I was actually referring to the following statement:


lol so, in the same sentence (because you never seem to end them) you tell me I should get back on topic, but mention the fact that I commented on my defaults involving Snooker Squad (most recently to give us a 0-7 loss by the way)?
What does that have to do with anything?? So much hypocrisy. Or maybe you just don't realize it lol.

Everything I said was on topic. I used the fact that Shooters use the victim card to show that all default panels will be regarded as biased and will be criticized at some point.

Why am I even responding. I should be ignoring you because there's no point. -_-

erm what defaults in FCL do you refer

well stop moaning all the time you always got have the last word in every discussion and slating people all the time just let it be

eh? You said I broke the rules. I'm assuming you meant that I commented on defaults involving Snooker Squad?

Just so people can see though the arguments created by certain individuals!

? why do captains not make subs early

Must admit I wont sub in the first week unless a player has been offline for so long, I definately wont sub in week one just because an opposing captain asks because his players are online, tell them to come back online when their opponents are on, I've found in the past players only ask for subs in the first week if their opponents been offline so long or they are trying to avoid their original opponent and hope to get an easier fixture.

melody- that idea is nice too, but would lead to the same problems.
Games that aren't played due to one player deactivating for example: Will the other team lose out on the 2 bonus points for that game? If yes, they'll argue it wasn't their fault and there was nothing they could do about it. And then we're back to where we are now.

did i
dont assume anything just deal with facts ,,,life becomes much easier

Yeah, you did.
jeez...... you drunk?

I think the sticking point there would be if you won 30 points out of 32 or 15 out of 16 - would there be as much uproar as losing out on the sheer number you do now? It's an all or nothing situation now, which I think alot of clans would fight for if they felt wronged however this suggestion would keep it alot 'fairer'. How many times has 1 or two points altered the league winner compared to 10 points?

exactly,

players will argue that its not their fault and then we have the same situation we have now.

take the bonus out look at all the crap you get over bonus points
is it really worth all the hassle to be honest

i think team only like the bonus points hoping they can beat the better teams with just the bonus points

That's true and a good point. It wouldn't matter as much. But I think most of us are petty enough that we would still argue over single points.
But yeah, that's another proposal to be looked at, next to chris's earlier one, and the removal all together. Probably best left for the offseason.

chris's idea wont stop arguments, what you will get is clans arguing about losing the points rather than getting the points.

I still like my idea lol

The completion bonus was brought in to encourage clans to get games played, its now causing arguments so its time to bin it, I say we have no bonus or punishment for each fixture set, there will always be arguments there, what I do suggest is that any clan that reaches a set amount of default losses in a season automatically get banned from the following season, no appeal, this maybe sounds a bit hard but I honestly believe this will make captains / clans push more to get games played and be more willing to sub and swap.

The solution would be, as said before, points are deducted for a player who, either walks out of a game and fails to complete, or deacts during a partially played game. the deductions are for each player, rather than for the team overall. if neither player get the game played, then both lose the points, if no information has been given to default team to prove that maximum effort has been made by a player to get the game played.

So do all defaults count towards the set total, or only defaults that are lost? See where I'm going with this:
If it's all default losses, clans will argue that certain defaults weren't their fault, etc...
I know that the most active clans won't mind getting a few defaults even if it's not their fault, because they won't get near the banning point. But what about clans that will be on the edge?

Basically, any system where anything has to be decided will cause arguments. The question is can we find a system that will keep arguments manageable?

If no, then just get rid of anything. At all.
Or keep it as it is and say that even if the player deactivates, that's just unlucky for the clans involved and will (usually/hopefully) even out over the season.

I think, and this might be a miracle, I agree with the flaws ab has seen in chris' idea. I can just see the more argumentative among us *cough* MVP *cough* arguing that they shouldn't be having points taken off them as the arguments are now in reverse!
(Just in case anyone reading this got out the wrong side of the bed this morning, there is humour in that statement!)

I do think that there would be less/more manageable arguments as seb so kindly put it if it was for one or two points ie 15/16 had been awarded or 30/32!

I like all the ideas given here, but those ideas involve a lot more work to be done during the season with the tables and things.

I think that the completion bonus should be scrapped totally as the hassle that has caused this season has been really bad, but i think the winning clan in the fixture should receive a winner bonus so that should stay. I think the idea about the banning of a clan due to so many defaults is a little harsh in a way because that would mess up the fixture schedule. I think after a certain number of defaults have been reached by a clan that there should maybe be a deduction in points.

For example:

5 Defaults - 5 points deducted
7 Defaults - 7 points deducted

and so on, something like that? maybe the deduction should be a little higher.