I have never once today said it were about me or Phoenix.

Yeah we are confident of getting no defaults as we actually work to get ALL matches played like Uprising do, it still wont be fair on the other teams.


(whatever, cba give you the time of day)

Edited at 17:14 Tue 25/03/14 (GMT)

Which part is rubbish? How you are going on it sounds like it's all about you, explain how the system is fair how it is now?

We get all games played so it won't effect us either way, but the current system is a shambles so this can only be a way forward.

All we can do is try, if it turns out to be shambles of a idea, it will soon become apparent and it's back to the drawing board.

At least this way we are thinking of ways to try and help teams.

To have other members predict a score to start your default from should never be the case. How others perceive players ability should not come into defaults.

Defaults are all about the effort that has been put in to getting the game played. 90% of games go to default due to the effort not being that great for the 14 days.

The amount of default information that is received showing great effort for the last 2 or 3 days of a fixture with nothing for the first 10 or 11 days is huge. If they had made some effort for the first 11 days the chances are the game would not have gone to default. So how can that person get the same points as a player who has tried for the full 2 weeks.

I was busy and did not post on the last set with Eagles defaults but i have asked for them to be put back up to have a look. The average of other games work in the majority of cases as if 7 out of 8 are completed. It is likely that the 8th would have had an average score for the players involved.

For craigs default if what he states is true it would appear that as the games completed were low the average was low, which is a flaw when less games are played with low scores. It would appear that this should be taking into consideration and maybe an average of previous or an extra few points should have been added to work in this scenario. This is a minor thing that can easily be done and learnt from.

Would like to see some players views on below.

Player A V Player B

Player A sends a message every 3 days and has posted every second day on Player B's thread asking for a sub as he is getting vague responses and Player B will not commit to a time to play. Game goes to default.

Player A sends no messages week one, he then messages at the start of week 2, Player B replies with times but no dates when he can play. Player A then sends a message the day before deadline day and posts a message on Player B's thread asking for a sub, no sub is forthcoming and the game does not get played.

Both games are the last game out of 8 fixtures and the previous 7 for both teams that player A plays for has scored 70 points so the average is 10 points for games played. If we start with 10 as being the top award to keep the points in line with the fixture and keep the integrity of the league accurate. What would your awards be to the scenarios above. Does player B deserve points for replying to messages but making no real effort to play?

10 each?
10 to the top, 5 to the bottom?

Seeing as no one else has replied horse10000

I would say this:
Criteria:

Player A
Effort
Messaged - every 3 days (wk 2)
Action (Crafty - 1 day before deadline)

Did player A ONLY message on the thread, any offline message? (direct communication)

Player B
Effort: Minimal
Messages: Vague (Times not Dates)
Action: None

Team Average throughout fixture - Irrelevant (N/A)

Points: 10(A)-5(B) or even 9(A)-6(B)

The above was 2 scenarios. One where player A messaged and asked for subs throughout the fixture.

The other where player A sent two messages both in week 2 and had a last minute request for a sub.

The point is how can you award Player A the same points for 2 different defaults when the effort is so different.It is clear that in the second scenario he has hardly tried thus why the game is at default and thus why the default has to take this into account to be fair to all other players and teams in the league.

The new method that is being implemented is to also ensure that the player who made all the effort, most likely gets the score that they deserve, with 7-8 people suggesting what the possible scoreline could be, and me working out the rest, i feel it is a different route to go down.

Anyways, change can be good, if it doesnt work, we can try something else, but i want to at least try this.

If you don't like it, don't default any matches

Yes it is a different route to go down but predicting outcomes has no part of a default score. Defaults have always and should always be done on effort to play the game. They have nothing to do with a players ability.
The average scenario has been done to stop the 15-0 defaults which ruined the league as in most cases they would never be a true reflection if game was completed thus why an average of other games is more accurate.
The scenario when other games are low and few games played has shown that maybe it also needs to look at players average etc.

Said this earlier: As still stand by it

Yes exactly more or less the same as i just said. This is what is currently done, the only issue is that the average has not worked in craigs case if what he states is true thus why a minor adjustment would be required.

idea
Take the players average
award that plus a couple of default points

That's got to be fair

Then Maybe have a criteria
Messages sent offline
Messages on thread
Subs / Swaps timing

An idea with a bit of tweaking
Maybe

I don't believe the original way defaults were done was wrong
It just needs an active committed default panel

But the new way is totally flawed

You can't take a players average because of loads of reasons;

- players don't play against all teams
- teams have varying abilities
- all defaults would have to be done at the end of the season

The only other way to do it would be to take a teams average across a season.

That's fine

So go back to how it used to be
Less hassle around

The current system is flawed

Better the devil you no


This isn't about mine or the teams defaults non of which were of our making
My problem is that 2 teams having similar defaults
Can achieve completely different outcomes

I'm sorry but that is completely wrong

I signed for MBz because I wanted to
But because of this some average player in another clan could gain more points in a default because of the team they play in
That Is totally wrong

Every default should have points awarded to a player or team based on what they did to try and get a game played

If a player refuses to play then they deserve to be hammered
4 points is farcical all because of the team I play in

I've said it once and I will say it again it's wrong and very biased to the stronger teams

Let's not forget its about playing games not avoiding playing for any reason
And a player or a team that allows it to happen should face the consequences

Lets just give the new method a fair trial run, if it's bad, it can be scrapped.

I propose in the interest of commeraderie that if you lose your match you should buy your opponent a beer (or Pepsi) in some circumstances

Be alright if u got chance pal . Some deactivate before last balls dropped

How can you trial anything at this time
We are into the 7th and 8th fixture set

The old way is how it should be done

You cannot guess the outcome between 2 players anyone can have a good day or bad, it should be evidence based as always

Also I've looked at the other set of defaults and it makes no sense at all

4 - 5 - 1 points were handed out to one team the other got zero

The average was 50 divide by 5 = 10 which means they could
Achieve a possible 10 out of 15 in all 3 games

How out of a possible 10 points available can you get 1 point

I'm not here pulling things up and causing mischief
The system is fundamentally wrong and flawed

The old way may have had its problems but this way is wrong
I also believe you cannot guess an outcome in anyway
Say you said 14 - 1 to player A and player A was responsible totally for the default, it's wrong to think player A could score any points at all and shouldn't
Player B did everything and has a starting point of one

You must always
Award all defaults on the circumstances presented
Offline messages
Thread messages
Timing of subs and swaps
Co- operation of both players
Captains or vice involvement

I'm sorry get back to the old way and soon
You cannot reward any player who makes no effort and you can't have different outcomes for similar defaults

Edited at 09:08 Wed 26/03/14 (GMT)

I think you wore the old default process out craig