Yes, it's true. We have 100 members, and only 48 of them have ever actually posted ONCE. So, I was thinking perhaps we should get rid of people who don't post after a certain period of time? Perhaps a month
I'm not sure what the point of that would be... frankly I'd much rather have people sign up and not post than sign up and post crap. perhaps they've not had anything to contribute yet, but I don't think summarily booting non-posters is going to engender much good will in the zombie survival community.
The battle rages but they fight in vain
When all is done it must begin again
-"Freya", the Sword
I lurked myself for a while until I decided
A: whether or not I had anything useful to add
B: the people posting were worth my time and effort to talk to.
Getting rid of someone who hasn't done anything other than express interest in the group seems counter to both the spirit of ZPI and the 'net in general.
I'm going to say this with the realization that I have given this due consideration: No.
It's not worth it for me. Its not worth anything. I am banning people who are stupid, but I don't see ANY REASON to delete inactive accounts, besides, perhaps so their names become available. Still not quite good enough for me.
Yeah, I agree...what if the non-posting members are passive readers? They still have the right to view the knowledge others express, for the sake of becoming more informed. It would also have a negative effect on the number of people who plan to sign up, because of the strict requirement imposed on being a member.
i agree... i was out of commission (if i may use that term), for about three weeks, not able to post because of technical problems... it would be completely rediculous if i was finally able to get back on.. only realizing my account had been deleted, that would suck... so, no... dont delete inactive members.. their not hurting anything, or anyone...
Yes, it's true. We have 100 members, and only 48 of them have ever actually posted ONCE. So, I was thinking perhaps we should get rid of people who don't post after a certain period of time? Perhaps a month
Bury deep, pile on the stones
Yet I will, dig up the bones
I'm not sure what the point of that would be... frankly I'd much rather have people sign up and not post than sign up and post crap. perhaps they've not had anything to contribute yet, but I don't think summarily booting non-posters is going to engender much good will in the zombie survival community.
The battle rages but they fight in vain
When all is done it must begin again
-"Freya", the Sword
Hear Hear!
I'd rather have lurkers than trolls.
I lurked myself for a while until I decided
A: whether or not I had anything useful to add
B: the people posting were worth my time and effort to talk to.
Getting rid of someone who hasn't done anything other than express interest in the group seems counter to both the spirit of ZPI and the 'net in general.
I'm going to say this with the realization that I have given this due consideration: No.
It's not worth it for me. Its not worth anything. I am banning people who are stupid, but I don't see ANY REASON to delete inactive accounts, besides, perhaps so their names become available. Still not quite good enough for me.
All that needs to be said is this: FIRE = BAD
Yeah, I agree...what if the non-posting members are passive readers? They still have the right to view the knowledge others express, for the sake of becoming more informed. It would also have a negative effect on the number of people who plan to sign up, because of the strict requirement imposed on being a member.
Courage is grace under pressure.
i agree... i was out of commission (if i may use that term), for about three weeks, not able to post because of technical problems... it would be completely rediculous if i was finally able to get back on.. only realizing my account had been deleted, that would suck... so, no... dont delete inactive members.. their not hurting anything, or anyone...
Chaos is beautifull