10-25-2019, 09:49 AMFlareon Wrote: I echo Gibbles comment, we're never going to nail it first time so an outside perspective is always helpful. Gibbles is correct regarding the 7 days rule. We would look into the situation and make a decision based on a variety of factors.
B. 1. c does define an inactive
Quote: You must always pick an active over an inactive. Inactive is defined as not having posted for 1 month.
This reply makes me think you haven't actually read my second comment. Your response is just as obtuse and opaque as the ruling, and doesn't do anything to resolve questions about how these interactions are resolved. That definition doesn't actually tell us if an active becomes inactive mid tournament, and SG (in his very helpful response) actually says the opposite.
When the head office interpretation of a rule is literally the opposite of the text the commissioner quotes, that is a huge problem. I'm worried you don't see the magnitude of setting that precedent.
10-25-2019, 09:49 AMFlareon Wrote: I echo Gibbles comment, we're never going to nail it first time so an outside perspective is always helpful. Gibbles is correct regarding the 7 days rule. We would look into the situation and make a decision based on a variety of factors.
B. 1. c does define an inactive
This reply makes me think you haven't actually read my second comment. Your response is just as obtuse and opaque as the ruling, and doesn't do anything to resolve questions about how these interactions are resolved. That definition doesn't actually tell us if an active becomes inactive mid tournament, and SG (in his very helpful response) actually says the opposite.
When the head office interpretation of a rule is literally the opposite of the text the commissioner quotes, that is a huge problem. I'm worried you don't see the magnitude of setting that precedent.
okay yeah apologies, I was on mobile at the time
Quote:if a player reaches 30 days of inactivity mid-WJC, do you have to replace them with an active immediately? do you have to replace them mid-tournament?
Agreed, this is an undefined issue that Gibbles and I will look into how we want to handle this. I will say that bbygm has been kind to help us with an excel formula to get a user's last post, which will hugely help in tracking this.
Quote:When the head office interpretation of a rule is literally the opposite of the text the commissioner quotes
This is hugely exaggerated. I admit I apparently forgot how to read, but hardly says the opposite to what I said. Again SG and I will look into how we want to handle this. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
Regarding the need of interpretation, it won't be there once we resolve the point at which we declare a user inactive.
To clarify on deciding whether or not to waive the active goaltender rule, we will take into account the user's time on the site, the amount of posts they've made, if they have a history on the site and their updates. If we have reason to believe that the user has, for whatever reason, checked out of the SHL, then we want to ensure teams aren't disadvantaged.
10-25-2019, 10:58 AMFlareon Wrote: This is hugely exaggerated. I admit I apparently forgot how to read, but hardly says the opposite to what I said. Again SG and I will look into how we want to handle this. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
I don't think it is, and I take serious exception to you claiming I'm exaggerating. SG says the precedent is "active on day 1 of the tournament." You post a rule that says GMs must replace a 30 day inactive, without any timeframe detail. These two interpretations are textually contradictory. Even if it's a slight exaggeration, I'm not going to let you dismiss a completely valid deficiency in the rule as "hugely exaggerated"
10-25-2019, 10:58 AMFlareon Wrote: Regarding the need of interpretation, it won't be there once we resolve the point at which we declare a user inactive.
10-25-2019, 11:11 AMgrok Wrote: Even if it's a slight exaggeration, I'm not going to let you dismiss a completely valid deficiency in the rule as "hugely exaggerated"
I agree, it's a deficiency, but it's a case of one party defining that part and the other not defining it. It's hardly opposite statements to each other. Regardless we will go about fixing it.
Quote:This is what I've been saying for five posts.
I didn't originally understand. Again my apologies
10-25-2019, 11:13 AMgrok Wrote: That must have changed with this rulebook update--it was 60 days in the WJC rulebook when I checked yesterday
It's been 1 month since the very first draft of the rewrite
I think me and HHH were talking abt the definition of inactive, which I recall reading as 60 days in the previous version of the rulebook that I accessed yesterday. I could be mistaken, and it doesn't actually matter because that isn't the rule anymore.
grok![[Image: owenm43.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/owenm43.gif)
![[Image: 9vAsr7c.png]](https://i.imgur.com/9vAsr7c.png)
![[Image: doubtfulalpha.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/doubtfulalpha.gif)
![[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]](http://i.imgur.com/0XJkcN5.png)
![[Image: sN8N4xa.png]](https://i.imgur.com/sN8N4xa.png)
![[Image: 639861613880541184.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/emojis/639861613880541184.png)
Cal Juice ![[Image: RyzkmSj.png]](https://i.imgur.com/RyzkmSj.png)
![[Image: Eo2nBCt.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Eo2nBCt.png)
![[Image: snacnei.png]](https://i.imgur.com/snacnei.png)
![[Image: ice-level.svg]](https://cards.simulationhockey.com/images/ice-level.svg)
