[Peleus]

On iPhone again, so I'll put a more detailed response later but one quick point frogmite.

Firstly id agree by and large there was a little drama to begin with because clans didn't know who was / wasn't eligable.

Id disagree a little with your second point though. I don't think drama was created because admin laid down an objective rule for people to follow and others wanted an invite system (light has actually changed his mind on that now), but rather because it seemed as though objective rules were put in place (a VERY good thing) but rather some members of the community feel like they didn't have a chance to have input into what that objective rule was, hence this discussion.

Taking out of this, it seems that a rule which measures games over 2-3 seasons would be good. Intense activity doesn't seem to be as important as consistent activity. I don't think the amount of games should matter hugely (make in reasonable yet highish) ie 100-150, but really would you ever say 200 is 'participating' and 150 isn't? Don't forget finally we also want them to play on KR ladder, they can't be expected to take extreme requirements and push people alway because they don't devote 100% of their time here, we just want it to be preventative of 'hit and ring' style problems.

Last point (this was meant to be brief *eye roll*) don't focus hugely on SEACL and that one decision. Yes it may have been a catalyst for the discussion, but I personally believe we're discussing the groundwork for the potential hundreds of tournaments to come on sc2sea. Focusing on one case will be to the detrement of others.

Quick Comments

	Xenomorph:	well said
	Maynarde:	Such a good post. I believe time on ladder > amount as well.