kedy89 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> miki2000milos schrieb:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Macca25 Wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> --
> > -----
> > > miki2000milos Wrote:
> > > ----------------------------------------------
> --
> > --
> > > -----
> > > > Pedersen Wrote:
> > > > --------------------------------------------
> --
> > --
> > > --
> > > > -----
> > > > > just dropping in..sorry
> > > >
> > > > Technically this post is still in the previo
> us
> > c
> > > he
> > > > ck period, until 8pm gmt today.
> > > > I posted early as everyone was active
> > >
> > >
> > > He is in a rival team that we need to beat but
> e
> > ve
> > > n I would argue if he got a penalty for this.
> >
> > I agree actually, and I believe the previous pos
> t
> > is a good enough reason for 14d (prior notice) t
> o
> > apply.
> >
> > But since I'm new to this, I'm not sure how much
> f
> > reedom I have to bend the rules, I was told to l
> oo
> > k only between boost deadlines.
> > So to clear this dilemma, if he sees my comment
> he
> > will post; if not, I intend to apply 14d unless
> so
> > meone specifically is against it

> >
> > edit: or it could be moving the upper deadline b
> ou
> > ndary to when I posted instead, since it was ear
> li
> > er, but I'm not sure if I can do this
>
>
> You do the checks, you decide the deadlines. Since
> you posted earlier you could move the upper bounda
> ry this once, to keep it easy and transparent. I'm
> not sure if the actual timeframe of the activity p
> eriods has ever been officially stated, so maybe o
> ne quick announcement via GPGSL account that one a
> ctivity period stretches between 2 boost deadlines
> , and is in no way whatsoever influenced by the ti
> ming of the activity check post itself.
>
>
> Re Michael's post, yes not the content we'd prefer
> to see. But then again we all know that's far from
> his standards, and that we're in a position where
> we don't necessarily want to punish those who are
> still active. Not to mention that the rule dates b
> ack to a time where the window was 10 or 14 days,
> and posts like this were way more common.
Thanks, yeah i know that post shouldnt count, just a messy period in my life atm...dad passing away, lots going on at work, moving yet again so its busy busy busy, once i get home from work i normally crash out and switch my head of to try and get some rest and process the grief...Some days are good and then it crashes and it takes days to recover...so yeah, trying to stay above the water line and do what i have to do at work atm....apologies to my team and the league for my absence.

