Sure I could find hundreds of your posts that break the rules craig but spending my time trying to get other members in trouble is kids games....will leave that to you

i see that you only pointed out with the rule with craig what about yourself folding a team during a season this should put into place this a lot worse then craig in what he done
if your banning old captain cause they have not had a full season in their new account
the same should apply to captains that fold their teams during a season

Crazy Eights completed their season before folding in the FCL.

ok if they did then move onto the second part she also made a new name from her old one but she only saying craig name here not herself to

She fell under the same rule as did Craig, i don't see the problem with her not saying her own name.....

I actually don't see the problem at all, Craig is allowed to captain the Shooters under his name he has now, i made this perfectly clear over a week ago.

I wasn't saying ban old captains, I said we would let Craig continue as captain for Shooters, to be honest, it wouldn't be Shooters without Craig. If the new rule was to come into affect it would be from the date it was implemented.

And thanks for the offer Craig but looks like Jay has returned

i thought it mums that get frustrated not dads lol as mums get postnatal depression not the guys lol

What does that have to do with what you were posting about before? You need to read more into things though as males can also suffer from depression (not sure about postnatal though). If that was in sight of me deactivating then frustration was not the reason i did it

i would comment on it never had that in our days back to the topic

Haha

Got an idea to try and solve a problem.

How about a rule that states...

Teams are not expected to sub out a player who has been active throughout the fixture in the last 2 days.
They can remain in the fixture and their team not be penalised for not subbing in the eventuality of a default.

I think this would pressurise teams into earlier subs and get rid of the annoying thing of having to sub out someone on deadline day because it's the first time the other team have had an opponent online.

Like that ^ why punish someone who's tried for all the fixture because they're offline when someone who has logged in for an hour throughout decides to come online on deadline day (or is subbed)

Don't see how that would work as if it went to default anyway then the chances are there would be no bonus given.

It's like saying Team Angry refuse to sub out an active player because MVP player has not been online (for whatever reason), MVP then have a player online on deadline day or the day before and make the sub, if Team Angry have another active player online who can sub in for the other one (who has not been online for how ever long) but don't do it, that would possibly look like a tactic for it to go to default and get possibly more points, when they could actually get the fixture(s) completed by making the required sub.

not really as he have no completion bonus anymore.

example:

Player A offline 12 out of 14 days
Player B is online everyday

but because Player B didn't sub they get a penalty? think thats wrong to be honest, ALL 14 days should be taken into account not just final 2.

for example we had this in final set of another league and luckily the game got played but why should a team have to sub a guy whos been on everyday?

you talk about tactics but what about if other team refuse to sub until last day to try and get our team to sub?

if sub got made at beginning of 2nd week it could have been played.

so i agree with what was posted

The idea of this is to not punish teams that have an active player on everyday. There were a couple of cases now where a team had an active player on the entire time, the opponents finally make a sub for their inactive player close to the deadline.
Why should the team with the active player be forced to sub him out on deadline day when he's made all the effort?
Then to claim it's because they want it to go to defaults is wrong- the same can be said about the other team waiting for 10-13 days with a sub.
All this means is look at the entire 14 days in defaults, not just the last day.

Surely this is how it already should work though as per the guidelines.

If the team who has a player online for 13 of the 14 days refused to sub them out on the last day just to get a game played against a last minute sub for an opponent inactive for 13 of the 14 days then it does already count as a negative come default decision time.

HOWEVER it should only count as a negative in the context of the overall 14 day period and not a negative to the extent that a default score is lost solely because of it.

Taking a game to a default in extreme circumstances like the above should be a considered option available rather than being potentially penalised by being forced to put a weaker player in as a sub just to get a game played at the demand of opponents trying to avoid a default that they know they would lose heavily on.

Its a fine line between trying to avoid defaults obviously - but also being fair to both teams.

Edited at 11:50 Sun 27/05/12 (BST)

Absolutely and it already says so in the guidelines, such as:

8.5 Most important factor
Defaults are largely based on how much each player has contributed towards getting their game played.

or

8.9.6 Timing of substitutions
While using the option of a substitution is positive, doing it very close to the fixture deadline is not, since this leaves little or no time for the opposing player to arrange a time to play.

However, these were blatantly disregarded by the default panels (of both leagues) this season.

Is that not where your League Runners step in then to ensure any default score is in keeping with the guidelines for their own leagues? And before any score is published.

The thing is a team will leave a quality player who is offline all the way in till the last minute and bombard the other teams thread for a sub when they eventually show up on deadline day.
If it was in the rules then the captain of the player who had been active the whole way through and not been given a sub to play could stop all that in one hit by saying 'mr_so_and_so wont be getting subbed out of this fixture'
At the moment you feel that refusing to sub out a player is going to cost you so this tactic carries on and a lot of the time the inactive good player gets a weaker opponent out of it.
This idea should make teams prioritise getting the games done a bit more and get them to make subs with a reasonable time to spare.

Edited at 12:27 Sun 27/05/12 (BST)

True, but the default panels have been interpreting not subbing out the active guy on the last day as "refusal to play". What's the league runner going to do about that? Also, if the runner interferes, it will look like he is biased.

It's not really about defaults, it's about getting the right people playing the games.
You know yourself that it wouldn't matter if it were greyhound or badger to us if they weren't active you would get a sub with plenty of time left for the original player to play the game.
The same goes for you it doesn't matter if it is tinie or jose_enrique if they were inactive we would get a sub with a reasonable amount of time to spare.
Some captains unfortunately aren't like you or Ang and consistently refuse to sub out inactive players with no consideration to the other team.

These games 90% of the time haven't been going to default they have been played but by the wrong people (the active player getting subbed out and the inactive player getting a sub to play.)
It's the fear that it will count against your team where as a simple add to the rules stating that 'there is no expectation to sub out a player who has been active throughout the fixture in the last 2 days.' would give some re-assurance...

at the moment

8.9.5 Not using substitutions
A clan failing to use their option of substituting a player into the game within the deadline counts negatively.

Is allowing the use of this tactic