Ash the rules are the rules mate, just let it go. Yes they are utterly moronic and have clearly been designed by someone with the intelligence of a 5 year old but you signed up for the league so you're stuck with them.

If you take the rules into a real life scenario, it would be like the police clamping a car for 2 weeks, then forcing you to pay for 2 weeks parking unless you sell it... When you think of it like that it's clear how stupid it is.

These rules are in place so that teams don't leave inactive players in the fixture. Quite simply, Phoenix could've acted a lot sooner. The player himself said don't sub out, so it's understandable that he wasn't subbed straight out. But that player represents the Phoenix side of the fixture. So him saying that then not turning up cannot be put down to "nobodies fault", just as Phoenix not subbing him out when he didn't show up when he said he would be back. They just left him in to give him time to come back at the expense of an active player being messed about having no opponent. Each week is as valuable as the others, Phoenix spend two weeks blaming the rules and then one week trying to avoid the default. Games shouldn't be played like that, and that's how the rules are set up. This isn't the first time it has happened and not the first time here. When you prioritise your own players (and attempt to force a sub when you yourself aren't willing to sub in) instead of doing what's best the whole fixture then you deserve to be punished.

Okay mate fair enough.
I'll shut up now...

..
...
....
Everyone shouts HALLELUJAH!!! (lol)

Only someone clueless about the recent clan history and issues would say that the two weeks rules doesn't work. It works for everyone until people still try and leave inactive players in and just blame rules, then issues arise because an active opponent can potentially manipulate a fixture. The alternative though would be that the inactive opponent can manipulate the fixture.

The bottom line is, do we cater for people who try and play most of the time or for people who only try at the end. The right thing is obvious.

No surprise to see you siding with the side showing unsporting behaviour zante. At least you're consistent with where you stand.

I used to hate the rule at first but at least If your opponent makes no effort trying to get the game played in the first 2 weeks then you can do the same in the 3rd week and your team doesn't get punished if they refused to sub out there player whos been active in the first 2 weeks.

Your teams on snooker rapid have always had a habbit of been unavailable for most of a fixture then all turn up on deadline day expecting subs when there opponents wern't available and would be punished for it in default if they refused to sub, even tho there player was active for most of the fixture, that won't work on here with that rule which is great imo.

Andy said he cant get his laptop fixed, something about not being able to find the bloke who was fixing it.

Not true actually. Yes that was the case with Dirty Domination with joeyy but when it was TD a lot of games were played before deadline day and those that were played on deadline day were played against the original opponents. For their first two seasons TD had the least defaults of any clan in the league and there were very few subs on deadline day. If you want to go back and check the subs on deadline day were normally me swapping my players around like crazy just to get them into games. Fortunately I signed a bunch of all round players most of whom could play every type so it worked for us. We only got away with it because I had every player in my clan except 1 on Facebook or I had their mobile numbers so could chase them all day . At least accuse me of the right thing!!!

As the person who added the rule to prevent teams not trying for the full 3 week period, I can advise that I have an intelligence way above a 5 year old. It is just unfortunate that I can't say the same for the captains who are responsible for running the clans, as it is down to them that the rule was introduced in the first place. What I actually find even more amazing is that people have decided on what the default score will be before it is even done. There is a 3 week period but all messages, posts, other games played etc will be taken into consideration for the full duration same as all defaults.

No surprise to see you being unreasonable again. It's simple, the side who show more effort deserve the points not the side who shows the last bit of effort. Put it this way: if Phoenix had show the same effort as Scorpions (a player active for two weeks) then the game would likely have been played. If Scorpions had shown Phoenix's effort (offline 2 weeks) then the chances of the game being played would've been even less. Logically there's one winner.

The rule encourages captains to get inactive players out of the fixture by penalising them for leaving them in, which was made clear at the start of season which was based on the way things unfolded last season. If a captain neglects that, they know what will happen.

I can see that the rule has upsides, but you must see that when you get this situation its a fairly major loophole! IMO rules should be there to reduce defaults to a minimum, not to encourage teams to play for them which they clearly have in this case. The score is irrelevant, the fact that someone even thinks of refusing to sub is the problem for me!

A captain should also be punished for prohibiting the game from being played. It's about the bigger picture, we are on a dying site here... we should be desperate to be getting as many games being played as possible and people taking it way too seriously like this is one of the fundamental reasons why the site is in decline. It's a game at the end of the day, who cares if you get a couple of points less by playing the match? Surely it's always better to play than not to play. It's about attitude. If the roles were reversed and my opponent was offline until the last minute of the fixture and it was someone like seb or jack who would hammer me I would still play the game...

corsair v shadows
erigert v andyw1

Yes. It does seem to be a major problem.

Actually this is a beautiful example, because a clamped car would still accrue parking tickets. If you do something wrong, whether it is your fault or not then you face and accept the punishment. If you fail to act even when you know you will be punished further then more fool you.

To use this example, it's not the polices fault that you need to be clamped. Whether you are clamped or not if you are in an area you can't park then you will get tickets for as long as you are there.

I've just messaged my uni friend currently studying law and they assure me in this case the parking tickets would not be enforceable as you have been prevented from moving the car, you would only be obliged to pay a parking fine for the time between your parking expiring and you returning to your car plus a release fee for the clamp. Maybe that example wasn't an exact analogy.

Consider taping someone's mouth shut and then punching them in the stomach if they couldn't say the alphabet. That's maybe more apt.

The rule encourages captains to get inactive players out of the fixture by penalising them for leaving them in, which was made clear at the start of season which was based on the way things unfolded last season. If a captain neglects that, they know what will happen.
A captain should also be punished for prohibiting the game from being played. It's about the bigger picture, we are on a dying site here... we should be desperate to be getting as many games being played as possible and people taking it way too seriously like this is one of the fundamental reasons why the site is in decline. It's a game at the end of the day, who cares if you get a couple of points less by playing the match? Surely it's always better to play than not to play. It's about attitude. If the roles were reversed and my opponent was offline until the last minute of the fixture and it was someone like seb or jack who would hammer me I would still play the game...

Yeah its about attitude and i for one am glad we were able to entice you here to ridicule the rules and the league runner along with it. It is a dying site supposedly and yet you are here with your snooker league experience to help us through? Thanks but with lines like "they are utterly moronic and have clearly been designed by someone with the intelligence of a 5 year old" you can pop off back to what you and your like destroyed over there on snooker.

The rules work here, worked last season and will work this season

Ang: Andy said he cant get his laptop fixed, something about not being able to find the bloke who was fixing it.

All rules talking aside a genuine question, Hey Ash, do you plan on removing Andy or keep him in for two weeks and sub in third week?

i don't mind either as i'm fairly flexible and dislike defaults

Which is exactly what will happen. Phoenix prohibited the game for 2 weeks, then Scorpions prohibited it for one.

This rule is so that we have active players in the fixture, which gives the best chance for a fixture to be played. Truthfully, you should be getting the majority of fixtures played with the original players. Swaps then for time zone issues, and subs for unavailable players. Having an inactive player screws that all up. The main reason these inactive players are kept in is because they are on the upper end of the talent spectrum and captains fear they won't do as well without their best playing. Scorpions did the exact same thing as Phoenix,but for 1 week instead of 2. Both teams will be punished based on that. A last minute sub isn't as good as a first week sub because there is no time to arrange, deadline day is worth the same as the first day of the fixture yet people treat it like it's worth half the fixture.

If teams put active players in, rather than their best who may be inactive then there would probably be no problems.

That moment when Phoenix thread becomes Clan Discussion thread <3 Ya'll forgot your places?!

likes** ^^