142 replies to this topic

[Irenë Hawnetyne]

Mmmm... I agree. I'll ask Phil later if he doesn't see this.

[DIGI_Byte]

Ppl that refuse to validate their email should be banned after 30 days.

You all know Ruels_Ini_Fixer and how he spammed everything he could get his hands on lying about everything.

 

Just keeps the forum tidy

 

Or just not let them post until they validate their email. Even better

 

I'm inclined to go with the second, but its a sacrifice in convenience.

 

Spoiler

I would say give them 48 hours to activate their emails until then, they can post during this waiting period. but if they fail to verify the account is deleted (along with associated posts?)

they should be able to create threads too, a lot of people want to make a post for help often, even if the topic already exists.

 

the idea behind it is we want to welcome people, not scare them away with troublesome setup proceedures

and if it comes at a price of some people not smart enough to google, then its ok

on the other hand, verifying emails before posting is a standard these days. and it might be easier to have this as a golden gun solution.

 

I'm totally cool with both options, the first is probably more painful to setup and deal with.

 

 

so ya, Conclusion: Just don't let them post until they validate their email

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

I say more Radspakr is what Revora needs so everyone should chip in on my cloning machine.

[Pasidon]

Rad, this is a very serious topic and it would be very much appreciated if you treated it as such.

[DIGI_Byte]

he's a professional, he knows what he's doing.

[Pasidon]

True.  I take everything I said back.

[Phil]

I agree with the change; let people validate their e-mail before they post. That also means people who don't validate it get removed after 14 days. The pruning never went into effect for those who had already posted.

[SPeeDMoMh]

Thanks Pill, you are verified all members's email..

[Irenë Hawnetyne]

Sorry?

[Elric]

Havent posted in awhile. But this is something i was thinking of for awhile and not sure if its completely possible.

 

is it at all possible to remove users that have 0 posts and havent been active for say 3-5 years? if so then that might be done thus allowing users to have a wider verity of forum/user names to choose from. 

[DIGI_Byte]

1 year would be enough of a line for 0 posters...

 

cleaning

[Irenë Hawnetyne]

Suggested last year, along with storing of dead topics. Was revoked. Still interested. Phil?

[Irenë Hawnetyne]

Please, please, please can I do it?

[DIGI_Byte]

I approve of the first, I don't agree with the second. cleaning the forums is one thing and topics should be sorted and cleaned if its necessary.

it comes down to how would these threads be filtered?

Relying on a system to filter and delete/archive threads is a bit to strong, that issue should be managed on a thread to thread basis as we always have been.

its why we have moderators.

[Irenë Hawnetyne]

The idea was to get rid of old, unanswered topics which have sat there dead for a long time.

[DIGI_Byte]

but there could be unforeseen consequences such as notification posts or posts with tutorials, references or simple rules. it may not be active content but somewhere that could cause some unnecessary pain

 

you could always do a dump and burn on the spam section, delete all threads except for the major ones like avatar above yours and other popular ones.
after that, moving to help requests and similar but this is where you hit grey territory as you could delete a guide which someone might need

but on the other hand, do we really have anything helpful like that, that google can't provide these days?

 

it comes down to picking the right places and deleting dead threads, even if they have replies.

maybe delete threads that haven't been viewed in 2+ years?

 

its a tough call, it would on one hand revitalize and give a fresh feel to the forums and clear it up, but on the other do we want to clean out all the dusty closets because there might be useful things there?

if its done right, I'd approve, we do want to live in the future, and there's no sense in living in the past, but there are helpful things out there like tutorials that I'm concerned about losing for CnC or BFME and others that maybe affected by it.

[Elric]

I agree with Digi, I think it would be a bit of a tough decision but if done correctly could be fantastic. What about topics that were posted but have 0 replies + have not been viewed in 2-3+ years? add 2 filters? and then if you really want to clear up more do another separate clearing out things with replies from say 3-4+ years ago.. 

[DIGI_Byte]

any thread that hasn't been viewed in 2 years is probably safe to ditch as long as it doesn't interfere with the tutorials and resource sections ie modding tools,

shouldn't matter how many posts it had. archived threads should be skipped/protected for archive purposes and as for views, we can ignore guests and web-bot crawlers

 

Active users is what we want to worry about, not if dogpile or AOL's search engine crawled over our dusty threads

[Irenë Hawnetyne]

Abandoning thread clearing, we need to kill all the dead accounts. 

[Hostile]

There is only 2 reasons you would kill anything on a server...

 

1) affecting server performance

2) running out of allotted memory

 

Other than that why kill anything? Why create more work for the server staff if it doesn't benefit much and may only cause problems?