Activity effects voting though, which is the entire foundation of your thread. If the point isn't to improve the overall site and to help voting, then what exactly is the point? Cutting 8 inactive members from ACs does NOTHING to improve LB.

AC's isn't the only crew. Your inactivity is inherently, then, inconsequential to the foundation of the premise.

If AC's were the only crew, then this limit would not affect voting. But, because ACs is one of multiple crews, a universal limit to crews propagates the growth of the voting pool. As, not only as previously expressed, inactivity is not definite, meaning it can change over time. Thus introducing these members to the voting pool. But, also because it introduces the other active members of the other crews into the voting pool as well.

Now you're going to deflect onto other crews. Anbu, Red Ribbon and Apoc each have less than 9 active members contributing to the site. So unless you continue to give massive weight to inactive people who's inclusion in a crew is entirely irrelevant to your foundation, ALL of the current crews are well within the guidelines laid out.

Why must we reshuffle our members if we already fit all the needed criteria?

The only "guideline" laid out was "6-9 members in a crew."

How many members are in ACs?

If your overall arch and entire purpose is that you want more diversity and options in the voting...but the only thing you actually demand is that all 4 crews release their inactive members (as that's all that would happen) how does that have any bearing on improving voting?

Is it really worth creating an entire crew draft just on the off chance that Phenomonon and Letum decide to return to activity at some undetermined point in the future?

But, how many members are in ACs?

It's a simple question, Eth. You said yourself, you fell within the laid out "guideline." You wouldn't be trying to dance around the fact that that's a blatant lie, or anything, right?

It's a rhetorical question as you have previously already posted the number of members in this thread.

So is it safe to say that your overall jist is that you want ACs and other crews to remove their inactive members...and as they would then fit into these "guidelines"...do absolutely nothing else?

Not every crew has inactive members.

But no crew has more than 9 active members.

Apoc has a whole two crews in their ranks. All active. 14 of them. Minus the two who don't exist, by your logic, because they're LESS active. (But still log on frequently. Like a lot of AC's members...)

And why are we including red ribbon, anyway? Since inactive members don't count, again, by your bastardization, as they're comprised almost entirely of inactive members.

Anyway, my two threads are not OVERTLY interconnected. Limiting the crews should happen with or without a draft, because of the stimulus it provides to the voting pool.

But, since we're arguing them as a singular point. Not only does limiting the crews in this way propagate voting growth. But, a draft also allows more active members of almost entirely inactive crews to join more active, competition based crews. And as its primarily rooted in a voluntary basis it gives other members a chance to build their own crews outside of the draft structure, if they so choose. People who might be more interested in running a crew as opposed to competing explicitly themselves, e.g. a RULE type.

Not only that, but it shakes things up battle wise, in regard to match ups. People are inherently less inclined to battle their own crew members outside of tournies/ppvs. A recurring draft allots fresher match ups, and more opportunities not only for varied and growing voting. But, for more things to vote ON as a reader. I, personally, get sick of reading the same battles over and over again.