Flex league drama

[Deleted member 23235]

I've played flex leagues... they suck. Or I should say the majority of people that play in them suck.
In theory they are great... but because there is low/no barrier to entry... *anybody* gets in,... including folks that don't respect the game, other players, etc...
In tournaments,.. there's a decent sized fee, and a coordinator assigning times (show up or forfeit).
In USTA leagues... one or two of last minute cancellations will get you booted from the team.
I'd be more in favor of flex leagues if there was some accountability, some show of seriousness:
* raise the price of entry
* change the website to force you to give 3-4 dates and times, and then analyze and choose a time (or keep trying until it gets a match)
* create calendars so opposing players could block off swaths of free time (and let computer analyze best time)
* penalize no shows (ban them)
* have a rating system... let your opponents rate your behavior after the match (ie. shame them into good behavior)... or at least be able to warn everyone else what an @SS they are (think they are cheats, let others know...)
* do ntrp rating adjustments... so 3.0's can't self rate with their doubles ntrp rating.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Sounds like you and your partner weren't very flexible. That defeats the purpose of being in a flex league.

Congrats on playing it by the rules to get the W, but it's hard to blame the opposing team for making you follow the rules to get that win.

Brettatk: your mistake might not have been your handling of the scheduling (which seems reasonable to me), but your inclusion of the reasons for the various people's inability to play because, using that information, Startzel can make value judgments (ie a dumb old baseball game or a boring recital is not nearly as important as a job-related trip) which just muddies the waters. I'm not sure if you reversed the reasons whether Startzel would have empathized with you or whether he would have been a constant supporter of your opponent.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

If courts weren't available what do you want them to do?

They gave you three night that they could play and your team chose not play them. You and your partner were less flexible than your opponents.

And yes getting fired from your job is a much worse outcome than missing your daughter's recital.

It sounds like you're equating offering more alternatives to being more flexible. I don't agree because in this case, brettatk already told them in advance what his availability is. Offering to play on those nights is not being flexible, IMO, just as offering someone a gift you know they can't accept isn't being generous.

And the argument isn't about whether brettatk should miss his commitment or whether the opponent should miss his: it's about making a reasonable attempt to compromise and if that doesn't work, a forfeit occurs. It's not the end of the world nor does it mean someone was selfish.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Seriously? What about them canceling the day of the scheduled match after they had already told us they reserved a court? That right there is in violation of the league rules. We could have taken the forfeit right then but wanted to do what we could to get it in. Am I supposed to tell either daughter, I'm sorry I have to play tennis so i can't go to your year end performance? Give me a break. The day I choose tennis over family is the day I never play again. Why is his having to go out of town for work more important than my daughters performances?

There are varying levels of flexibility:

- completely inflexible. Completely unwilling to offer any compromise.

- somewhat flexible

- completely flexible, to the point of sacrificing whatever is needed to accommodate the other person.

It appears Startzel will call you "inflexible" unless you achieve the 3rd category, which by most people's standards, IMO, is unreasonable. Startzel appears to have very high standards.

 

[tennis_ocd]

Silly discussion. Virtually any employer recognizes the family/work balance and will be flexible to accommodate.
A child's choir event is as valid as a work mtg for being unavailable; likely even more so.

 

[Startzel]

It sounds like you're equating offering more alternatives to being more flexible. I don't agree because in this case, brettatk already told them in advance what his availability is. Offering to play on those nights is not being flexible, IMO, just as offering someone a gift you know they can't accept isn't being generous.

But that's exactly what being flexible is in this scenario. The opponent was able to play 3 nights out of 4 and the OP was willing to play 1 night out of 4. It's irrefutable.

If you and I have two weeks to play a match and I let you know on the first night I can only play one night out of 14 days. You on the other hand can play 13 out of 14 nights. Are we equally as flexible just because I've already told you i'm only available one night? Of course not.

So I understand what you're trying to argue, but if we follow your logic there is no way to judge flexibility.

And the argument isn't about whether brettatk should miss his commitment or whether the opponent should miss his: it's about making a reasonable attempt to compromise and if that doesn't work, a forfeit occurs. It's not the end of the world nor does it mean someone was selfish.

The selfish part is because the OP legitimately didn't understand why his opponents extenuating circumstance was more important than his or his teammates extenuating circumstance. He's also selfish because he wanted to be able to follow the rules and force his opponents to forfeit, but he didn't want his opponent to be able to follow the rules and make him show up to get the forfeit.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

So what are you complaining about? The rules gave you the outcome you desired.

If you can't figure that out, you have little empathy for the scheduling difficulties being presented. I would think most would have some empathy.

 

[tennis_ocd]

No. Someone's job will always take priority over a braves baseball game and a choral performance.

Stadiums are regularly packed for afternoon "business person's specials" making your statement blatantly false.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Well said. But I think we can go even further. The OP legitimately asked why a man's job is more important than his daughter's recital.

If you aren't level headed enough to understand why the way someone feeds his or her family is more important than a child's choral performance, it's hard to believe you could actually be reasonable trying to schedule these matches.

I don't think the discussion was about which event was more important; it was about being reasonably flexible, which brettatk appeared to be.

 

[Startzel]

If you can't figure that out, you have little empathy for the scheduling difficulties being presented. I would think most would have some empathy.

Sorry S&V, but you're missing what he's actually complaining about. He's not complaining about the difficulty of scheduling the matches. He's complaining about being left at the alter twice.

You get left at the alter once, seems likely its the other guy's fault. Get left at the alter twice, pretty obvious you're the problem.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

He had opportunities to play... at considerable inconvenience to himself and his partner (*after* the details of the original match had been agreed upon). My motto is: A fvck-up on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

Startzel apparently didn't consider the part about inconvenience for brettatk, only that the opportunity was ethereally there and so brettatk must be selfish or inflexible for not having agreed to the terms. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

But that's exactly what being flexible is in this scenario. The opponent was able to play 3 nights out of 4 and the OP was willing to play 1 night out of 4. It's irrefutable.

My Spidey sense starts tingling when you use the word "irrefutable" just like when Vizzini says "inconceivable".

If I understand the situation correctly, the opponents offered more alternatives but on nights they already knew brettatk could not play. If that's accurate, the opponents were not being more flexible. It was illusory.

If you and I have two weeks to play a match and I let you know on the first night I can only play one night out of 14 days. You on the other hand can play 13 out of 14 nights. Are we equally as flexible just because I've already told you i'm only available one night? Of course not.

In your example, I agree. But this isn't the example under discussion. It's one constructed to make me look bad and you good. The reality example is stickier.

[quote ]
So I understand what you're trying to argue, but if we follow your logic there is no way to judge flexibility.
[/quote]

You're getting warmer: I'd say it's difficult to judge flexibility, a lot more difficult than evidenced by your quantitative method of counting offered alternatives.

The selfish part is because the OP legitimately didn't understand why his opponents extenuating circumstance was more important than his or his teammates extenuating circumstance. He's also selfish because he wanted to be able to follow the rules and force his opponents to forfeit, but he didn't want his opponent to be able to follow the rules and make him show up to get the forfeit.

I didn't get down to the level of weighing whose commitments were more important, which is a sticky wicket. You can judge.

Your logic is similar to a previous post where you said "I realize there is a difference of opinion here. It's just that your opinion is wrong.". I doubt you're going to convince anyone with that approach.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Straw man alert! I prioritize playing like most folks. But, also like most folks, I have my limitations regarding accommodations. I suspect you do as well. Back to your regularly-scheduled trolling...

More like a straw army.

 

[Startzel]

My Spidey sense starts tingling when you use the word "irrefutable" just like when Vizzini says "inconceivable".

If I understand the situation correctly, the opponents offered more alternatives but on nights they already knew brettatk could not play. If that's accurate, the opponents were not being more flexible. It was illusory.



In your example, I agree. But this isn't the example under discussion. It's one constructed to make me look bad and you good. The reality example is stickier.


So I understand what you're trying to argue, but if we follow your logic there is no way to judge flexibility.


You're getting warmer: I'd say it's difficult to judge flexibility, a lot more difficult than evidenced by your quantitative method of counting offered alternatives.




I didn't get down to the level of weighing whose commitments were more important, which is a sticky wicket. You can judge.

Your logic is similar to a previous post where you said "I realize there is a difference of opinion here. It's just that your opinion is wrong.". I doubt you're going to convince anyone with that approach.

You're right I'm never going to be able to convince you of anything because you think there is a difference between being available 1 night out of 4 and being available 1 out of 14.

In both scenarios you're only available one night and none of the nights your opponent is available. Yet, on one you think it's valid and the other you think it's just a made up scenario to make you look bad and therefore has no value.

Ultimately, I can't ever convince you of anything because you're unable to allow yourself to be convinced of anything. Whenever you're presented with a legitimate argument you find some way to discredit it in your mind.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I would never make a team show up to play a match if I knew we weren't going to be able to play. If you think that is alright then I really have nothing else to say to you. It all comes down to being a decent person. They chose not to be. Had we been able to play those days but still chose not to then you could say the same about us, but that wasn't the case.

Startzel has already written in another thread that he would not inform the other captain if one of Startzel's players was forfeiting, thus making the opponent show up. His reasoning was multi-layered:

- the non-defaulting captain will get a double benefit of a forfeit and being able to tweak the lineup

- the player receiving the forfeit should be happy he can be there to build team camaraderie

No consideration for wasted time, missed opportunity to do something else, etc. You know, what most people would consider reasonable considerations.

 

[Startzel]

Startzel has already written in another thread that he would not inform the other captain if one of Startzel's players was forfeiting, thus making the opponent show up. His reasoning was multi-layered:

- the non-defaulting captain will get a double benefit of a forfeit and being able to tweak the lineup

- the player receiving the forfeit should be happy he can be there to build team camaraderie

No consideration for wasted time, missed opportunity to do something else, etc. You know, what most people would consider reasonable considerations.

Honestly, why do you feel the need to lie? Do you think it strengthens your argument? I guess it does in some way as people often fall for logic fallacies.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I would never make someone forefeit because my team was too busy to play for three consecutive nights.

A decent person doesn't do that.

I'd argue that plenty of decent people do that because they have lives full of competing priorities. They try to make accommodations but it doesn't always work out. 3 nights in a row seems entirely within the realm of possibility. 13 nights in a row, much less so.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Honestly, why do you feel the need to lie? Do you think it strengthens your argument? I guess it does in some way as people often fall for logic fallacies.

Not sure which part was a lie: perhaps you could point it out. I brought it up to show you are consistent in your beliefs (not that i agree with them).

 

[Startzel]

Not sure which part was a lie: perhaps you could point it out. I brought it up to show you are consistent in your beliefs (not that i agree with them).

You know what you just lied about and I find that incredibly sad that you would stoop to such a level.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Startzel has already written in another thread that he would not inform the other captain if one of Startzel's players was forfeiting, thus making the opponent show up. His reasoning was multi-layered:

- the non-defaulting captain will get a double benefit of a forfeit and being able to tweak the lineup

- the player receiving the forfeit should be happy he can be there to build team camaraderie

No consideration for wasted time, missed opportunity to do something else, etc. You know, what most people would consider reasonable considerations.

Startzel did say that he would reschedule rather than take the forfeit. Fair enough.

But some leagues don't allow for such rescheduling. Also, that could then put the burden of accepting the new schedule on the non-defaulting captain (which is apropos to this thread).

 

[brettatk]

Wow, I didn't think I had to go into so much detail for someone to understand. There really is one in every forum.

I'm going to break this down for you Starzel. Tuesday, April 19 we reached out to our opponents as soon as their first round playoff scores were posted. We offered 2 dates as we were supposed to do, Thursday April 21 and deadline of Thursday April 28 (deadline date is an allowable offer). Those two dates worked for both of us so we were going to see what the other team offered and go from there as there were other dates we could have made it work if necessary. They asked if we were available Sunday evening, April 24. My partner had another playoff match already scheduled that evening. We replied back saying so and they agreed to Thursday, April 21 and reserved a court. At that point we had made it clear that I was not going to be available Tuesday or Wednesday evening. After the date was agree upon and scheduled, my partner made arrangements to go to the Braves baseball game on Monday, April 25 , otherwise both of us would have been available to play Monday night. Are we supposed to not make plans expecting our opponents to back out of the agreed upon date? We would have also been available to play Saturday, April 23 but since they ended up agreeing to April 21, it never came up. So you can go ahead and quit your "he was only available 1 night out of 4" crap. And I'll repeat that we offered to play the match at our courts on April 21 after he said they couldn't get their supposedly reserved court, but they said no and agreed once again to play on the deadline April, 28. So in fact, in that stretch of 4 days you keep talking about we would have been available Monday as well, not just Thursday. We know we went above and beyond what most people would have in this situation. It's sad that you have to keep attacking people. And I don't believe for one second that you would have forfeited that match just because you weren't available for two days that they were. I'm about to find out what nytennisaddict was talking about and seeing a lot more one-sided conversations.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Wow, I didn't think I had to go into so much detail for someone to understand. There really is one in every forum.

I'm going to break this down for you Starzel. Tuesday, April 19 we reached out to our opponents as soon as their first round playoff scores were posted. We offered 2 dates as we were supposed to do, Thursday April 21 and deadline of Thursday April 28 (deadline date is an allowable offer). Those two dates worked for both of us so we were going to see what the other team offered and go from there as there were other dates we could have made it work if necessary. They asked if we were available Sunday evening, April 24. My partner had another playoff match already scheduled that evening. We replied back saying so and they agreed to Thursday, April 21 and reserved a court. At that point we had made it clear that I was not going to be available Tuesday or Wednesday evening. After the date was agree upon and scheduled, my partner made arrangements to go to the Braves baseball game on Monday, April 25 , otherwise both of us would have been available to play Monday night. Are we supposed to not make plans expecting our opponents to back out of the agreed upon date? We would have also been available to play Saturday, April 23 but since they ended up agreeing to April 21, it never came up. So you can go ahead and quit your "he was only available 1 night out of 4" crap. And I'll repeat that we offered to play the match at our courts on April 21 after he said they couldn't get their supposedly reserved court, but they said no and agreed once again to play on the deadline April, 28. So in fact, in that stretch of 4 days you keep talking about we would have been available Monday as well, not just Thursday. We know we went above and beyond what most people would have in this situation. It's sad that you have to keep attacking people. And I don't believe for one second that you would have forfeited that match just because you weren't available for two days that they were. I'm about to find out what nytennisaddict was talking about and seeing a lot more one-sided conversations.

Your course of action seems reasonable to me:

- you offered two choices and they accepted one

- your partner went ahead and made plans assuming the date was set; perfectly reasonable

- you informed them you would not be available TUE and WED; again, reasonable

Then life intervened and complicated things. Maybe Startzel is just more willing to burden himself to accommodate others and anything less is "selfish". Or maybe Startzel is just baiting you by being deliberately obtuse. His (assuming it's a dude posting) posts have that quality.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Somehow Ultimate Tennis figured out the flex league idea and it works great and it is very popular.