wooooooooooooo

Leagues may be saved if this happens as eliminates politics and manipulation (the reason i was leaving in the first place), it has grown so large that i couldn't think of a cure but this may be the only solution.

It hurts genuine time zone swaps but you could review and allow a dispensation if the swap is genuine (and agreed by both captains).

It has gotten to the stage where Captains care more about winning than getting games completed which reacts politics as clans has a chance to win the fixture. In my opinion Subs and Swaps should only be done if the two players cannot meet under any circumstances or time zone problems but seen it used as players were online in the 2nd or 3rd week.

On Snooker while we are struggling activity wise it hasn't had politics or manipulation and hopefully i can stamp it out.

There's not much politics with making subs at all, more a strategy to try and get players whilst active to play. It's the swaps which are being rejected left, right and centre due to other Captains being one dimensional which are the nuisance and hindrance. All they can see is the finish Line (winning post) and are oblivious & have their judgement clouded to any common sense.

If you remove subs then you remove the likelihood and prospect in all fixtures being completed which as a Captain is part and parcel of their role. So if subs are removed and swaps the only possible avenue I will more than likely stand down and so will many players quit clans as will many from my team.

Subs are there as a last resort hence they are held back till nearer each fixtures Deadline. Subs have become manipulated as Captains are pressurised into achieving a 100% completion rate in the space of 1 week. If we had 2 weeks prohibited and 2 weeks allowed then they'd be an equal balance and allow more time for the remaining fixtures to be arranged and played by the original pairing or the alternatives.

Swaps are the most unnecessarily used tactics and should only be applicable in fixtures which really require them..if anything the swaps are the cause for fixture manipulation imo.

Scrap subs and clans will meet their demise even more rapidly than they already are.

* bloody spelling mistakes typed on mobile.

Edited at 16:23 Fri 05/08/16 (BST)

Personally I disagree.

Removing subs which are now a last resort as only allowed in the dying stages of the fixture will be ridiculous.

Imagine huts vs Ash (he'd actually have to pick himself and it would be a miracle I know but let's pretend here)

Been in constant communication throughout just missed eachother most days unavailable some and blah blah. 3 days to go Huts has an emergency and can't make it on despite clearly being available and trying to play. The only other swap is from America/Australia where they can't meet Ash's times or anyone else who can swap. Yet there is a perfectly viable replacement in terms team who can be subbed.

You're telling me you're willing to let games like that go to default and it happens more times than you can imagine really.

My point is they're there as a last resort in order to complete the games.

As for politics and tactical subs if you ask me every sub is tactical, you telling me you'd rather lose a default 11-4 than try for a win or even a closer loss? You sub in to avoid such situations.

If a better player (in your opinion) is subbed in well that's tough luck but it happens. If you're in a league and you're not trying to win what are you in the league for?

You don't see Everton moan when someone makes a sub who scores against them do you? It's a competition that all teams set outo to win. I understand it's an online game but some people are still competitive and I believe competition is healthy.

You were guilty of this last season, Even self admitting that you tried to manipulate me to get a Tactical Advantage.

Not having ago at you but you can't post this as you were guilty of this yourself regardless of how much you changed.

Last season you saw the winning line too much and winning the Grand Slam Cup helped you as a Captain to calm down as you had that taste of success. I'm not sure of the status now of politics but i see it with most teams and just want subs to be used properly rather than be used or in most cases refused as a Tactical Advantage.

I had the success of being a Champion and only Individuals + Grand Slam eludes me however just playing games is what is important for me and winning is a bonus.

All subs have common goals:

* To helps assist with completing a fixture
* To maybe get a team back in to a match (score wise)
* To permit and allow a team to fully function as one
* To restrict any unnecessary defaults
* To keep a steady flow with fixtures being played
* To utilize players when they are active or bored - due to the dormant/stagnant nature this site has and continues to become.

So if that's politics....sue me!!!

Herein lies the true problems though. 4 weeks of constant communication and the game is still unplayed in the last 3 days? It would mean either they had arranged times and failed to show (so there is a problem that should be addressed) or they have communicated poorly and been unable to agree a time (which should also be addressed). You are looking at the last three days because a last minute sub is available rather than the whole fixture which it must've been clear there was a problem early on if they had been communicating properly. People are letting problems occur throughout the fixture because they have a last minute sub option and in that instance (particularly a game involving two captains) it should've been resolved way before the final week.

Say huts didn't have a problem in the last few days but they still didn't meet each other (if they haven't for 25 days it isn't inconceivable that they don't for 3 more), they would both begin the dance of forcing a sub from the other team (which is the manipulation people are talking about), whilst rejecting requests for a sub because their own player has not been at fault (particularly where they think their player has a good chance of winning the game) and it either goes to default or one is forced into the sub which is unfair really if both players are even in effort.

The other related problem, is that inactive players go into a fixture. Logging in once or twice a week, with little communication against an active player who puts all the effort in only to be subbed out in the last week because they couldn't be online for the one day the inactive player is and a sub is pushed for from the other team because their player is finally on.

The active player subbed out now feels rightly aggrieved because they have made a lot of effort only for the inactive player to be rewarded for a sub. We have a system that rewards the player offline for 3 weeks but online deadline weekend, and punishes the player online and messaging throughout but offline the last weekend. That player will now not make the same effort because what is the point when you are subbed out. They have no motivation to bother at all because captains stick with better, inactive players.

Perhaps moving the subbing week from the 4th week to the 3rd would place more of an emphasis on the whole fixture?

Every clan is guilty of it, whilst at the same time falling victim to it. It's not like clans don't have 8 active players otherwise they wouldn't last. What is the point of a player offline 7 days starting a fixture? Or a player offline 11 days staying in the fixture? It's just a hindrance. Implement a rule that no player can be in the start of a fixture if they are offline X amount of days and that if a player is offline X amount of days then they must be subbed out, or allow those things with a penalty occurring (say 5 points per players on FCL).

There is too much of a emphasis on avoiding defaults that we now miss the whole point of them. Rewarding good effort and punishing bad effort. When that occurs a default isn't a bad thing. When the threat of it forces the opposite to occur is when defaults are a bad thing.

Agreed on Snooker you can sub at any time but used responsibly so i don't need to change.

"The other related problem, is that inactive players go into a fixture. Logging in once or twice a week, with little communication against an active player who puts all the effort in only to be subbed out in the last week because they couldn't be online for the one day the inactive player is and a sub is pushed for from the other team because their player is finally on."

This was the main problem on Snooker but i said that teams shouldn't be afraid to default if needs be especially in one sided fixtures, Yes you may win 15-0 and the table may be flawed but it is their fault for not providing a sub at earliest opportunity. Take Ric against Mikee this set as an example or Myself vs Klien.

In my opinion Klien is doing the right thing by not subbing Ric as he had several opponents and has one who can't meet his times.

In our games North was offline a while but was part active (our own fault for not monitoring activity but until we hear of an issue we assume arrangements are fine) so Klien as the active player shouldn't sub out. I may/may not be able to play today through no fault of my own but it is not Kliens fault.

Clans forget that in one sided fixtures, they have to work to your times or face a default, Klien is doing this and the right thing to do, In one sided fixtures an active player shouldn't really sub out, Default or not

Exactly, a player not being subbed out on the last day isn't the cause of the fixture going to default.

"Perhaps moving the subbing week from the 4th week to the 3rd would place more of an emphasis on the whole fixture? "

Personally i disagree, as you move the goalposts it is more incentive to put in inactive players.

"There is too much of a emphasis on avoiding defaults that we now miss the whole point of them. Rewarding good effort and punishing bad effort. When that occurs a default isn't a bad thing. When the threat of it forces the opposite to occur is when defaults are a bad thing."

Yeah, Theirs only a few who understand what Keith was saying last season about his guidelines. Problem their was he said their would be punishments if clans took the game to default which in one sided fixtures i felt was wrong at the time.

I think punishments has gone now though which is good. My last post explains what defaults really mean. If both aren't at fault then someone has to sub or be like a 7-7 default like it was in the past.

What i feel sorry for is if Subs are removed which i feel is needed then the timezone problem which like say an etarvt vs a US player for example. How would this work if subs were removed?

I'm not sure how that would incentivise inactive players? Surely it's the opposite since you would have to make sure they are active for the last week else risk a default. In what way would inactivity be encouraged?

For seasons now there has only been one person trying to abuse the substitution process. Surely the problem is the individual, not the system?

because you give clans extra leeway to put in inactive players. On Snooker theirs no sub restriction so captains put in inactive and tends to sub after 7 days.

the longer the restriction then the less chance of inactives being in fixtures. Will still get Captains who will put in actives then turns inactive then sub, i agree with that but longer the time you have to sub the less chance of inactive being in fixture.

If it is moved to two weeks then clans have a two week window to remove inactive players which doesn't help one sided fixtures. It may help prevent defaults but feel it is a bad idea.

Example:

On Snooker, a clan put etarvt in the fixture as said he would be back in 3 weeks (from day 1 last fixture) but was off a further 9 days then his opponent has gone on holiday. Say etarvt didn't return then Captain would hope etarvt would return.

Bit like DFE with Sean hoping he would come online after his lappy was fixed but didn't come on.

^ Clans would be able to sub 7 days early but say you can't remove the person early by removing them from the team then we would have to abide by Keiths time which luckily had players free otherwise Keith could rightfully take it to default.

By moving subs 7 days early, people are more likely to waste potential 2 weeks than thinking about 7 days remaining

On Snooks it was an easy fix but the damage is done on Pool i feel. Think removing people to sub early doesn't help though.

The original clans going back 9 or so years had 8 players and played 8 fixtures.

Loads were not being played and subsequently were introduced and clan numbers increased (originally to 10 then 12 and now after a few more increases 18 I believe), my question is what's the point in an 18 man squad if you can't use your resources when you can't get a game played?

In my honest opinion ion there are more genuine reasons for keeping subs than getting rid of them.

1 other proposal could be the following...

Pick your 8 players then 3 further players who can be used as a sub any time after the second week in the fixtures but only with genuine reason and agreed to by the other captain. You don't have to state who you are subbing in until the sub is finalised just state your intention to sub.

Example.

Mich and dgen can't get on at the same time and with Mich being the least active I request I sub mich out for one of my substitutes.

Vixen says Yeah go on.

We make the sub and announce other player with a choice of 3 previously selected players.

Personally I'd reduce the teams back too 12 and have in each FCL 8 players in the starting lineup and the other 4 listed as subs. If a players subbed out...that's the end of the fixture for them...no subbing back in etc...that's where it gets ridiculous.

Listing subs when submitting the team lists is a good idea and maybe with Fixtures being over a 4 week duration this season permitting 1 sub a week could be another solution. If only to help keep the fixtures flowing therefore reducing the panic stations come the final week.

The final weeks are where the arguments all stem from...attitudes become rife and heated exchanges occur. If we can try to alleviate some of that from happening, surely that's a step in the right direction?

* Or 14 and 6 Subs (Same lineup for both FCL Fixtures if only two released together, as the frequency of the fixtures play a huge part in the silly subbing too)

Edited at 13:40 Sat 06/08/16 (BST)

I would think scrapping subs would cause more defaults than less
It would stop the tactical substitutions and perhaps the overall inactive players being used arguments, but most of us don't knowingly use inactive players if they assure us they will play their games and then subsequently disappear.
In those instances a swap is still going to leave a game going to default. Unless subs are still permitted if a player is removed.

Being able to sub at the start of week 3 rather than week 4 will just make captains think "I can put so and so in who is a good player but has questionable activity because with 2 weeks left to put a sub in rather than one it's less risky for a default". Plus any running around the active player has to do with the third week sub will still go against them since the inactive player now only accounts for half the fixture rather than three quarters of it.