View Single Post
  #30  
Unread 06-18-2018, 05:48 PM
Rant
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnEtH1CaL View Post
But your point is one of function. There are definitely personal reasons for ACs to perhaps attempt to remove some inactive members. But if your point is that Apoc has too many crew members so ACs has to release inactive members, it doesn't really add up.
The point is that activity doesn't determine membership. Being a member in the crew does.

The premise: Crew's should be limited to 6-9 members.

Not: 6-9 active members.

Because activity isn't definite, nor is inactivity. An inactive member has the capacity to become active, this would then supersede the initially defined limit in the supposed hypothetical.

ALL of the crews have too many members. Yours included.
Reply With Quote
Unread 06-18-2018, 05:48 PM   #30
 
Rant
Guest
 
Voted: 0 audio / 0 text
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Tagged: Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnEtH1CaL View Post
But your point is one of function. There are definitely personal reasons for ACs to perhaps attempt to remove some inactive members. But if your point is that Apoc has too many crew members so ACs has to release inactive members, it doesn't really add up.
The point is that activity doesn't determine membership. Being a member in the crew does.

The premise: Crew's should be limited to 6-9 members.

Not: 6-9 active members.

Because activity isn't definite, nor is inactivity. An inactive member has the capacity to become active, this would then supersede the initially defined limit in the supposed hypothetical.

ALL of the crews have too many members. Yours included.
 
Reply With Quote