I like that James, obviously it will all be decided by the default panel but that makes sense. But like horse10000 said, it would have to be a large defaults against.

exactly, at the moment its for 10-5 or worse for the warning, maybe that could stay, 12-3 or worse and a straight ban perhaps?

1. A default member from each clan is what ive said for last few season.

2. Get rid

3. Keep at 10 points. A clan to lose a fixture by a point or so going to be losing out by 20 points which could stop a div 2 team going up...personally think 20 is too much

4. Allow transfers

10 - 5 to 12 - 3 for a warning and anything worse fixture ban... think that is reasonable. How many warnings would you get before you get a fixture ban? 1? 2?

I have also changed my view on the transfers thing. I think that there should not be any transfers during the season. There is a fair amount of administration to sort when people change teams and we shouldnt encourage people to jump from clan to clan throughout the season. Once in a clan and a season has started, you should have to stay put!

If you get a 12 - 3 or worse against you, you have not made much effort to get game played or been inactive which you then deserve to miss next fixture.

10 - 5 and 11 - 4 against i would be warning them that another of the same would be a fixture ban or if they have 2 in same fixture set it would be a ban also.

1 warning

sounds fair

No warning a 12-3 or worse against and you miss a game.

10-5 or 11-4 is a warning

thats what i mean, currently it is 1 warning for 10-5 or worse (2 people are on those, would be more but they deactivated i think).

Problem with that is the next fixtures have started by the time defaults are done.

This topic is also up for discussing.

but then if they havent played already they can be removed from the fixture or be missed out of the next one.

I was thinking that

Can't see how this warning thing works, the player that is offline loads and not getting the game played is subbed out near the end anyway and someone else gets punished.
Should be the team getting punished for negative defaults, you pick the players, the team, you get subs and swaps if games don't get played it's the captain's fault.

yes but if the players dont message the player etc, remember a few times already against MVP players have started frames, left and never came back (only exception is skiller which he was refusing to play anyway except the last 2 days of the fixture)

Well if they left and didn't come back a ban isn't going to hurt them much and the captain picked the wrong players for clans.
If skiller refused to play should have been subbed.

couldnt as they already played some frames.

goes back to captain picking the wrong players then

But it only applies to major defaults anyway.

If subs were made and the game was being attempted to get played by captains then no one need worry about a warning/ban as the default wouldnt be 13-2 for example.

If you get subbed in, surely you make an effort to get the game played?

If someone isn't making the effort to get games done they should be getting subbed, that's why you have 15 players in a clan.
If they aren't getting their games played then they should be getting replaced but people keep good players around when they aren't that interested in the hope they will start getting games done.
If the team was getting punished instead captains would put a lot more value on reliability