First: Apologies if this is being discussed in another thread already, it escaped me so far.

I have not an opinion of my own, but seeing how a huge part of the accounts on the old board were only nominal accounts with zero posts, what are we going to do with such nominal members?

I know quite a few forums where you get deleted after half a year of existing as a nominal member with zero posts. In one case, it wasn't six months, but one. They emailed people before they deleted their accounts, though. I remember one where registering was tied to posting at least once.

What should we do? Should we do anything at all? To prevent someone from registering nominally to be able to partake in votes, for example?

"Hoher Sinn liegt oft im kindischen Spiel." (Friedrich Schiller)

To carry this to its logical extreme, does this mean that someone should have to make a minimum number of posts before they are eligible to vote?

Is there much difference between someone posting zero posts, and someone posting a few times with questions about Discworld novels, then not posting anymore when there questions are answered?

edit: I don't think you should have to post to be registered. I don't think we should discourage lurking. One of the problems we had on the old board was that people posted immediately, without doing any lurking, so that they posted without having learned how to fit in with the community, and then got angry when their posts were criticized. I would rather that people be encouraged to lurk without posting for as long as they want.

Cat Clash

you don't have to register to lurk, though, do you?

"If I wanted to read Wuthering Heights, I'd shoot my self."

[quote:2d86b33520="Garner"]you don't have to register to lurk, though, do you?[/quote:2d86b33520]

Some boards you do. Its a total pain in the cods but thats how its been set up.

I think an account with no posts after 6 months is pretty safe to delete (with warning) cos if your not going to post in tat time you'll probably forget your login details and have to set up a new account anyway...

PhD Student: Research information sheet

There once was a man named Bruce
Who liked to sit on a spruce
He ate lots of chowder
And yelled at me louder:
"I'm talking to YOU, Mrs. Hughes!"
--> The Literary Genius: Mowgli

*Nods* If they haven't posted in six months, they probably aren't going to. Just delete the account. If they want, they can reregister. It frees up the name for someone else to use.

I think if you send a PM after 6 months or so, then give them a fortnight to reply to it. If they don't, then it's probably wise to delete it.

We should put this somewhere in the FAQ so that anyone planning on staying long without posting will be warned.

(Playing blind Pictionary, me drawing)
Ella: Is it a giraffe?
Me (stops drawing): No
Ella: Star Trek?
Me: Yes!

I agree that it should be put in the FAQ. I think a PM warning would be courteous, but I'm not sure that it's necessary - at any rate, I think it warrants only one week's delay.

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

I think one week is too much. clearly, after six months, we should send them a pm and then give them another six months to read that!

"If I wanted to read Wuthering Heights, I'd shoot my self."

I think 6 months is too long. If no-one has posted after 3 months, there probably not going to ever bother. I say after 3 months send them an e-mail (not PM) saying there account as been made inactive. The only problem I have with this is that who can be arsed going through the list every 3 months (went we get bigger it will be more often) e-mailing and deteling accounts.
If mal is the only one who can delete accounts it's alot of work for him. An unfair about of work.

it's possible this could be automated a bit, but we should definately wait six months before sending them a PM, and to take what rinso's said on board, that PM can notify them that in three months we'll send out an email and three months after that email maybe we can delete their account if they haven't come round for tea and scones yet

"If I wanted to read Wuthering Heights, I'd shoot my self."

I wouldn't mind doing the job of trawling through the accounts and sending the PMs, keeping track of it etc. It doesn't seem that difficult to me.

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

That's quite a good idea actually.

edit: that was to Garner, not the crossposting fiend (aka Grace)

(Playing blind Pictionary, me drawing)
Ella: Is it a giraffe?
Me (stops drawing): No
Ella: Star Trek?
Me: Yes!

I'm not sure about this; I know of three people on here that haven't posted anything, haven't voted on anything, but still read the stories and play the games. One of them has Discworld books that his dad reads but hasn't gotten around to reading them yet and feels that he's not qualified to post anything, but he still want to be a member in case we want to send him updates and stuff. We might even have a newsletter in the future? I've had a few inquiries in the past on Maljonic's Dreams from people who say they read the message boards but haven't posted anything and wonder if we send out newsletters.

I've been wondering about people we don't know affecting votes for important things like bannings and thought that maybe we ought to do that the old fashioned way, out in the open yay of nay style, so it can't be tampered with.

Dragon's Kingdom - Stop typing "alot" when you mean "a lot"! - Disappointed

That would be the point of the PM, Mal. They could send one back saying, "Please don't delete my account, I lurk!" And we'd go, "Oh, OK, that's all right then!"

Mrs G
The Garner who cares.

Why not, if possible, just deactivate there accounts, so they can lurk, but not post, maybe sending them a PM saying if you want to post just email. That way, any trolls can't mess us about, but lurkers can lurk til thier hearts are content.