Board Thread:Officer's Pub (Staff Only, idiots)/@comment-422690-20130822153435/@comment-4484220-20130826012100

Did that clear things up?

For the most part. Just a few things.

''"You seem to be focusing mostly on inactive and semi-active users." What gave you that impression?''

This part of the OP: "Some people reserve ‘em, but then go inactive or worse, semi-active... It’s the people who reserve battle ideas but are only active once in a blue moon, preventing others from doing them; the people who put quantity ahead of quality," There was a small implication that this applied to active users as well, but it wasn't definite, which is why I asked.

''"One thing I'd like to suggest is that this cut-off point gets renewed every time a user proves that they are still going with their battles. Some of these things may include posting a new blog post for a battle, publishing the simulation to one of their battles, or possibly even posting information relevant to one of their upcoming battles in their sandbox." Why? This serves no purpose but to enable affected active users to try and cheat this system. None of these things changes the fact that they're holding battles in reserve that other people want to do. Trying to put loopholes in things you don't like kind of negates your earlier assertion.''

I feel that users should be able to renew their delayed battles, because what would happen if the author started the blog post soon before the expiration date, and it expired during the voting period? Would an admin have to close the blog post, even if there was no clear bias, unfairness with the match-up, or any such illicit material? That sounds wrong. If a user manages to complete a battle even when the expiration date for his next few battles is approaching, I think the author should be given a chance to go through with what ever other battles they had lined up soon after, since they've just shown renewed determination to go through with it. You are right that sandbox edits are easily fallible, and perhaps posting a simulation may under some circumstances be used as a circumventing tactic. If the only way to trigger a renewal was to complete an initial blog post and get voting opened, I don't see how an author would be able to do that without going through with their battle soon after. If we can set up an infallible renewal system, I don't see why we shouldn't utilize it.