Skipped backwards on TSR CTAM

[pinkteddyx64]

@spotify95 I've just read this on the DS CTAM: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthre ... st77622848 and admittedly I tried insisting on skipping backwards on the count when Mwarpie rule 16bd a lot of missing numbers after somebody skipped forward by nearly a thousand!! But Mwarpie insisted that moving forward was the right way to do it as you'll see on the post below mine.

So why does TSR have to be different in this respect?

[spotify95]

@spotify95 I've just read this on the DS CTAM: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthre ... st77622848 and admittedly I tried insisting on skipping backwards on the count when Mwarpie rule 16bd a lot of missing numbers after somebody skipped forward by nearly a thousand!! But Mwarpie insisted that moving forward was the right way to do it as you'll see on the post below mine.

So why does TSR have to be different in this respect?

That post isn't relevant though because it was made on April of 2015 - over 6 months ago - yet the first serious rule 16b we had to do (w.r.t. TobiasAZT) was only a couple of months ago, if that. So when you made that post, there were no issues with CTAM on TSR.

I did see what Mwarpie said about this matter - however, she doesn't post on TSR so has no say as to what happens on TSR CTAM.

I chose that method as it was the best way of ensuring a continuous count, in the event that deleted posts are not restored. Otherwise it seems like huge chunks of numbers have gone missing for no real reason. I'll speak to the other people on TSR and see what they think about it.