eh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol

defaults reallyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

RULESSSSSSSSSSSSSS RULESSSSSSSSS



YES really

Craig, what time is the van coming to pick you up and take you away???

fair point as well, some part of me is reconsidering the re wording, i think if a player that has not played a fixture then they could move but otherwise no under extreme circumstances. i am not sure if its covered in the rules or not but in my mind its a dead heat at the moment.

i will still reword the rule if people want it however perhaps both parties could come up with some sort of agreement?



Edited at 18:45 Fri 09/12/11 (GMT)

wow calm down i only asked why rule changed after many seasons of if a captain release you ur a free agent, but hey no probs if they cant join and if what said captain says is true then i fine with it,

just fill maybe it should be looked at,

it has so all gd.

I vote no rule change mid season :)

i am calm

i voe yes :P

changing my vote to NO

Changed my mind sorry, i think it will provoke too much poaching, there was a problem with it last season and also maybe bullying again?

Sorry for changing my mind, but it shouldnt be changed mid-season anyway..

Except for awarding Completion Bonuses where all games that can be completed (ie neither player is banned or deactivated) aren't?

Any ideas yet how that one gets written into the rules before the next fixture deadline so that it is not open to subjective opinion causing further arguments? Sorry if you have already done it and I have missed it.

if it was up to me only team who gets the completion bonus would be them who completed the games no matter what the reason is

Even if a player leaves a game after 2 frames on day one and doesn't come back on throughout the fixture? Prime example of why we need this in.

I agree with both...

However, Liam you're me best mate but I'm slightly leaning towards Dame on this, man.

Yes, bonus points should only be awarded when all fixtures are played. But, if there is absolutely sod all the player can do to get his opponent to play, technically it's not their fault. It's solely up to the offending team to rectify.

in my opinion that rule should stay up here is why i remember last season big argument between 2 clans on the middle of the season because once a player start playing really good everyone would like to get it on their clan so to cut this kind of problems is better to have this rule active however think if a player hasn't play any game for that clan he still can move on so my vote is against it

Where that happens, it is a matter of fact. Where both players are on and off during the period for however long, and that is not disputed, then it becomes a matter of opinion, conjecture, subjectivity and whatever else you want to call it. Yes that is already what happens in the deciding of default scores. If it also going to happen in deciding Completion Bonuses then just say so.

I'm not concerned about the rights or wrongs of this, or any other case, I just think the rules need to be written to explain the change so that they are transparent to everybody before the next deadline.

I vote no to the change with the exception of a player who has never played a single match for the clan. I am wanting to also apply this in FBL.

Regarding the completion bonus i feel it should only be given in extreme circumstances like in the case of fbl set 2 with TPA & Fighting eagles. Rick made a sub against ucyforit (he put in pool_champ_2 and he and ucy played ending in a 0-3 ucy but pool_champ_2 had already played in the fixture, this was pointed out and it reverted back to cue_control v ucyforit. They began playing but cue left the game in the first frame when 25-3 down or something. This all happened 2 hours before the deadline. So we awarded the bonus for completion to Eagles but not TPA.

Edited at 22:01 Fri 09/12/11 (GMT)

I was referring to Liams post only.

But it is called a completion bonus not it wasn't my fault bonus. My opinion is that the bonus is used for what it is said to be used for.