Candeleena, thanks for passing on the information. I also support the motion to ban Jaguar.

It's pretty amusing that they've had to wait a whole year for an argument to blow up.

Well it's ip is banned and username is disabled now anyway, can't see anyone asking to let it off or, 'Can't we give it a second chance?'

P.S. It was a UK ip address by the way, so it does still fit the usual MO.

mal, would it be possible to set up some sort of script to terminate or at least suspend the accounts of people who never post?

we were discussing this today on the mailing thread and came up with some ideas, but i'd like to know if it's even feasible before we propose any details

I think we talked about this ages ago and felt it wasn't needed. Anyway, everytime you add something like this, which would require an extra modification, it just creates more things to go wrong. User data is a pretty critical area so it might be a bit scary relying on a mod someone's come up with to just delete a few non-posting users?

See what I mean in this topic: http://www.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=298724

It looks really easy going by the first couple of posts, but quickly seems to turn a little more complicated than they thought. Also that's just PHPBB, where this site is PHPNuke with PHPBB integrated inside it, which makes it even more complex.

P.S. If this is related to Jaguar remember that they did make two posts, so it wouldn't have got rid of them.

if I can be of assistance...
I'm running a phpBB board at my school, and have for some time been the target of porn ad attacks from Russia. Because I am too illiterate to install any security measures (like tricky jumping passwords on grey background a machine can't read - I saw that on some forums) I have taken to checking my memberlist almost daily, and removing any newcomers that don't look like humans (to my skillful eye the newcomer today is a robot who will post a 'penis enlargement' ad one day). While doing this, I manually remove any members who haven't posted within the last month. For them it's not a problem, as they can register again under the same name.
Here you've got about 270 non-posting members which can be a problem... But if you remove, say, 5 a day there's a chance to get rid of them before the end of the century.

edit: added the bit about today's newcomer

[quote:f37f8fb53e="Maljonic"]
P.S. If this is related to Jaguar remember that they did make two posts, so it wouldn't have got rid of them.[/quote:f37f8fb53e]

Yes. Once people realise that thse who don't post get their memberships deleted, it isn't too difficult for them to come up with non-controversial, inoffensive posts once in a while to fulfill the posting quota.

[quote:2ff0a7dc52="Marcia"][quote:2ff0a7dc52="Maljonic"]
P.S. If this is related to Jaguar remember that they did make two
posts, so it wouldn't have got rid of them.[/quote:2ff0a7dc52]
Yes. Once people realise that those who don't post get their
memberships deleted, it isn't too difficult for them to come up with
non-controversial, inoffensive posts once in a while to fulfill the
posting quota.[/quote:2ff0a7dc52]

OK, Marcia - but what about those of us for whom controversial and
offensive posts are a way of life?

Seriously, though - I am a bit dubious about deleting people for not
posting - there is a lot to be said for the principle of "If you don't
have anything to say, then don't say anything" - there is no reason
why people should not join, enjoy reading the posts, but only chip in
when they they have a point to make or a query to be answered.

In terms of reducing "clutter" (i.e. departed members) on the board,
this is a question for Mal - does the software keep a record of logins
as well as posts? Deleting members who have not logged in for a long
time might be a better way of tidying things up - but with a rather
longer threshold time than a month or so.

There is also the fact that anyone joining to make trouble will be
likely to be making posts, as Mal pointed out, so any solution along
these lines is going to be tidying-up rather than anti-troll

I'd like to put my 2 cents in. I don't post much, unless I have something to say, but as Pixel said, I do like to read the board and would hate to be deleted for not posting. Also, when I moved, I didn't have internet access for almost two months, and as far as I know, I'm not the only one who went through a lenghtly absence.
So I can only agree with Pixel. Maybe deleting people who haven't logged in for, say, 6 or more months would be acceptable. Also trolls. I left the old board because toward the end it really got ugly and would hate to see the same happen here.

On that note, thank you Brad for telling me about this place.

what i'd suggested in the email list was the possibility of a 'maintainance' level of posts.

something along the lines of, if you've made X number of posts, then you're never going to be terminated.

if you've made at least one, but less than X, then after a certain period of inactivity, you'd get a PM or email to warn you of impending deletion or at least ask if you didn't mind. no response, or a response of 'fine, i don't visit the site anymore' could equal deletion or just suspension or i dunno what.

however, the idea isn't perfect. as has been pointed out, some folks like to just read the boards and aren't secretly part of some cabal plotting our downfall. and, sadly, if there's a timer or maintainance level, i'm sure members of that cabal could indeed fluff up their post count with bland but inoffensive things to qualify.

anyway, it was just an idea.

Hm, I managed to miss this somehow.

Man, I can't believe people are still going on about the dick sucking question that never was.

Anyway, yeah, no qualms about banning him. It's also a pity the harper collins people are so utterly inpet and blind to problems on their boards.

I would be tempted to contact them none the less, just to see what would happn

[quote:2d68c18425="Orrdos"].......................Man, I can't believe people are still going on about the dick sucking question that never was.....................[/quote:2d68c18425]

Some people will use anything they can think of to try to slag off this board - but in this case the words "barrel", "bottom" and "scraping" spring to mind!

Well, certainly "bottom".

I am not much of a frequent poster here, being a victim of dial up at home, and over eager bosses at work, but I try to contribute when I feel I have something intelligent to add to a conversation. (well I try anyways) I wouldn’t object to the minimum amount of posts, however would that really stop a troll? If we let people know what the amount of posts are required to keep your account active, they could still skim by.
Honestly, I think you guys (and I say "you" cause I feel I have not earned the right to vote, not being a member for very long and certainly not an active poster) are better off banning as they appear, then deleting their offensive comments afterwards.

I cannot believe that someone is [i:afb7d1dfb2]still[/i:afb7d1dfb2] trying to start crap though! *shaking my head* I pity those poor people who dont have anymore to thier sad little lives than trying to spread hate and discontent. What a waste of skin.
Any idea of who it may be? Just curious. I have a full tank of gas and a Forensics specialist who is a good friend.

I agree the minimum posting thing may not be able to deter trolls, but where it would help is in cases such as the spam bots that we had infecting the story comments.

We can always make the filter not apply to certain people, those who have made loads of posts or those we know and trust but can't get on the net much.

As someone whose computer brakes down on a semi-regular basis, I am against deleting acounts solely for inactivity. Hell, I get pissed of when the cookie from this site expires and I have to log back in.