this there fault nobodies else

as for the bonus side of things i think the bonus points should work on the fixtures

like if your send the team sheet in all matches that are played in that will gets 2 bonus points for the same fixture if you put a sub in you get - 1 point
if you sub again your get -2 points

The 2 month rule was only ever a trial an was to be looked at an now we feel it was too harsh which a few did say when we brought it up so hense the change now

WOW thanks

Cheers hippes much appreciated

n mich thanks for input will discuss

Just to poijnt out the following though

1: To remind everyone that these changes ARE applied in between seasons and not changed to accomodate anyone or anything in particular at all.

2: The rules are the same for all. 1 month if announced between seasons, 2 months if announced during one.

3: Rules are created to achieve a goal - not to punish. Rules should be as noninvasive as possible while yet achieving their goal. In this case, the goal of the quarantine rule is to discourage deactivations - not because the league runners dislike deactivations, but because constant name changes is a practical problem for the league. The rule has been made less invasive while still serving this goal

4: Players who return from bannings are not subject to any of the quarantine rules - quite simply for the reasons discussed in paragraph 3: The goal. The goal of league rules is not to further punish players returning from bannings. They are not a practical problem for the league, hence no need to have a rule punishing them any further than the banning they have already served.


Please remember that league rules is exclusively a practical tool to make the league run smoothly and be as fair as possible. League rules are not created to uphold any sort of morality or crime and punishment line of thinking at all - that is exclusively a funkypool matter and no concern of the league.

Hmm i sense sarcasm..

Really? i was trying to be sincere doh failed

Failure to sincerity alike to your failure to being unbiased... Oops sorry that just slipped out.

Just needless apples..

That would just cause more defaults for people, meaning that the bonus points for completing a fixture without a default would be nullified by any attempt to get a fixture finished, which is completely backwards

Something can suddenly come up, meaning a substitute is neccessary but in no way, shape or form should a clan be punished for subbing as they are doing nothing wrong - if they were, subs wouldn't be allowed

that why every team as 14 players now it would make teams put in the strong team 2 start with and also get the games done faster
using 2 bonus points for the right fixture that your team put in
also using the minus for using subs
this way your no your players are serious
also it will be easy for the league input
because the league got 2 change the subs when ask

i think this rule should come down to voting because
we was hit hard with this rule last season and there was no leway for our team when one of our best players last season could not play and he was not a banned user just before you all say

give teams 2 extra subs but punish them for making subs?

Clans dont put in players unless they think they are reliable enough to get the game done

Clans would put their most reliable players in to start, not their strongest and would then refuse to make subs

There is nothing wrong with holding reliable/flexible players back incase of an emergency sub which you cannot prevent happening and you need to put in someone you can trust

You would just be left with less reliable subs and with less trust in them to play, less likely to sub in



System at the moment is fine as is, that would just be a step backward in my opinion

hippesville is only backing it up because hes a Nutter, Talk about licking

look mate every think a step backwards in your eyes i
it easy the way i said cause the league can easy do the same time as the subs

Please remember that the goal for the new bonus points is to get games played - in one way or another. Whether that happens as a result of subs or not is perfectly irrelevant. If substituting a player makes a game happen rather than going to defaults, the sub is a Good Thing.

We do not want any kind of system that discourages substitutions, nor any system that encourages clans to exclusively use their most reliable players in their initial lineup for each fixture.

We want games to get played - not to desperately seek to avoid substitutions!