Should BJP loose it's inactive members?

I agree with that. I understand the whole 10 post thing, because I noticed that a user with only 22 posts that joined on '04 logged in again today. But those with zero don't really help.

And like mentioned, it would make the memberlist seem more accurate.

-Seishin

 

Thank you buddy for making a solid case as to why not to be going around willy nilly and deleting users..

Hopefully People take the TIME to read what you posted and realise that deleting users is utterly pointless.

 

hrm ok imma put my two cents in here.

ive been modding here for something close to two years and been a member for 3 1/2. ive seen hundreds of people come and go.

often times ive seen someone join and post maybe 4 times before leaving again... but as i see it, they still are members and if they did come back then they wouldnt want to see their name deleted.

I myself have been gone for about a year now (damn Counter Strike (PRO BABY!!!) and i would be rather disappointed if my account was deleted regardless of whether i had 1600 posts or 6.

i say just leave them.... they're not hurting you and most of the names used are stupid anyway...

 

I don't think we should. I'm one of those people who joined then completely forgot until about a year later. I joined in October 2003 but didn't post until July 2004. Okay so it's not exactly a year but close enough. So I'm against it. If we had this before, I might have not been here, now wouldn't all of you be sad.

 

Ehh, it's not *necessary* per se. It's a way of keeping clutter down, a way of showing the "true" community (although Cloud could activate "Active Members" and it would probably suffice), it *does* clear up space on the database, (if you want I can find out how much), and of course it frees up names.

But it's certainly not vital. It's also not something to oppose like your life depended on it, I think, but whatever.

That's hardly worth bothering with, if you ask me. The point of a prune is to get rid of the users that aren't and never have been a part of the community. Think of it like trimming the dead branches off of a tree.

What do I mean by 'established'? Well that's up to Cloud and BMS.

I don't believe it is possible, although it could potentially be written in. I don't think I'd like to deal with potential bugs in this area, though. 0.0

Let's say they didn't, because 90% of these users had 0, or 1 or 2. Besides that, the prune wouldn't take the posts with the user. If I may call up an example- the user who posted [post=193868]this[/post] post was deleted. All posts made by users who fall under these guidelines would appear similar to that.

If it bugs you that much, taking it down to just users with 0 posts, it's still 1105 users. That's a quarter of BJP that never posted. Ever.

Tell me why these people should stay?

Not to nitpick, but you had almost 90 posts, well over the required limit.

How is it elitist?

Also, if it's going to cause problems, where are the masses of complaints as a result of the last prune?

Anyway, it was a suggestion, I don't understand why those of you who don't like the idea, don't like it, but whatever. As I've been told countless times- It's a forum. It's internet. It's not that important.

 

Yes, keeping the clutter down... The same clutter that almost no one else would have ever know existed if it wasn't brought up. I'm also not sure what's up with all this 'true community representation' ibberish. If they made 50 one line posts 4 years ago, how have they currently contributed to the community today? Your argument falls apart.

What you guys seem to want is an active list of people who are community members TODAY. If that's the case send a petition up to Cloud and ask him for a list that flags people who have posted a certain number of posts in the past year, or any other search criteria you want. Chopping out names in order to derive this means is a backwards way of approaching this problem.

Space on the Database is Cloud's concern, not ours. Let him worry about it. He runs the show here and if it becomes an issue he'll let the rest of us know. Until then, we should butt out of the inner workings of BJP.

A tree is a tree because it's rich and full. If you prune too much off of a tree it wont shade you against the sun anymore. If you prune to little, you're just wasting your time. Either way you wouldn't go out and spend all the time pruning your trees unless it had a good, solid purpose behind it, unless it really needed it. That is not the case here. All I see here are a few people hawking an idea to cut out old members (Keyword being: "Members").

If my plan for current members overwriting old names that probably wont miss them on a case by case basis is "Hardly worth bothering with" then why the hell are you even bringing up the issue about freeing up names in the Database in the first place?! You're idea is akin to a chainsaw doing the work of pruning shears- all you'll have left is a butchered mess.

If it's not a problem then it shouldn't be an issue. I've posted up reasonable alternatives that will give you characters what you want while preventing the unneeded removal of people and names you carelessly want to deny ever existed. But if they're "Hardly worth bothering with" with no explanation why, then why don't you just come out and say "It's not about freeing up names, or database space or anything- We just want these names removed simply because." At least then you'd be honest to us and 90% of this useless arguing would come to an end.

You guys are looking for reasons NOT to keep these names when it should be the other way around. Like it or not these people, at one point in time, were MEMBERS of BJP (or M2A). It doesn't matter if they posted one post or one thousand posts, they were still members of our community who helped build and create what we have today. I'm not disillusioned into believing that someday they'll be back, but at the same time I'm not going to spit on their contributions to BJP as a whole.

If we're going to trim the tress, we should do it one branch at a time and with GOOD REASON. Active members should always have priority and if they wish to have a name that was previously used by a currently inactive member (either because they posted twice and vanished or because they SAID they were leaving for good) then they should be able to take that name as a such privilege.

One branch at a time. Case by case.

~W

 

Let's go with my idea for a second here. That means people who haven't logged on in 6 months and have made 0 posts will be gotten rid of. That means they haven't contributed to our forum in anyway but simply being registered. We won't be loosing anything by getting rid of them. But we'll be cutting off dead weight from the database and freeing up names for new posters(I've seen some cases where people don't register for a forum at all because all of the names they wanted were taken). We'd be freeing up the room that over 1000 people take just by getting rid of people with no posts and haven't logged on in 6 months.

 

And thats just them. Personally people over 200 posts would be heartbroken if they came back in a year and the account was gone. (mainly how i would feel). But If we got rid of some of the minor ppl that contribute maybe one post a year, or have been inative for over two, that would help alot.

 

They've contributed to history. The people I'm referring to pruning out are those who have contributed nothing, or very, very little, ever.

What I want is not your concern, but that is one of several reasons.

Well, excuse me for bringing up an idea, it's been done before with no complaint, people (at the time) liked the idea, so I assumed it would be a good idea to try again.

http://www.boards.jp/forums/member.php?u=5572
Valued member, or no?
http://www.boards.jp/forums/member.php?u=3666
Valued member, or no?
http://www.boards.jp/forums/member.php?u=5559
How about this character? Valued member, or no?

See the pattern? These are people who have done nothing for BJP. These are people who have not been, and thus do not need to be, on BJP. They've done nothing for us, they've never contributed positively.

I would hesitate to call them "members" simply because they've done nothing to participate.

Because your plan involves a lot of unnecessary coding and a lot of work- and frankly I wouldn't like to see what kind of bugs could result. If you want to go and code that up yourself and send it to Cloud, be my guest, but I guarantee he's not going to take the time to do it when he can achieve (more or less) the same result with a 10 second script.

I don't see how my idea is "akin to a chainsaw," because it is limited to those that have not done anything since registering. In essence, dead weight. Dead branches of that tree that need to be pruned off.

No, you haven't. You posted an unfeasable idea that you think will "satisfy the ravenous monsters." Your idea is simply too much work for not enough gain.

You talk of spitting on these people's contributions. I ask, what contributions? Let's have it your way then, and delete only those with 0 posts. What contributions have these people made to BJP?

Not a one. Not one post, for over 1100 people. Not one single contribution.

Wert, did you read the other thread? I'm going to quote a few key posts from it.

Re-doing some of these stats, those numbers are now:

3356 who have not posted since January 1st, 2006. (Granted this is only a month and a half...)

3166 who have not posted in six months.

2859 have not posted in one year.

1219 of these have not posted since registering.

1104 of those have been registered for 6 months or more.

895 of these have been registered for one year.

With that said, I'm done with this thread. I think it's a good idea to at least remove the users who have never posted, but I'm not going to argue this further with you. Lord only knows why these people, who've joined and never done anything, are so important to you.

Edit: For the record, I suggested pruning those with less than 10 posts primarily because that's what was done before.

 

The only reason ppl were deleted before was because of one thing.. what that is I will not mention.. Why because it will stir up a can of worms..

And still NOT a single one of you has posted a VALID reason to even delete this names.. Taking up space.. if SPACE was an issue then cloud would be deleting lots of people.. LIKE whats the problems.. DO these members Jump out at you everytime you join and say.. LOOK AT ME I DONT POST..

Stop crying about this.. they are not Hurting anything

 

I'm going to start by asking you a question.

Kamekazi, do you wish to improve BJP?

For time's sake, I'm going to assume you would say yes.

It doesn't seem like you do to me. Because by opposing the deletion of users that have not logged on in a long time and have never posted or contributed to BJP's history, you are against improving BJP.

By deleting the inactive users, we clear up room on the database. It's not necessary, but it improves BJP. We also allow more room for new, potentially great members to join. Again, not necessary, but improves BJP.

Why would a person liked and honored as much as you want to be against the improvement of the very community that likes and honors you? Why would anyone be against the improvement of a community that they willingly join and take part in?

I'm all for the improvement of BJP, and I see this as an improvement so I will support it.

 

cant remember if i posted in this thread already and i cant be bothered checking but, yeah lose inactive, I'd say delete em if they haven't posted in a space of like 3 weeks. (if any spelling mistakes it's cos these college computer keyboards suk ass)

 

And then we have...

We've already come up with an alternative to those lost names being replaced by more recent ones, but if they're 'hardly worth bothering with' I wont even bother mentioning them again.

The whole point is you want to 'improve' something that doesn't need improvment by taking it to the extreme. No one has brought up a valid reason why they absolutely need to go. You've been beating around the bush this entire time. You guys tell us 'it's not really that necessary, we don't need to do it', and then you light the rest of us up because we're opposed.

Remember Cloud has final say, and if it's a non-issue with him then there's no reason to kill our past members for no reason other than 'It would be nice'. Unless Cloud comes down and says 'We need to remove these names' then there's no real reason anywhere why we should crop them.

Scratching a nervous itch for no reason does not improve anything. The health of BJP is fine. I'm surprised this thread is still open because all its done is inflamed everyone (though we haven't had a healthy debate like this in a long time).

Doesn't it give you the least bit of pride to go back and see "Hey, look at all these people who have wanted to be part of OUR community? Look at all these people who wanted to be part of THESE boards." Even if they didn't post anything, they wanted to be a part of this community- That's why they signed up. Doesn't it make you smile that over three thousand, five hundred people wanted to be one of us? It's a testament to BJP & M2A. It's a testament to ourselves for molding this community into what it has become.

~W

:Edit: I lied. That three grand was the '#' section alone. The final number is even larger.