The one week deadline doesn't work in my opinion it needs to go back to 2. It is far too short and allows no time to arrange then a free for all to get games done towards the end of the week.

Has to be two weeks, sometimes you are far too busy in the first week. Needs to be two.

Agree 2 weeks works better in the long run

I think two is too long but one is too short but I think 10 days works like the super league on pool

People are missing the point. If you are too busy in that week then someone else in your clan plays. Simple. As for Keith's point, people don't try to arrange in the first week. You could have an 8 week deadline and people would still play it in the last couple of days because if there feels like loads of time people don't bother arranging it. For any system to work people need to be messaging to try to arrange at the start of the fixture and the reduced fixture length gives more of an incentive to do that. If you are actively trying to arrange a game then a week is plenty of time. If you're opponent is offline a few days then request a sub. The shorter time stops captains going "oh well he will probably be back in a few days" and forces them to make subs straight away.

As for Matty's point, if you had 2 fixtures over 2 weeks, then if you werent around in the first week then you would have 1 week to arrange 2 fixtures. People are saying that 1 week isn't enough to arrange 1 fixture so how on earth are you going to be able to arrange 2 in that time? Just doesn't make sense.

That's exactly what I was trying to say.. Although what dgen said seemed ok too with the 10 days. I just think 2 weeks is such a long time and most members really do play within a week and then have to wait another week or so for their next game.

So you think that every clan player should be available for nearly every day so 7 is enough? I hardly play snooker yet I manage to play all my games. This is due to messaging and agreeing times. I message all opponents day one if they don't reply by the following day we have wasted 2 days of the 7 day deadline. It can take a few messages to get an agreed time so you can basically have 4 or 5 days before you get an agreed time so you are then left with a couple of days maximum to play. If you have something on for any of these days you are now basically saying that is tough and use a sub, why should a clan do that when I have chased for 5 days to get an agreed time. 2 weeks gives time for players to agree times and dates and get games played, 7 days makes it far harder and far more effort, If it remains at 7 days good luck to all in the snooker clan league but I can safely say that this would be my last season as I won't be playing next one if it remains at 7 days as it is far too much hassle with no room for any breakdown in communication which happens as people have lives outside of funkysnooker.

you are in a very small minority. Most make no effort to arrange games and wait till the deadline and then desperately to arrange on the last couple of days. Reducing the deadline forces people to actually arrange games.

adam_147

As you know I very rarely have/had problems getting my games done, but I too think the 1 week is kinda too little time... Maybe it's for personal reasons as I work until 8pm for 12 out of every 14 days, but I know a lot of other people work full time too.

I think it should be kept at 2 weeks as if it's any shorter people will view it rather as something they HAVE to do than something they want to do, which is why the league is here in the first place for us all to have a laugh and play a few games right?

I just don't think putting a smaller time limit on the games will help things, especially with people who have restricted time due to work/college/university/school/bringing up children... the list really could go on.

I don't think the 2 week time limit was broke or dated so I don't think there is any need to fix it really, what I would say is be a lot stricter on the defaults in regards to when people actually did start making an effort to arrange the games, this would get a lot more games being arranged quicker, and stop people (usually the likes of me) from waiting until about 3-4 days to go to bother messaging an opponent who has not yet messaged me to arrange a game.

So when is the season starting?

There are arguments for both sides of the deadline argument and both systems have their merit. Most people seem to prefer the 2-week deadlines though, so I think we'll stick to that for the coming season- if people change their minds, it's always possible to change it mid-season, since it doesn't throw out the schedule.

I'll give one more day for final votes on defaults and then we'll get the first set started in a few days.

If it goes back to a 2 week deadline then there needs to be a bigger weighting on effort made in the first week on the defaults. For example a player who hasn't messaged in the first week can't score more than 3 points on the default. If we set that in stone before the season then it forces people to message earlier. If we leave it like last season then it will just be like the last couple of weeks where 90% of games were being arranged and played on the last weekend.

I still prefer 2 weeks but I know exactly what people mean now, your captain is a perfect example for delaying games when there's still a week to go so I don't think he'll be 2 keen on this but sounds like a great idea to me!!

Yes, the only cases where sometimes more points are given currently is when they start playing and then one player leaves mid-game or something.
Most of the time, if there is no activity in the first week, then points are deducted, as they should be.

It's normally only a point deducted though. I think it needs to be stricter than that. But if we set that standard we should tell people so that it's not suddenly a shock.

Surely the most sensible option is if there is no effort at all in the first week, you reduce the points available by half as you have only half the time left to play, so the default becomes a maximum of 3 points?

That's pretty much what I said in my first post Keith

I agree with all that and also think we've already been doing that! Just looked over a few of the default discussions from last season and many times the timing of the first message (late in the fixture) was used as a reason to deduct points.

More than half of last season's defaults ended with neither player receiving more than 3 points.

Edited at 23:16 Fri 19/12/14 (GMT)

Fair enough, I still think we could toughen it up more though. If we change nothing then it will be the mess we had at the end of last season again.

What are peoples thoughts on extending the first set by a week being as the first set has been taking place on Christmas and New Year week, with a number of players obviously not being online during both periods