He posted in the master thread on the weekend. He's good for now.

Ok till tmrw then, right.

How many times are we going to warn people before action gets taken?

Honestly, some ppl are half decent and when they go MIA for a while, they come back and are usually pretty active. Mikeyscav has posted in the GM game 25 times since the beginning of August..... which by the way was mostly for the UFA responses only....

I like the guy but he is too inactive and should be removed. He hasn't been active since the GM game started, only answering a couple posts here and there but not really engaging in any way.

There are many like that.

If we posted in the AGM section that there are vacant teams, I am sure we could get teams filled with active GMs.

There aren't vacant teams yet, so I don't want to false advertise and have an abundance of interested people that won't be guaranteed assistant GM positions, let alone a GM position.

The BOG will internally discuss how we want to handle these inactivities going forward, but we still need to follow the protocol of letting them know they have 48 hours, otherwise, we cannot forcefully remove them.

I think the inactivity issue with certain GMs should be addressed before v2

I will propose to the BOG a possible way to decrease the time from a week to 5 business days

But the major problem is that these GMs see the warning and then post then go away until they get warned again.

One possible solution is having a post quota for GMs that receive inactivity warnings

Or you get one warning and then you are demoted to AGM.

Honestly it should just be a BOG vote. Making these arbitrary rules solves nothing like DD said. We all here know the LA GM is virtually never on and just wasting a spot for someone else to use.

I'm sure there are a couple others but LA is by far the worst. Go check his posting history.

Bumping.

I wanted to post this question here.
Can I be allowed to finalize a deal I had in place with whispers? It was his offer, I had to get a player to finalize it, I've made a few other moves in relation to this deal being done, all I was going to ask for was something small coming back (could add future considerations).
The player I will receive won't be moved, so if he comes back and takes an issue with it we could still reverse it. I'll go back and find the post and add it here.

Thoughts?

Offer -> Acceptance -> Confirmation = Trade.
A counter offer, is a new offer.

Whisper has made an offer.
You can accept that offer.
Whisper has to confirm it.

No trade until all 3 are met. Sorry.

I am confirming his offer

Sorry if you caught that in the middle of the edit.

Whisper made an offer, which you can accept, but until he confirms it, no trade can occur.
If you made the last offer, and he accepted it, it would be up to you to confirm.
The person making the final offer has the last say in the trade to make it official.

If he doesn't come back, then what?
And I'm sorry but you don't just get to make up the rules. You are one of 7, I'm asking for everyone's opinion. And like I said I've made moves knowing this was all but a done deal. I had to get maatta or it would've been finalized the night. Harrison has already gotten off for the night at that point. Then whispers disappeared and it's unclear if he's going to return

If someone disappears in the middle of business, that business obviously can't be concluded.
I'm also not making up rules, that's how it's always been hasn't it?
(You said it yourself, "all but a done deal", is not a done deal.)

I think he should be able to complete the trade. WW offered and Turner accepted. If WW already offered the deal that kinda means he accepted it and it's a done deal.

Here is the chain of events that I have taken into account.

Thursday, Turner inquired on the Toronto page about a possible deal involving Olli Maatta and Jake Gardiner. He (Turner) never made a concrete trade, however, WhisperWhisper did.
After WhisperWhisper made the offer (post #2350), to which they negotiated.
On post #2356, Turner told WhisperWhisper that he might pull the trigger on the deal the next day, to which WhisperWhisper replied with consent to post the trade (post #2357)
On post #2372, WhisperWhisper made a slight change in draft pick(s) involved, to which Turner replied that he was okay for whatever, giving consent to either deal that WhisperWhisper proposed (post #2375)

In my experience with trade negotiations, if you are not completely ready to pull the trigger, on a deal you propose, you should add that the offer is tentative. By not doing that, we can assume that you give consent to a deal. I think that we can reasonably conclude that WhisperWhisper would have confirmed the deal with Turner, if he didn't go AWOL.

My vote is to let the following trade be upheld (2-1)

Olli Maatta
Ville Husso
2018 7th round pick (STL)*


Jake Gardiner
2018 5th round pick (NSH)**

*never specified
**worse of the two (NSH or BOS)

I don't see confirmation from anyone. I just see a bunch of "might" and "maybe", along with unspecified pieces being involved.
That's not a trade. That's a negotiation. It shouldn't be something open to interpretation.

It's an accepted practice that most teams disagreed that. You need to infer that there would have been confirmation. Negotiation ceased on post #2375 by Turner.

I would say if picks had not been specified down to the exact pick switching hands then there is no deal yet.