FBL discussion
Viewing forum thread.
Back to Funky Billiards League.
Back to Forum List.
05:56 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
No worries mate, I would personally rather give an explanation if people are questioning a decision anyway. They won't agree with the decision any more because of it as it's their team and players involved or have other vested interests but at least they can see that the default was looked into properly.
Yeah i know what you mean, personally if i was doing that particular one and from a non biased look on it i would have thought a 1 - 1 would be more suitable as both players could have made more effort. The 2 - 1 does not affect the over all standings though and i can also see the point you made at why you came to your own prediction.
All is good but i am now hungry and tired so i bid you a good night mate
Lee, my post was more aimed at the runners but as i said to Craig in private message i was not looking for an argument incase he thought i was. More of a reasoning behind the decision. I did say i would drop the subject though and as of now (earlier) i consider it dropped by myself. Thanks for the response though mate.
No worries mate, I would personally rather give an explanation if people are questioning a decision anyway. They won't agree with the decision any more because of it as it's their team and players involved or have other vested interests but at least they can see that the default was looked into properly.
Yeah i know what you mean, personally if i was doing that particular one and from a non biased look on it i would have thought a 1 - 1 would be more suitable as both players could have made more effort. The 2 - 1 does not affect the over all standings though and i can also see the point you made at why you came to your own prediction.
All is good but i am now hungry and tired so i bid you a good night mate
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
13:20 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
Point is would anyone of moaned if let's say MVP had an inactive player for most of the fixture then active for the last couple of days, would MVP moan if they got the win in their favour? I don't think so really, only complaining as its gone against them?
13:36 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
at the end of the day if a player sends a message they should reply and if ur players so busy on snooker as ive saw a few are when fbl games need to be played i think the default was just about right
14:33 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
If i had inactive player for most of the fixture against a player from another clan who was active all the time, i would expect the active player to win most of the time. (Especially when the inactivity was highlighted several times)
If the result went against the active clan they would have every right to complain.
Point is would anyone of moaned if let's say MVP had an inactive player for most of the fixture then active for the last couple of days, would MVP moan if they got the win in their favour? I don't think so really, only complaining as its gone against them?
If i had inactive player for most of the fixture against a player from another clan who was active all the time, i would expect the active player to win most of the time. (Especially when the inactivity was highlighted several times)
If the result went against the active clan they would have every right to complain.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
14:46 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
Look, I know for a fact that every now and then a fixture isn't going to go your way, it's a shame but that is just how it is. However every now and then there will be a default that you think "wow seriously how did we win that one". Its just how it is. Cant expect every default to be accurate and fair.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
14:48 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
With default scores the only aspect you can query is your own team's score. And no one has questioned the one point given to MVP as being not correct. In fact the opposite is true.
More relevant would be why you didnt score far more points than the one you did - certainly the opportunity was there to get far more. But that is something to take up with your own player.
More relevant would be why you didnt score far more points than the one you did - certainly the opportunity was there to get far more. But that is something to take up with your own player.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
15:10 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
If i had inactive player for most of the fixture against a player from another clan who was active all the time, i would expect the active player to win most of the time. (Especially when the inactivity was highlighted several times)
If the result went against the active clan they would have every right to complain.
Would have been different if you had an 'active player throughout' as you keep making out you did keith but the game dates were 5/5 to 20/5 have a look through rapid_pot's profile and he wasn't at all active between those dates himself.
11 pages of forum posts on snooker between those dates and 3 pages of events on snooker, on pool a couple of posts at midnight when he is finished on snooker for the night and logs onto browse for 5 minutes and not one event.
No problem being that inactive on the site if you are going to arrange your games by message but he didn't reply to a message and instead of logging in to carry on arranging the game with chris or play him he chose to be on snooker again.
If he isn't logged into the game server and not replying to messages not a lot of good to anyone is it really.
Your problem is that people looked into this default properly not that they didn't
If i had inactive player for most of the fixture against a player from another clan who was active all the time, i would expect the active player to win most of the time. (Especially when the inactivity was highlighted several times)
If the result went against the active clan they would have every right to complain.
Would have been different if you had an 'active player throughout' as you keep making out you did keith but the game dates were 5/5 to 20/5 have a look through rapid_pot's profile and he wasn't at all active between those dates himself.
11 pages of forum posts on snooker between those dates and 3 pages of events on snooker, on pool a couple of posts at midnight when he is finished on snooker for the night and logs onto browse for 5 minutes and not one event.
No problem being that inactive on the site if you are going to arrange your games by message but he didn't reply to a message and instead of logging in to carry on arranging the game with chris or play him he chose to be on snooker again.
If he isn't logged into the game server and not replying to messages not a lot of good to anyone is it really.
Your problem is that people looked into this default properly not that they didn't
15:24 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
ive saw a lot of defaults ive heard a guy say hes on snooker when im trying to play a fbl clan game or someone else is shouldnt he be playing fbl games when they need to be finished before playing snooker he knows when deadline is
15:47 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
just to post on this point, i think hes had exams for past week so not been as active as normal but he probably should have told MVP about his exams and then they could assess the situation
Would have been different if you had an 'active player throughout' as you keep making out you did keith but the game dates were 5/5 to 20/5 have a look through rapid_pot's profile and he wasn't at all active between those dates himself.
11 pages of forum posts on snooker between those dates and 3 pages of events on snooker, on pool a couple of posts at midnight when he is finished on snooker for the night and logs onto browse for 5 minutes and not one event.
11 pages of forum posts on snooker between those dates and 3 pages of events on snooker, on pool a couple of posts at midnight when he is finished on snooker for the night and logs onto browse for 5 minutes and not one event.
just to post on this point, i think hes had exams for past week so not been as active as normal but he probably should have told MVP about his exams and then they could assess the situation
15:55 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
just to post on this point, i think hes had exams for past week so not been as active as normal but he probably should have told MVP about his exams and then they could assess the situation
He has logged in to pool every day of the fixture, just because he chooses not to play pool, why should that go against him.
I play in snooker league and you can check my event log, i don't play snooker i play pool, and just log into snooker to play clan games, it has never gone against me over on snooker as they know i am active.
Opposing clan had 6 days in a 14 day period of a fixture that their is evidence that they didn't even log in.
Chris has offered one night he can play and again rapid_pot was on that night but it has gone against him?
Rapid_pot offered the following night but chris couldn't make it as previously advised he was unavailable and there was no sub and rapid_pot was online and available to play if they could get someone to play.
Only query i have is how the decision can be 2-1 as i am still not getting it
Would have been different if you had an 'active player throughout' as you keep making out you did keith but the game dates were 5/5 to 20/5 have a look through rapid_pot's profile and he wasn't at all active between those dates himself.
11 pages of forum posts on snooker between those dates and 3 pages of events on snooker, on pool a couple of posts at midnight when he is finished on snooker for the night and logs onto browse for 5 minutes and not one event.
11 pages of forum posts on snooker between those dates and 3 pages of events on snooker, on pool a couple of posts at midnight when he is finished on snooker for the night and logs onto browse for 5 minutes and not one event.
just to post on this point, i think hes had exams for past week so not been as active as normal but he probably should have told MVP about his exams and then they could assess the situation
He has logged in to pool every day of the fixture, just because he chooses not to play pool, why should that go against him.
I play in snooker league and you can check my event log, i don't play snooker i play pool, and just log into snooker to play clan games, it has never gone against me over on snooker as they know i am active.
Opposing clan had 6 days in a 14 day period of a fixture that their is evidence that they didn't even log in.
Chris has offered one night he can play and again rapid_pot was on that night but it has gone against him?
Rapid_pot offered the following night but chris couldn't make it as previously advised he was unavailable and there was no sub and rapid_pot was online and available to play if they could get someone to play.
Only query i have is how the decision can be 2-1 as i am still not getting it
16:04 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
I play in snooker league and you can check my event log, i don't play snooker i play pool, and just log into snooker to play clan games, it has never gone against me over on snooker as they know i am active.
its the same for me on here
I play in snooker league and you can check my event log, i don't play snooker i play pool, and just log into snooker to play clan games, it has never gone against me over on snooker as they know i am active.
its the same for me on here
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
16:09 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
No keith logging into pool every night at gone midnight and browsing for 2 minutes when you are finished on snooker is not being active.
If a player doesn't play on the site then he needs to arrange games by message so not replying to messages from opponents means games wont get played.
If you can't grasp that then there is something wrong somewhere.
Again you have also avoided the fact that both players were online on saturday 19th at the same times but one was on snooker not pool.
Who is to say that lilmisscragg doesn't just want to play clan games as a lot of people do and was checking her emails throughout the time that she was offline?
If a player doesn't play on the site then he needs to arrange games by message so not replying to messages from opponents means games wont get played.
If you can't grasp that then there is something wrong somewhere.
Again you have also avoided the fact that both players were online on saturday 19th at the same times but one was on snooker not pool.
Who is to say that lilmisscragg doesn't just want to play clan games as a lot of people do and was checking her emails throughout the time that she was offline?
17:12 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
He logs in before those times so please keep to the facts.
They both logged in on the 19th so why is it going against my player?
As for lilmisscragg checking her emails, when has this became part of getting clan games played?
Logging in and activity obviously doesn't stand for anything these days.
Also you are the player who is going on about late subs why did it take 5 days of non activity before they done their sub as if it had been done earlier no doubt the game would have been played against chris.
No keith logging into pool every night at gone midnight and browsing for 2 minutes when you are finished on snooker is not being active.
If a player doesn't play on the site then he needs to arrange games by message so not replying to messages from opponents means games wont get played.
If you can't grasp that then there is something wrong somewhere.
Again you have also avoided the fact that both players were online on saturday 19th at the same times but one was on snooker not pool.
Who is to say that lilmisscragg doesn't just want to play clan games as a lot of people do and was checking her emails throughout the time that she was offline?
If a player doesn't play on the site then he needs to arrange games by message so not replying to messages from opponents means games wont get played.
If you can't grasp that then there is something wrong somewhere.
Again you have also avoided the fact that both players were online on saturday 19th at the same times but one was on snooker not pool.
Who is to say that lilmisscragg doesn't just want to play clan games as a lot of people do and was checking her emails throughout the time that she was offline?
He logs in before those times so please keep to the facts.
They both logged in on the 19th so why is it going against my player?
As for lilmisscragg checking her emails, when has this became part of getting clan games played?
Logging in and activity obviously doesn't stand for anything these days.
Also you are the player who is going on about late subs why did it take 5 days of non activity before they done their sub as if it had been done earlier no doubt the game would have been played against chris.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
17:20 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
keith i will answer your question
you have made many comments regards this defaut.
all comments that have been made are unwarranted and not accurate
i will state facts and facts alone
1) lilmisscragg was online and available to play, at the beginning of the fixture,
2) lilmisscragg messaged your player / there no evidence anywhere submitted or not that your player messaged or even acknowledged this message trying to get this game played (none submitted)
3) a sub was made late into the fixture and was online and available to play
4) you state your player was online throughout the fixture no proof was submitted to back this up
5) rapids posts were checked he made 6 posts throughout this fixture, only one states lilmiscragg has been offline for 2 days nothing more regards the fixture,
6) you state effort was made
no messages or posts trying to get this fixture played by the player himself and i will repeat nothing at all, no offline messages
7) why could you not have ensured your player messaged players and submitted this information
8) chris was on from 10 am till midnight saturday, he posted to your player and told him , that he could only be online at this time due to work commitments, this was acknowledged by your player
chris logged out around midnight your player logged on 7 mins later
im sorry if you dont agree with the default panels outcome, but it is final..
you have made many comments regards this defaut.
all comments that have been made are unwarranted and not accurate
i will state facts and facts alone
1) lilmisscragg was online and available to play, at the beginning of the fixture,
2) lilmisscragg messaged your player / there no evidence anywhere submitted or not that your player messaged or even acknowledged this message trying to get this game played (none submitted)
3) a sub was made late into the fixture and was online and available to play
4) you state your player was online throughout the fixture no proof was submitted to back this up
5) rapids posts were checked he made 6 posts throughout this fixture, only one states lilmiscragg has been offline for 2 days nothing more regards the fixture,
6) you state effort was made
no messages or posts trying to get this fixture played by the player himself and i will repeat nothing at all, no offline messages
7) why could you not have ensured your player messaged players and submitted this information
8) chris was on from 10 am till midnight saturday, he posted to your player and told him , that he could only be online at this time due to work commitments, this was acknowledged by your player
chris logged out around midnight your player logged on 7 mins later
im sorry if you dont agree with the default panels outcome, but it is final..
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
17:22 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
Replying to messages has always been part of the guidelines, or do your players now have clairvoyant skills in addition to undoubted pool ability to know that there is no point replying because the opponent wont log back in during the period?
Not sure what your exact point is here? I have already said that 2 points for us was arguably generous. However no one has argued that the 1 point for your team was not right and that, as far as your team is concerned, is the only thing that matters here.
As for lilmisscragg checking her emails, when has this became part of getting clan games played?
Also you are the player who is going on about late subs why did it take 5 days of non activity before they done their sub as if it had been done earlier no doubt the game would have been played against chris.
Also you are the player who is going on about late subs why did it take 5 days of non activity before they done their sub as if it had been done earlier no doubt the game would have been played against chris.
Replying to messages has always been part of the guidelines, or do your players now have clairvoyant skills in addition to undoubted pool ability to know that there is no point replying because the opponent wont log back in during the period?
Not sure what your exact point is here? I have already said that 2 points for us was arguably generous. However no one has argued that the 1 point for your team was not right and that, as far as your team is concerned, is the only thing that matters here.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
18:03 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
Seen some teamsheets for next season have been posted are they needed in?
18:10 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
Yet again..... Keith isn't trying to have a go he is merely trying to find an explanation behind how the result was given. It's like constructive criticism, stop just telling everyones opinions they are unwanted if they want to discuss things. As this is, FBL Discussion.
keith i will answer your question
you have made many comments regards this defaut.
all comments that have been made are unwarranted and not accurate
i will state facts and facts alone
1) lilmisscragg was online and available to play, at the beginning of the fixture,
2) lilmisscragg messaged your player / there no evidence anywhere submitted or not that your player messaged or even acknowledged this message trying to get this game played (none submitted)
3) a sub was made late into the fixture and was online and available to play
4) you state your player was online throughout the fixture no proof was submitted to back this up
5) rapids posts were checked he made 6 posts throughout this fixture, only one states lilmiscragg has been offline for 2 days nothing more regards the fixture,
6) you state effort was made
no messages or posts trying to get this fixture played by the player himself and i will repeat nothing at all, no offline messages
7) why could you not have ensured your player messaged players and submitted this information
8) chris was on from 10 am till midnight saturday, he posted to your player and told him , that he could only be online at this time due to work commitments, this was acknowledged by your player
chris logged out around midnight your player logged on 7 mins later
im sorry if you dont agree with the default panels outcome, but it is final..
you have made many comments regards this defaut.
all comments that have been made are unwarranted and not accurate
i will state facts and facts alone
1) lilmisscragg was online and available to play, at the beginning of the fixture,
2) lilmisscragg messaged your player / there no evidence anywhere submitted or not that your player messaged or even acknowledged this message trying to get this game played (none submitted)
3) a sub was made late into the fixture and was online and available to play
4) you state your player was online throughout the fixture no proof was submitted to back this up
5) rapids posts were checked he made 6 posts throughout this fixture, only one states lilmiscragg has been offline for 2 days nothing more regards the fixture,
6) you state effort was made
no messages or posts trying to get this fixture played by the player himself and i will repeat nothing at all, no offline messages
7) why could you not have ensured your player messaged players and submitted this information
8) chris was on from 10 am till midnight saturday, he posted to your player and told him , that he could only be online at this time due to work commitments, this was acknowledged by your player
chris logged out around midnight your player logged on 7 mins later
im sorry if you dont agree with the default panels outcome, but it is final..
Yet again..... Keith isn't trying to have a go he is merely trying to find an explanation behind how the result was given. It's like constructive criticism, stop just telling everyones opinions they are unwanted if they want to discuss things. As this is, FBL Discussion.
20:17 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
1. based on what as she was offline for 2 days week one and 5 days week two
2. lilmisscragg messaged and then went offline for 5 days, yes he did not reply as he admitted as why should he when she has not been on line to read it?
3. the sub was made late and offered one night he could play...the saturday where my player missed him by 7 minutes. On the sunday chris was unable to play as per his post yet rapid_pot is online and available to play.
4. there is no evidence that he was not on line every day, there are 4 posts confirming absences of the opposing clan
5. lol do i need to post the rest of the messages to prove there is more than one post showing the inactivity
6. the first offline message between chris and adam was sent by adam so why are you saying there was no messages sent?
7. he did message and post?
8. Both players were on line and missed by 7 minutes.
9. Even chris admits that the score was generous to them.
But i am glad we have a discussion thread where we are not allowed to discuss the facts
keith i will answer your question
you have made many comments regards this defaut.
all comments that have been made are unwarranted and not accurate
i will state facts and facts alone
1) lilmisscragg was online and available to play, at the beginning of the fixture,
2) lilmisscragg messaged your player / there no evidence anywhere submitted or not that your player messaged or even acknowledged this message trying to get this game played (none submitted)
3) a sub was made late into the fixture and was online and available to play
4) you state your player was online throughout the fixture no proof was submitted to back this up
5) rapids posts were checked he made 6 posts throughout this fixture, only one states lilmiscragg has been offline for 2 days nothing more regards the fixture,
6) you state effort was made
no messages or posts trying to get this fixture played by the player himself and i will repeat nothing at all, no offline messages
7) why could you not have ensured your player messaged players and submitted this information
8) chris was on from 10 am till midnight saturday, he posted to your player and told him , that he could only be online at this time due to work commitments, this was acknowledged by your player
chris logged out around midnight your player logged on 7 mins later
im sorry if you dont agree with the default panels outcome, but it is final..
you have made many comments regards this defaut.
all comments that have been made are unwarranted and not accurate
i will state facts and facts alone
1) lilmisscragg was online and available to play, at the beginning of the fixture,
2) lilmisscragg messaged your player / there no evidence anywhere submitted or not that your player messaged or even acknowledged this message trying to get this game played (none submitted)
3) a sub was made late into the fixture and was online and available to play
4) you state your player was online throughout the fixture no proof was submitted to back this up
5) rapids posts were checked he made 6 posts throughout this fixture, only one states lilmiscragg has been offline for 2 days nothing more regards the fixture,
6) you state effort was made
no messages or posts trying to get this fixture played by the player himself and i will repeat nothing at all, no offline messages
7) why could you not have ensured your player messaged players and submitted this information
8) chris was on from 10 am till midnight saturday, he posted to your player and told him , that he could only be online at this time due to work commitments, this was acknowledged by your player
chris logged out around midnight your player logged on 7 mins later
im sorry if you dont agree with the default panels outcome, but it is final..
1. based on what as she was offline for 2 days week one and 5 days week two
2. lilmisscragg messaged and then went offline for 5 days, yes he did not reply as he admitted as why should he when she has not been on line to read it?
3. the sub was made late and offered one night he could play...the saturday where my player missed him by 7 minutes. On the sunday chris was unable to play as per his post yet rapid_pot is online and available to play.
4. there is no evidence that he was not on line every day, there are 4 posts confirming absences of the opposing clan
5. lol do i need to post the rest of the messages to prove there is more than one post showing the inactivity
6. the first offline message between chris and adam was sent by adam so why are you saying there was no messages sent?
7. he did message and post?
8. Both players were on line and missed by 7 minutes.
9. Even chris admits that the score was generous to them.
But i am glad we have a discussion thread where we are not allowed to discuss the facts
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
20:27 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
Our score was generous - yours was spot on!!
20:28 Sun 27 May 12 (BST) [Link]
As the thinly veiled sarcasm here appears to be levelled at me, I feel I have the right to reply. I saw the original message while browsing at uni, and decided to reply later. I have no recollection of a rule stating all messages must be replied to immediately so this is fine. When I got back, I checked the player's profile and saw they had been offline for a day, so thought I would keep an eye out to see when they came back. Thanks to the new(ish) search functions in place, I can simply type in "lil" and amazingly the player comes up top. It doesn't require a lot of effort for me to simply click and go "oh look, offline 2 days now". Unless you are suggesting maybe that by me messaging the player, it makes them more likely to come online... a cause to effect relationship that would need some serious proof. As I had already made my captain aware of this, I decided to wait for the sub to me made, to save confusion if the original player came back...
chris said:
Replying to messages has always been part of the guidelines, or do your players now have clairvoyant skills in addition to undoubted pool ability to know that there is no point replying because the opponent wont log back in during the period?
Not sure what your exact point is here? I have already said that 2 points for us was arguably generous. However no one has argued that the 1 point for your team was not right and that, as far as your team is concerned, is the only thing that matters here.
Not sure what your exact point is here? I have already said that 2 points for us was arguably generous. However no one has argued that the 1 point for your team was not right and that, as far as your team is concerned, is the only thing that matters here.
As the thinly veiled sarcasm here appears to be levelled at me, I feel I have the right to reply. I saw the original message while browsing at uni, and decided to reply later. I have no recollection of a rule stating all messages must be replied to immediately so this is fine. When I got back, I checked the player's profile and saw they had been offline for a day, so thought I would keep an eye out to see when they came back. Thanks to the new(ish) search functions in place, I can simply type in "lil" and amazingly the player comes up top. It doesn't require a lot of effort for me to simply click and go "oh look, offline 2 days now". Unless you are suggesting maybe that by me messaging the player, it makes them more likely to come online... a cause to effect relationship that would need some serious proof. As I had already made my captain aware of this, I decided to wait for the sub to me made, to save confusion if the original player came back...
Unable to post | |
---|---|
Reason: | You must log in before you can post |
FBL discussion
Back to Top of this Page
Back to Funky Billiards League.
Back to Forum List.