FISODAS Season 31 Week 3 Player Lists & Prices

[forestfan]

A couple of arithmetical errors from people who should know better!

It looks like the players with the overspends have picked the defences that were doubled up on the widget (Cardiff / West Ham) - see my earlier post.

I think if you picked the lower priced ones from the list that on submit it used the higher price.

You might want to check and be lenient if this is the case...

Thanks for highlighting this - I've asked Rob to check what was in there. If the alternative price would have put them within budget then I think I will have to allow it.

It did surprise me that two very experienced managers would overspend, I just assumed they must have entered when drunk

[Jester]

Like that's ever happens....

[Fuzzy]

Blimey. For the second week on the trot I'm up against a chairman's bonus.

Sorry Spiny - your reputation precedes you!

[MoSe]

Like that's ever happens....

don't add and drink new campaign

[bluenosey]

A couple of arithmetical errors from people who should know better!

It looks like the players with the overspends have picked the defences that were doubled up on the widget (Cardiff / West Ham) - see my earlier post.

I think if you picked the lower priced ones from the list that on submit it used the higher price.

You might want to check and be lenient if this is the case...

Darn it, spotted this too late - thought my team totalled 19.7m

[forestfan]

To clarify on Bluenosey and Primitive man...

West Ham and Cardiff defences were duplicated in the widget, at different prices. The lower prices were last week's (West Ham 1.5 and Cardiff 1).

Both players would have been within budget had those been the correct prices, and if they hadn't looked at the list on the thread in detail there was no way of knowing that. Therefore on this occasion I'm going to waive the overspend penalties, so both keep Aguero and their captains.

In future I will make sure I check the widget myself after Rob has populated it, so I can flag up any such issues in advance.

[Rob]

Apologies for the blip

[bluenosey]

Apologies for the blip

No probs, my fault for leaving it too late!

[Jester]

Both players would have been within budget had those been the correct prices, and if they hadn't looked at the list on the thread in detail there was no way of knowing that. Therefore on this occasion I'm going to waive the overspend penalties, so both keep Aguero and their captains.

They deserve leniency for selecting those defences in the first place!
Now watch them both keep clean sheets...

[gutshot]

To clarify on Bluenosey and Primitive man...

West Ham and Cardiff defences were duplicated in the widget, at different prices. The lower prices were last week's (West Ham 1.5 and Cardiff 1).

Both players would have been within budget had those been the correct prices, and if they hadn't looked at the list on the thread in detail there was no way of knowing that. Therefore on this occasion I'm going to waive the overspend penalties, so both keep Aguero and their captains.

In future I will make sure I check the widget myself after Rob has populated it, so I can flag up any such issues in advance.

I understand the mistake in the widget and don’t want to cause trouble but surely I am now playing against a team that is over budget and I think that is harsh.

Is there a compromise to have the team come under 20m maybe?

[forestfan]

To clarify on Bluenosey and Primitive man...

West Ham and Cardiff defences were duplicated in the widget, at different prices. The lower prices were last week's (West Ham 1.5 and Cardiff 1).

Both players would have been within budget had those been the correct prices, and if they hadn't looked at the list on the thread in detail there was no way of knowing that. Therefore on this occasion I'm going to waive the overspend penalties, so both keep Aguero and their captains.

In future I will make sure I check the widget myself after Rob has populated it, so I can flag up any such issues in advance.

I understand the mistake in the widget and don’t want to cause trouble but surely I am now playing against a team that is over budget and I think that is harsh.

Is there a compromise to have the team come under 20m maybe?

That would require reselecting players which would be a bit messy at this stage... I think given there were two versions of the truth published it wasn't clear what "over budget" is. Unless your opponent wants to voluntarily make a change that isn't impacted by the team selection for the early game?

[barry]

Wish I'd spotted a cheaper Cardiff

[MoSe]

if they hadn't looked at the list on the thread in detail there was no way of knowing that.

so basically I would have been penalised if against them because I build up my team by looking at the official prices in the official thread???

[forestfan]

It seems there's no consensus on this, and no fair way to proceed. I think whatever I do, someone's going to be disadvantaged, whether in these matches or elsewhere. We've always tried to have rules for all eventualities, and then something always crops up that falls down a gap...

I don't really want to "null and void" the entire week, because that would make it tough to get the season finished before Christmas given the current schedule. But maybe there's a case for annulling the two matches in question and having a midweek catch-up game for those four players? Any views would be appreciated.

[itslikebrandnew]

Hope we're not going to have a day of whinging. People give up their spare time for us to play this.

Last week i picked an injured player and got a draw when i should probably have won. Perhaps i should whinge that an injured player was on the list

[gutshot]

It seems there's no consensus on this, and no fair way to proceed. I think whatever I do, someone's going to be disadvantaged, whether in these matches or elsewhere. We've always tried to have rules for all eventualities, and then something always crops up that falls down a gap...

I don't really want to "null and void" the entire week, because that would make it tough to get the season finished before Christmas given the current schedule. But maybe there's a case for annulling the two matches in question and having a midweek catch-up game for those four players? Any views would be appreciated.

That would be even worse

Bluenosey may not have chance to see this thread to make a change so probably best to just leave as is then.

[gutshot]

Hope we're not going to have a day of whinging. People give up their spare time for us to play this.

Last week i picked an injured player and got a draw when i should probably have won. Perhaps i should whinge that an injured player was on the list

And???

[morganb]

My tuppence worth - if it was a genuine mistake, which I assume it was, then they can't really be penalised, partly as there is no obvious fair way to involke a penalty.

With any game there will always be mistakes and either the game owner, the player themselves, anyone directly affected (their direct opposition), I guess all players in the individual leagues may be indirectly affected though, or the general consensus can all be involved in deciding the outcome.

Also different people play the game in different ways - creating spreadsheets, using the player list on the thread and a scrap of paper, using the widget in a drunken stupor at two minutes to midnight, etc.

[topspur]

I picked West Ham, spotted the obvious error straightaway and took the correct price but it hasn't affected me as my OPPO didn't pick either team.

However I find it hard to believe the others didn't spot it, and have just chanced their luck with their excuse already lined up.

Anyway whatever.

[gutshot]

I picked West Ham, spotted the obvious error straightaway and took the correct price but it hasn't affected me as my OPPO didn't pick either team.

However I find it hard to believe the others didn't spot it, and have just chanced their luck with their excuse already lined up.

Anyway whatever.

I think that’s why objected in the first place not because they have cheated I beleive it was an honest mistake. However as you say we all had the opportunity to pick those “incorrect” priced defences thus giving extra budget.

I just thought if Bluenosey and the other player over budget where online they could amend and go under 20m however they where not. So I think it’s best to just leave as is.

[MoSe]

My tuppence worth - if it was a genuine mistake, which I assume it was, then they can't really be penalised, partly as there is no obvious fair way to involke a penalty.

I think there is.
I agree it might have been a genuine mistake caused by a glitch in a tool.
Although topspur objection is niggling my mind...

Accepting they have been allocating their budget based on the prices displayed on the tooĺ (rather than the official ones posted in the topic), this means they have intentionally picked defenses rated 1.5 and 1.

So I say it's FAIR both to them and their oppos to change their defenses to those actually priced 1.5 and 1.
Luckily there's exactly one for each price, so the team who chose WH should get 1.5 Hudds, and the one who chose Cardiff should get 1m Brighton

[Dennisthemenace]

I would say that it's the fault of the two offenders (sorry guys, no offence). This is no different to getting the maths wrong when adding up your teams i.e it's your responsibility to check.

Ultimately this is just a free comp run by volunteers who can't be expected to get everything spot on, every week. The onus is on us to help them out a little bit and therefore the onus was on the two managers to spot the mistake.

It just needs a slight rule change

"The onus is on all managers to check the player prices contain no errors. If they miss the error and use the selection then they will be penalised for that."

[morganb]

My tuppence worth - if it was a genuine mistake, which I assume it was, then they can't really be penalised, partly as there is no obvious fair way to involke a penalty.

I think there is.
I agree it might have been a genuine mistake caused by a glitch in a tool.
Although topspur objection is niggling my mind...

Accepting they have been allocating their budget based on the prices displayed on the tooĺ (rather than the official ones posted in the topic), this means they have intentionally picked defenses rated 1.5 and 1.

So I say it's FAIR both to them and their oppos to change their defenses to those actually priced 1.5 and 1.
Luckily there's exactly one for each price, so the team who chose WH should get 1.5 Hudds, and the one who chose Cardiff should get 1m Brighton

That's a good point - did they pick the teams as they were West Ham/Cardiff or because they were 1.5/1.0?

[forestfan]

My tuppence worth - if it was a genuine mistake, which I assume it was, then they can't really be penalised, partly as there is no obvious fair way to involke a penalty.

I think there is.
I agree it might have been a genuine mistake caused by a glitch in a tool.
Although topspur objection is niggling my mind...

Accepting they have been allocating their budget based on the prices displayed on the tooĺ (rather than the official ones posted in the topic), this means they have intentionally picked defenses rated 1.5 and 1.

So I say it's FAIR both to them and their oppos to change their defenses to those actually priced 1.5 and 1.
Luckily there's exactly one for each price, so the team who chose WH should get 1.5 Hudds, and the one who chose Cardiff should get 1m Brighton

That's a good point - did they pick the teams as they were West Ham/Cardiff or because they were 1.5/1.0?

Asking people why they made certain picks in order to make a call, that would certainly be getting more than a bit Lionel

One idea I had would be to meet halfway on this occasion and for them to lose double captains but not Aguero... is it too late in the day for that?

I will put an official rule in to cover this eventuality in future.

[MoSe]

Problably they chose it because it was for instance WH 1.5 (I.e. both things), we can be lenient but the penalty for not realising that there was no valid/official 1.5m WH, is to get 1.5m Huddersfield

After all picking a 1.5m defence was a conscious part of their strategy, or they'd have overspent.

Maybe they wouldn't have picked a 1.5m defence had they realised it was terrier instead of hammers? Well, even if they were induced to fall in a trap, that's the price for not spotting the trap while all others did.
The normal sanctions for overspending would be harsher, so this is just bringing things back to normal without further sanctions and it's already rather lenient imho

[gutshot]

My tuppence worth - if it was a genuine mistake, which I assume it was, then they can't really be penalised, partly as there is no obvious fair way to involke a penalty.

I think there is.
I agree it might have been a genuine mistake caused by a glitch in a tool.
Although topspur objection is niggling my mind...

Accepting they have been allocating their budget based on the prices displayed on the tooĺ (rather than the official ones posted in the topic), this means they have intentionally picked defenses rated 1.5 and 1.

So I say it's FAIR both to them and their oppos to change their defenses to those actually priced 1.5 and 1.
Luckily there's exactly one for each price, so the team who chose WH should get 1.5 Hudds, and the one who chose Cardiff should get 1m Brighton

That's a good point - did they pick the teams as they were West Ham/Cardiff or because they were 1.5/1.0?

Asking people why they made certain picks in order to make a call, that would certainly be getting more than a bit Lionel

One idea I had would be to meet halfway on this occasion and for them to lose double captains but not Aguero... is it too late in the day for that?

I will put an official rule in to cover this eventuality in future.

Seems a good idea. Hopefully they get a chance to respond to that in time.

[MoSe]

Is making them lose captaincy harder or softer than making them use Huddersfield and Brighton, the correct teams at the prices they willingly chose?
I'd say the latter would be fairer and more pertinent for the specific incident.
But I'll stop here and accept any ruling, as I'm not directly involved

[gutshot]

Is making them lose captaincy harder or softer than making them use Huddersfield and Brighton, the correct teams at the prices they willingly chose?
I'd say the latter would be fairer and more pertinent for the specific incident.
But I'll stop here and accept any ruling, as I'm not directly involved

I think this is a good choice to, however I don’t know what Bluenosey and the other overspender would think is fair?

[Dennisthemenace]

Is making them lose captaincy harder or softer than making them use Huddersfield and Brighton, the correct teams at the prices they willingly chose?
I'd say the latter would be fairer and more pertinent for the specific incident.
But I'll stop here and accept any ruling, as I'm not directly involved

I think this is a good choice to, however I don’t know what Bluenosey and the other overspender would think is fair?

It doesn't matter whether they think it's fair or not (and I would say this about myself too). Ultimately they should've checked the prices, to see if yourself or Rob had made a mistake and reported it.

They didn't. It's their fault.

Penalise in the usual way if someone goes over budget.

[gutshot]

Is making them lose captaincy harder or softer than making them use Huddersfield and Brighton, the correct teams at the prices they willingly chose?
I'd say the latter would be fairer and more pertinent for the specific incident.
But I'll stop here and accept any ruling, as I'm not directly involved

I think this is a good choice to, however I don’t know what Bluenosey and the other overspender would think is fair?

It doesn't matter whether they think it's fair or not (and I would say this about myself too). Ultimately they should've checked the prices, to see if yourself or Rob had made a mistake and reported it.

They didn't. It's their fault.

Penalise in the usual way if someone goes over budget.

your right I was just trying to be tactful.

Just seen primitive man is 1.9m over budget if I was footie lover I would be very unhappy with that. At least Bluenosey was only 0.2 over