Yes but you carried it through to the forum discussion.

Uprising....are in trouble next set then...not complaining cause the other teams have suffered .

But a fix is needed.

?? the discussion was ongoing. and you just mentioned that argument again that he played another game.

Asking for the explanation in a message then complaining that you have been 'screwed' on the forum is only going to lead one way.

I was informing our team on our thread about the default, because the runners didn't do that.
And we did get screwed. As did Professionals.

It's not being overdone, it was done pretty much perfectly in my opinion.

You feel aggrieved because you probably expected 11/12 points in that game (no offence to the players involved). You can't introduce the respective players' ability into the decision because then it becomes a subjective matter. But that then works the 'top' teams and the 'bottom' teams.

We judged the default purely on activity, and then limited the affect so that the default was not rewarding the teams involved. A default should not be worth more than getting the game played in any scenario.

The only default that appears skewed is the Snooker Squad's default (compared to the Pro's), but that is because inadequate default info was provided for the result you feel you deserved.

Edited at 23:46 Fri 06/12/13 (GMT)

At the same time though it boils down to Underdogs not having substitutions, sure one set but two is asking a question for me if they should remain in the league.

nothing against cke but hes really struggled for two or three seasons now and without outside help (sarah, jo and chris), i feel they would have folded.

You can. Take the average score of that team in the fixture so far and award those points. So if the average is 11-4, the default will be 11-0. Nobody gets "overrewarded", which seems to be the biggest concern here.
Also, nobody gets screwed, which is my biggest concern.
How about the other side? A default should not be worth less than the game played in any scenario.

It is not. And especially where one side is responsible for several of these kinds of defaults over several fixtures, they should be removed.

That has been my main argument. They shouldve been removed. I dont really care about the default as much as this discussion makes it seem.

And at the same time axe other clans with poor default records?

Ax those teams that make it impossible to get games played by not having the theoretical amount of active players needed to complete a simple fixture. Especially if it's for more than 1 fixture.

What is the theoretical amount of active players? And what is active?

There were 8 'active' players during that fixture period as 8 different players got games played.

those teams could have poor default records for a couple of fixtures , it could affect the season because of default scores .

depends really, lets say i got 1 played on day 1 then my internet went down for the entire fixture i wouldn't say i was active.

i think anyone who is offline for 5 or more days (3 near fixture end) can be considered an inactive player.

Theoretical is 8. We did not have 8 active opponents- this was confirmed by Underdogs.

"active" means it's possible to get a game arranged and played without having to rely on 24-hour tracking by someone and without having to be extremely lucky to catch someone online in their 3-hour-per-week window. That was not the case here or in the FBL fixture.

All 3 players who had defaults for underdogs in fixture set 3 played games against other opponents, so no one can claim they were not available for that set of fixtures, it is down to who made effort the most through out the 2 week period to get games played as the fact they played games shows games had a a chance to be played, so not sure why ss are trying to say defaults are biased, maybe they should look at the effort and default for the 2,weeks for their own team before shouting they have been hard done by.

Read back a little before sniping. I said both Professionals and Snooker Squad were hard done by.
I played virtuoso14 in the FBL game. It was a miracle. I kept my phone logged in at work to check at regular intervals when he would log in. I was incredibly lucky to be on my comp when he finally did come online so that I was able to sub in to play him immediately.
He is currently 14 days offline.
During the FCL fixture, he similarly went offline for many days at a time, then logged in for 3 hours. Here, all his opponents made desperate subs to get it played, not believing their luck or happened to have someone online.
His recent FCL games were against jack and beenjammin- both very active. He had to be subbed out of another one.

Anyway- my main argument wasn't about the default. It was that Underdogs shouldve been removed for not having the minimum amount of active (see definition a few posts up) players needed to complete a fixture.

personally i think Underdogs should get removed from this seasons league. on the previous set it was clear that they didnt have enough active players so this shouldnt really happen in my opinion as with the league being decided only by a few frames i think that those defaults will determine a lot in the end.

<3 xx

If this is the last set, i would keep them in (unless the runner wants the work of tables etc) but hopefully they can come through this OR take a break from next season.

This does remind me of Snooker Legends or Noobs at the time where Sniper could only come online in the library so games hardly got played in several sets.

It got to the point where we had to refuse them entry into the league the following season but it worked out for the best.

I do sense a repeat here.

Do people really consider the facts before posting?

The Underdogs have 3 unplayed games in this fixture set. That is less than at least five other clans.

In the last fixture set two clans had more defaults than the Underdogs.