Horse, ab - Nobody is arguing against you lol. We were saying that IF there was a rule about captains and vices only making subs, then it would have to be fair for everyone (meaning the same rule for everyone, whether that's 1+1 or 1+7).

Since every clan can decide for themselves, it's not an issue.

For us, it will be only captain and vice to do subs. I don't want someone who is unhappy with their amount of fixtures (usually dgen ) to sub themselves in randomly to get more games.

Activity shouldn't be an issue. If neither a captain nor a ice are online, they shouldn't be running a clan in the first place. If they go on vacation, they should let someone know beforehand so that the clan isn't screwed.

But every clan decides for themselves, so it's a non-issue.

Edited at 19:58 Wed 02/11/11 (GMT)

Why does the title of captain need to be important to people ?, the players should be more important than a captain title, I see myself more as a clan runner, part of a team working together to keep players happy, get games played and ensure MVP runs smoothly.


Edited at 20:06 Wed 02/11/11 (GMT)

yeah but i always see captains and vices as most important people.

if you look this way...

Nick > Admin > Moderator > Premium > Member

League Runner > League Staff > Clan Captain > Clan Vice > Clan Players

i agree with your post but i just think some titles is more important than others

yep i agree capts should be able to have as maby vices as they want but i still think tii make the league at it's best instead of just having a 'committee' captains should have more of a say on rule changes and other stuff what effect the league

nps, don't worry about the whole captains thing, i won't change anymore rules this season (as it starts tonight) only time i would change a rule mid season is if its vitally needed and public agree.

Clan players should be first, just remember without them you wouldn't have a league and be called a league runner.

League Table Done:

http://fclleague.yolasite.com/division-1-table.php

any modifications or is it ok?

Looked into the above, i don't see this as any problem it is just a pure account to play killer the account itself is 5 days old and results go back to 4 days ago.

He has kindly mentioned another account so if he tried to enter the league with the account we know who it is.

I would like to suggest that default bonus points are still given out to the clans not at fault, just like what they do in the snooker clan league, see link

http://www.funkysnooker.com/thread/6683/clan-league-discussion-thread/85

If a player starts a match then leaves before its finished and deactivates it is taking the chance of completion away from the oponents which is unfair, clans shouldn't be punished for their oponents actions.

I actually have 2 suggestions:

1, Default is done and bonus points given to the clan not at fault, obviously if theres 2 defaults and each clan is at fault for one they get no bonus points.

2, If a player leaves and deactivates during the first game type being played both captains can agree to restart using a sub, if the deactivated player returns they can take no further part in that season, whether they return and want to finish or not, nothing worse in the league than someone that starts then leaves when they are losing, hopefully this would make players stop and think.

thoughts please

my only objective is that win and defaults bonus are 2 different things.

defaults i would agree but win bonus must be done after defaults and win bonus would be given to the clan with most points as normal.

will leave a post on each clan thread.

obviously

Alan-
I think in the specific case of a player deactivating after a game has started the player's captain should be allowed to sub but the games played should definitely still count, if there are 2 UK games left to play then sub someone in to play them and then the player who deactivated can't play the rest of the season.
That should mean no changes necessary for the bonus system.

my opinion is that if a player start a match and get deactivate for any reason and not finish the match is to give the captain a chance to sub some1 else in to finish the match i have to agree with alan on that one

Same if someone refuses to play the rest without deactivating?

the reason I've said in the first game type is so the player cant leave when losing too badly and hope a sub does better, in your example what if its 7 - 6 and the player losing leaves hoping a better player as sub gets them over the line, I think if its done it should be within the first 5 games, if its after that suggestion 1 should then be used, no reason why both suggestions cant be brought in.

suggestion 2 is only if the player leaves and deactivates, its obvious they have done it because they are losing, if they dont deactivate theres always the chance it will get completed, but if not suggestion one gets used.

Maybe in that case the captain can get the league runners to mediate and if the player who has left doesn't respond to their attempts to get the player to complete then a sub can be made?

I agree if the player states they refuse to finish, if its within the first game type, dont want players losing 7,8 9 - 0 etc then thinking they can bail out and hope someone else does better.

the player refusing to finish then takes no part in the current season.

I don't like the idea of games that have been played being scrubbed, I can't see a player doing it tactically as they would be banned for the season.

just for clarification on snooker we have at the moment, giving the default bonus to teams not at fault ONLY if the conceded game is left (e.g. ban/deactivation/conceder).

also on snooker if someone gets banned...

Player B gets banned after playing the game and we know with almost certainty (decided by defaults team) that it was a duplicate account. 2 days before the deadline, the team put another player in to play the fixture, but it doesn't get played and goes to defaults. It will count as if the player who was subbed in was offline until the time the sub was made. That way, the default is heavily in favor of the clan without the banned player.

doesn't include deactivation for now as snooker has only defaults bonus and no win bonus.

thoughts on this too?