indeed Ralphis<br /><br />Just to add another point or line of thinking, what about the players who are &#039;inactive&#039; because they disagree with the rules or something of that nature? They are inactive yet have an opinion and would probably be active if there opinion was met at some middle ground somewhere. Not to relate to politics again but lets say we have a group of players that are democrats and another that are republicans and one side chooses to in-act certain rules because they are currently in power but the other side doesn&#039;t agree, should those players be shunned out and the IDL just try to recruit more players?<br /><br />Just a thought, personally I like the IDL and as time permits I hope to play this winter but at the same time the IDL administration shouldn&#039;t be afraid to employ new faces and or add some diversity. I know thats hard to address because of player activeness. As the IDL moves forward I think it would be a good thing to at the least petition some known players who might have some good insight on gameplay, rules, and governing of those rules within the league. Its highly possibly that some ppl identified wouldn&#039;t last or be capable of hold such a position but they would probably have a new respect for the amount of work it takes to run this league. <br /><br />---as I was rereading the post I thought about a rolling turnover plan whereas a player meets x criteria and is allowed to run for a position on the board. This way you have constant new faces etc... although I guess you would always need someone else that is always present to check the productivity and make sure shit is moving forward..just another random thought 