On Deleting Metanet's ZPAs

[Universezero]

1. His or her account has zero posts.
2. He or she has been inactive for at least one full year.

Exactly. Didn't put it in those words, but yes.

[Vyacheslav]

What if someone had a few hundred posts and spontaneously disappeared for, lets say 2 years, then comes back to find his/her posts deleted?

[aids]

What if someone had a few hundred posts and spontaneously disappeared for, lets say 2 years, then comes back to find his/her posts deleted?

The fuck...Am I not making myself clear enough?

1. His or her account has zero posts.
2. He or she has been inactive for at least one full year.

That scenario violates the first requirement. If a member has posts (or at least one post), I see that as reason enough for he or she to not be deleted. Maybe you just don't understand how many ZPAs we have. Scan the member's list and see for yourself.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Dudes:
Benefits. Name any that are worth the trouble of setting this up.

[Kablizzy]

Okay, so I'ma take an hour and go down the list and give you guys some names of who - matching the criteria provided - will be deleted:

• Hidden Monkey Ninja (My "Hidden" Admin Account)
• jtbandes

Right, I'ma stop right there. I'm two members in, and I'm already unwilling to do this.

Also, a vast majority of the active community signed up when the forums first opened at The Real N, and haven't posted much since. Therefore, deleting members who have been inactive for X, where X is any longer than 0 is a bad idea for all parties involved.

Edit: With the exception of Evil_Sire. I say we just delete his account for shits n' giggles.

[Luminaflare]

This is a stupid idea.

I considered some sort of tower posts about this but that sentence sums it up nicely.

[Rhekatou]

Dave would have a few hundred years to login again.

Inevitably.

Anyways, just make a "Regulars" group. That's the most common solution I've seen to this problem; a mod/admin sees they've been "active" for the last x months and puts them in the usergroup. They get a colorful name. Whoopdeshit.

[SlappyMcGee]

Okay, so I'ma take an hour and go down the list and give you guys some names of who - matching the criteria provided - will be deleted:

• Hidden Monkey Ninja (My "Hidden" Admin Account)
• jtbandes

Right, I'ma stop right there. I'm two members in, and I'm already unwilling to do this.

Also, a vast majority of the active community signed up when the forums first opened at The Real N, and haven't posted much since. Therefore, deleting members who have been inactive for X, where X is any longer than 0 is a bad idea for all parties involved.

Edit: With the exception of Evil_Sire. I say we just delete his account for shits n' giggles.

I second deleting jtbandes.

[Heartattack]

Dave would have a few hundred years to login again.

Inevitably.

Anyways, just make a "Regulars" group. That's the most common solution I've seen to this problem; a mod/admin sees they've been "active" for the last x months and puts them in the usergroup. They get a colorful name. Whoopdeshit.

This seems to be the most obvious solution. Takes small amounts of effort, doesn't delete random lurk-fucks, and everyone gets a colorful name. I agree, Whoopdeshit.

[Rhekatou]

Maybe this color.
Say, who did that to my summer account, anyways?

[unoriginal name]

The only thing worthwhile I've picked up from this thread is it's impossible to take anything Blizz says seriously at the moment.

[otters~1]

The only thing worthwhile I've picked up from this thread is it's impossible to take anything Blizz says seriously at the moment.

But I founded a minor religion dedicated to the uplifting of the Hidden Monkey Ninja yesterday! :(

[ska]

Metacide.

Where's the thumbs up button, Anyway? I think killing the ZPAs is utterly pointless. I am for a subgroup of active members though.

[Paradox]

Where does this stand? I think it died

There is currently 1009 members with more than 0 posts & 806 with more than 1 post

You could atleast delete the ones with 0, as they have nothing on the forums for archival state they should be deleted & you could just do a search for the ones with 0 posts that joined in the last 6 months & send an email to them (There's 42 of them) telling them about it

I don't really see a downside to Just deleting the ZPAs & not the inactive ones which all of you seem to have turned this thread into about (You should feel mildly ashamed of yourselves unless you support the deleting only the ZPAs in which case )

[aids]

Well, in case you didn't notice, I've been deleting spambot accounts. So this can be locked.

[Paradox]

You must delete them

[乳头的早餐谷物]

Well, in case you didn't notice, I've been deleting spambot accounts. So this can be locked.

You heard the man. Get to work, slacker.

[otters~1]

Just like to say I enjoyed rereading this silly discussion. I miss them all.

[Rhekatou]

Just like to say I enjoyed rereading this silly discussion. I miss them all.

Also, we all posted in this thread two years ago. How time flies.

[Universezero]

Just like to say I enjoyed rereading this silly discussion. I miss them all.

Also, we all posted in this thread two years ago. How time flies.

Wow. That's kind of scary.
I think a usergroup of active members would be a little silly at the moment though, seeing almost no one is active.

[999_Springs]

Back two years ago when Aidiera created the thread we only had <2000 members of which <1000 had no posts. At the height of the spambot problem about half a year ago I remember we had like 6200 members. Remarkable how fast these forums became a spambot honeypot.

[DaggaFork]

Just like to say I enjoyed rereading this silly discussion. I miss them all.

Also, we all posted in this thread two years ago. How time flies.

Wow. That's kind of scary.
I think a usergroup of active members would be a little silly at the moment though, seeing almost no one is active.

Are you serious? I'm extremely active.