FICS Teamleague


Teamleague Forum

Hold captains responsible for the line-upsProposalsIndex ->

posted at 2015-05-27 08:50 by PankracyRozumek

I have observed on multiple occasions during TL59 that players were added to the line-up of a round without their inclusion being discussed with them. I saw this in the previous TLs, too. Perhaps the RR system should be extended to captains?...

posted at 2015-05-28 11:02 by KRMCHESS

Would that be a separate RR for captaincy or would it use same one?

I will however add that it can be difficult as opposing captain when you are placed in a situation where other player isn't even aware they're playing. I've had some cases where my player wants to play game so negotiations can theoretically drag on for well over a week awaiting a player that may not even turn up. It's also a bit harsh on player added against their will since excessive forfeits that could be from a dodgy captain does make it harder for players to find another team.

Would it be logical to add an additional forfeit to +:- and i:o to represent a forfeit due to captain?

posted at 2015-05-29 05:31 by kayvee

The demands on the player are clear when they join a team.
a) The team often has more than 4 players.
b) Sometimes, team members take time off or byes for other reasons.
c) Other players will be called upon when their time comes.

I agree it's courteous to give a heads up and get confirmation from the players. This is what I did with my team.

However, I'm not sure why players are joining if they don't want to play. I believe it is the responsibility of every player (backup or otherwise) to let the captain know if they're out for a certain week. It might then turn out that a certain team will only have 3 players on some weeks - this is just their bad luck. But, everyone will know up front what to expect for that week in terms of the line-up.

This is similar to what happens in the real world tournaments. If I need a bye for a round it is my responsibility as a player to ask for it - whether I will be paired or not.

posted at 2015-05-29 05:50 by kayvee

By the way, this is already covered in the players handbook.

    Unavailable to Play this Week? Most teams have alternates, so if you are unavailable to play, someone else can be scheduled in your place for that week, if you communicate that need with your captain prior to the board lineup deadline 22:00 FICS.

It might be a good idea for the captains to remind their team at the beginning of each TL about the players' responsibilities.

posted at 2015-05-30 03:43 by KRMCHESS

Well just to give an example of how I do things at the start of the season I send all players a spreadsheet with the dates for each round and ask if they're available each round. Based on availability I'll choose lineup accordingly so if a player says they can't make it on a certain round I'll not select them.

In addition I also send an e-mail to my players before submiting lineup firstly so they know they're in team and secondly if at last minute they realise they can't play it gives them an opportunity to pull out and for me to arrange a replacement.

These steps alone are very effective in reducing players added without their knowledge. Different teams can use different methods but it is possible for captains to avoid this problem if team is well organised. Thus point PankracyRozumek was making is that while blame attaches when adjudicating results between two players it can also be assigned between captain and player.

posted at 2015-05-31 22:46 by PankracyRozumek


I am talking about clear cases like:
- player not logging in to FICS for months, and still being fielded for rounds 1 and 2.
- player giving his captain heads-up he would be unavailable because of medical treatment
and more.

Concerning being available to play every week: I have played around 30 TL seasons, and I have almost never been available for all the rounds.

posted at 2015-06-01 17:39 by kayvee

Just to set my point of view straight, I do not suggest that all players be available for every round. I went back and reread my posts - I merely suggest that the players own a degree of responsibility to let their captains know when they won't be available.

I agree that something needs to be done in the egregious cases that you both cite. In those cases the RR needs to apply to the captainship as proposed.