Re: Taking a step back.

by Judge ZYellowFlash Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:45 am

Transformice-Addicting flash game. Sounds like AE cept worse.

by Peregrine Wed Sep 01, 2010 5:46 pm

It was simply a comparison there. Genes, while completely unrelated, are a good comparison to our current situation - Noone is posting, noone is active. They need a stern wag of the finger, followed by ACTION to make them active. Secondarily, we can use it for advertising. I clarify my record of improving TR once more. However...proteins, which do the operational functions of the body, were more of what I was thinking of. Think of it as improving TR's metaphorical "DNA," which contains the information for producing proteins.

How is that a good analogy? You're saying when genes aren't posting, genes aren't active? What the blazes is that supposed to mean? Furthermore, no one needs a talking down to followed by repercussions to make them active. Why? When you join a forum, you have the right to decide whether or not you want to post. It's not a responsibility, nor is it a requirement to post. On a forum, you can leave whenever you wish, post whenever you wish, and be inactive for as long as you want without being punished. We can use the fact that we punish inactive members for advertising? How about we make this our advertising slogan then: "Join TR - Be hassled by a bunch of pricks until they finally decide to delete your account."

I agree that the historical topics should be preserved. However, the spam and other such rule-violating topics should be deleted. It isn't fair to just gain posts from such activities.

It's fair because those rule breaking topics are there as a reminder to you and everyone else of your horrible sins. If you break too many rules, you get banned. Your post count doesn't matter much once you're banned, si?

by Jason Wed Sep 01, 2010 6:07 pm

So basically no posting in the games? e.e

by Guest Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:23 pm

Why would we delete/stop posting in an active area?

by 5secondchaos Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:27 pm

Thats why I said Vamp can put it across nicely to them. Something like 'Also we have a small requirement, 5 post's a week to decrease inactivity figures. And if you can't post please post on the Inactivity thread?'

by **Darre** Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:38 pm

Is it just me or over the course of this conversational topic about being more active we have gotten more active with no help. If people see that it is inactive and we slump they subconsciously want to post more.

by 5secondchaos Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:28 am

No, just the same people that have always posted on the forums have started posting more. So if that is classed as active, yes, we have decreased inactivity figures. Or, in Jasons case, spam until I get the highest post count. >x3

by Snukems Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:18 am

It's fair because those rule breaking topics are there as a reminder to you and everyone else of your horrible sins. If you break too many rules, you get banned. Your post count doesn't matter much once you're banned, si? [/quote]
I was referring to proteins moreover than genes if you read the last post where I said I had the wrong organic molecule, thank you very much. Also, I'm saying that if you're inactive for like two years and you've never made a single post, you're out. How about we just settle this and delete everyone whose account is three months old or older who hasn't made five posts, with the warning and option to post saying you wish to not be deleted, aswell as reregistration rights, of course. Regardless, be hassled? One little post and you don't need to be deleted? Come now, TR has been up nearly two years now - It's time for a change for the ever-changing foruming and AQW clanning arena - Let's delete the inactives!

They may be; but wouldn't one example per rule, with the exception of spam, which could have up to 10 needed, be sufficient? Afterall, they SHOULD all be merged into one topic, aswell. Also, post count doesn't matter when you're banned, but bans should also be handled through deletion of the user's account or just preserving the account if there is a proper reason (I.e., chance of unban, temporarily banned). In any case, in regards to this, only a select few examples should stay, and should remain in their own area/topic in rules. However, almost all spam here is topics, so the replies will have to go.

(At Peregrine's post)

Also, as for games, just make those posts not go towards post count, and it'll be fine.

by SSJ4 Gohan Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:23 am

Deleting Accounts,I'd say no.

I'd send a reminder email to EVERY ACCOUNT so they can remember(If they forgot) that there part of TR..

After that,If they don't return to TR, delete there accounts OR send a last warning of they account deletion.

~GoHan

by 5secondchaos Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:58 am

SSJ4 Gohan wrote:Deleting Accounts,I'd say no.

I'd send a reminder email to EVERY ACCOUNT so they can remember(If they forgot) that there part of TR..

After that,If they don't return to TR, delete there accounts OR send a last warning of they account deletion.

~GoHan

Sound good with the e-mail. But, what if they have set up a different e-mail system and no longer use or check thier e-mails on that account. Also, as many people have tried to make clear on this topic, what is deleting accounts going to achieve?

by Snukems Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:15 am

I believe I will continue my email-warning deletion argument by using statistics myself.

Member-Post ratio is significant.

by Peregrine Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:35 am

I'm saying that if you're inactive for like two years and you've never made a single post, you're out.

And I'm saying kicking people out when we could instead be reaching out to them is stupid.

How about we just settle this and delete everyone whose account is three months old or older who hasn't made five posts, with the warning and option to post saying you wish to not be deleted, aswell as reregistration rights, of course.

How about we just settle this and you accept that TR will never threaten its members with account deletion for inactivity.

Regardless, be hassled? One little post and you don't need to be deleted?

No one wants to wake up, check their email, and find this: "Post on this forum now or there will be repercussions. This is your only warning."

Come now, TR has been up nearly two years now - It's time for a change for the ever-changing foruming and AQW clanning arena

Ever-changing? We're talking about the same two things, right?

Let's delete the inactives!

I find it amusing how you've stopped making any actual points, but instead are just trying to use charisma to persuade people that your way is the right way.

They may be; but wouldn't one example per rule, with the exception of spam, which could have up to 10 needed, be sufficient?

TR doesn't delete stuff. It's been stated multiple times by admins. We don't gain anything from deleting stuff. Those people posted. It's done. It's over with. We want to increase activity. We want to encourage posting. We don't want to delete posts once they're made.

Afterall, they SHOULD all be merged into one topic, aswell.

Why should we need to merge a bunch of topics into one big topic? What they should be is left alone.

Also, post count doesn't matter when you're banned, but bans should also be handled through deletion of the user's account

Right, that's a great way to keep people out. Give them an opportunity to re-register their account with the same name even.

Also, as for games, just make those posts not go towards post count, and it'll be fine.

We may as well delete the whole forum games forum then, because there's no other reason to post in forum games.

You know what I find amusing about your stance? You want to delete about a third of the forum's posts for not being good enough, and at the same time you want to delete everyone without X posts. Wouldn't dropping everyone's post counts like that and mass purging accounts that don't meet your expectations of activity result in, I don't know, a lot more accounts being deleted than the intended vector?

After that,If they don't return to TR, delete there accounts OR send a last warning of they account deletion.

Didn't you just say a sentence ago that you disapproved of deleting accounts?

by Snukems Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:34 am

I said we should try getting them to come back and make at least one post, and if they didn't, a delete hammer would be coming down, and they would still be able to register again.

>Implying noone agrees with me.

...Is it seriously as dramatizing as you make it sound? I don't think so.

And yeah Pere, the forum world out there changes alot in matters of only weeks beyond what you would think, these days. In AQW's clan world, pretty much all the clans are dying, many reforming radically to meet the needs of the future.

I like how you make everything have a ridiculous context. It really helps your debating.

As for the no deleting posts, doesn't that sound a bit, I don't know, like a stat-raising scheme? Afterall, the only more blatant one I've seen was this unnamed individual on an unnamed site where he had coincidentally gained 8000 posts a day sometimes, while the site itself was in reality dead, and in fact I theorize he just spammed a personal area, as I had staff forum access.

Fine, don't merge them. But it would be easier for those with dial-up connections to just view one page and not a million and ninety nine.

Doesn't this board have ability to prohibit usernames? Besides, if they used the same username, wouldn't they be easier to catch? Aswell, you make absolutely no sense in this post; or rather, segment, as, unlike ZB, FM will log out any banned user upon entrance to the site.

I thought half of TR's posts were in the archives, actually. That's why I moved to just the spam ones and other such rule-violators.

Onto your forum games statement, despite it being before the one I targeted immediately prior to this, aren't forum games meant for the users who are playing games to have fun, not simply abuse for posts?

EDIT: Wait I meant the chromosome genes that contain DNA that produces protein. You made it sound otherwise LOL.

by Wixmagic Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:12 am

TR doesn't need radically changing, it's always had dips in activity, due to problems and school and such eating up time, it's nothing new, and a mass purge would most certainly not increase activity. It's just a cycle, people leave and then the spaces are filled in by new members. So yeah, deleting stuff will NEVER make TR more active. EVER. And...umm...listen to Pere because everything he said was true and <insert something of relevant importance here>

by Snukems Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:14 am

Surely spam could discourage both new members and old members from posting. Of course, inactive accounts, though different, can have a similar effect.

by Wixmagic Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:26 am

No, where did you get that idea from? Inactive accounts do nothing, literally nothing, no effect on anything what-so-ever.

by Snukems Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:15 am

The effect I'm describing is indeed similar - It occurs quite frequently, in fact.

If you have a majority of the members inactive, which is nearly guaranteed from the beginning, unless you delete inactive members, they will spread by both discouragement and encouragement.

People who haven't registered yet look down upon it in many cases, and some people think it to be good or a waste of time to post after registration due to the inactives being so inactive. In addition to this, you have those who believe joining large sites and clans in particular to make them look cool so they brag about it to their friends. Thus I conclude we must, with adequate warning, delete inactive members.

by Caeel Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:33 am

On the topic of inactive accounts:

Forumotion has a limit to the number of people you can have on a single forum. However it is so high that if we ever reached it we would have to be in so many games that the information our brains can hold would prevent us from keeping track of them (or something like that, even if everyone who plays AQW regularly joins we wouldn't have a problem... at all). And even if we did we can either delete inactive accounts, or we can start a new forum and the people who actually come to the site would see we had a new place and would move over there, eliminating the need to delete a bunch of accounts (in a sense). :)

On the topic of spam (you might call this off topic):

Did you know I have the record for the most number of posts in a single day on TR at 230. Let's see if I can break that record in the near future.

by **Juliana** Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:34 am

Here's the scoop as I see it.

TR has always had its active and inactive times, and its active and inactive members. One of the things I love MOST about it is that nobody's account is ever deleted by the staff. This makes possible such stories as mine: I joined the second day of the clan, hung around for a short time despite feeling awkward and out of place, then essentially went inactive for a few months.

Then came Merry Maids of Pwnzor. Winnie insisted that I read it, then more or less coerced me into getting into the RP forum...

I have never yet regretted the fact that I got truly involved with The Regulars as a result.

I know that a lot of the greats we all know and love have done similarly--anyone remember when "CharonTheShadow" first came back after his long absence? Because of the non-deletion culture among the staff, this sort of thing is possible. Deleting inactive accounts will likely cost us in the long run, because there is always quite a chance that we can get those members back.

Also, y'know what? Activity on this site is going back UP. It does that, because as Wix pointed out we've always had our ups and downs. Remember when the reputation system first came out on AQW? For a solid week after that, almost nobody posted on TR because everyone was out there repping. I believe Peregrine's got a handle on how things really are.

One last thing: we started out as The Regulars, a little group of eccentric friends who regularly got together to have fun. That's what this place is really about at heart, and it's when we forget that that we're in for trouble.

by Caeel Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:36 am

Juliana wrote:Here's the scoop as I see it.

TR has always had its active and inactive times, and its active and inactive members. One of the things I love MOST about it is that nobody's account is ever deleted by the staff. This makes possible such stories as mine: I joined the second day of the clan, hung around for a short time despite feeling awkward and out of place, then essentially went inactive for a few months.

Then came Merry Maids of Pwnzor. Winnie insisted that I read it, then more or less coerced me into getting into the RP forum...

I have never yet regretted the fact that I got truly involved with The Regulars as a result.

I know that a lot of the greats we all know and love have done similarly--anyone remember when "CharonTheShadow" first came back after his long absence? Because of the non-deletion culture among the staff, this sort of thing is possible. Deleting inactive accounts will likely cost us in the long run, because there is always quite a chance that we can get those members back.

Also, y'know what? Activity on this site is going back UP. It does that, because as Wix pointed out we've always had our ups and downs. Remember when the reputation system first came out on AQW? For a solid week after that, almost nobody posted on TR because everyone was out there repping. I believe Peregrine's got a handle on how things really are.

One last thing: we started out as The Regulars, a little group of eccentric friends who regularly got together to have fun. That's what this place is really about at heart, and it's when we forget that that we're in for trouble.

Thank you Juliana, I have a similar story. I have been on extended leave twice now and will probably end up doing it again at some point. Yet I have come back every time so far. And I haven't had to make a new account every time either.

by Snukems Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:22 am

I like how you imply I'm saying that adequate warning would have guaranteed your deletion due to a deletion in the future if you didn't comply.

Besides, what are the real chances of something like that happening much anymore at this point? I mean really, you were an original TR member almost, so you had a very high chance of return. However, if I were to take anyone who joins TR for bragging about it, and who never posts, their chance of activity is near zero. Also, this is two years of bulk members who've done nothing, not nice stories like yours. Nearly zero for all of them. Aswell, Juliana, activity is only going back up due to the well-known among the admin community: The Return Effect, the Admin Effect, and the Crisis Tactic.

The Return Effect would simply be an overjoy that partially (~10-30%) canceled out the Admin Effect that started the inactivity but made a permanent dent in activity.

The Admin Effect would be part of the inactivity, and caused by lack of leadership. Aka Vamp was missing for something so everyone went kinda inactive.

However, the Return Effect is very minuscule compared to the power of the Crisis Tactic: What is it, you ask? To put it quite simply, a last-ditch effort by an admin of a dying and very large forum; he posts an inactivity announcement, everyone panics and becomes active for a period of time. For TR, this has been rather long, due to the large community of actives returning; however, this will not last forever. One must learn how to examine the traits of the forums and how the society thinks to understand the forums and how to figure out solutions. True, many times I will fall short on small forums (And I mean I fall short quite a bit...), but to understand these is to begin to understand the specific problems of a larger community such as TR is quite different, and actually much more principle-based.

Also Caeel, inactivity topic much.

by Caeel Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:31 am

InvadersFromDeepSpace wrote:I like how you imply I'm saying that adequate warning would have guaranteed your deletion due to a deletion in the future if you didn't comply.

Besides, what are the real chances of something like that happening much anymore at this point? I mean really, you were an original TR member almost, so you had a very high chance of return. However, if I were to take anyone who joins TR for bragging about it, and who never posts, their chance of activity is near zero. Also, this is two years of bulk members who've done nothing, not nice stories like yours. Nearly zero for all of them. Aswell, Juliana, activity is only going back up due to the well-known among the admin community: The Return Effect, the Admin Effect, and the Crisis Tactic.

Ok, I really don't think many people join for bragging rights. I have gotten people to join and they make a few posts, then leave, and don't show up on AQW again. I don't tell them it's the biggest clan or anything like that, and I generally hang out with them anyways (I don't just invite random people to join) so I can see what they are talking to their friends about. And that is almost never about joining the clan. Once have I had that happen, and they were just informing their friends that they had joined TR and it would be cool if they all joined so they could be in he clan together. Most people just forget, don't want to be bothered by it, are just to lazy, or just joined to join.

by Mrsebi Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:26 pm

Hmmm... I think that recently a lot of the more... should I say: ''Regular'' Regulars have been absent, and while we all contribute in out own way, I think that without our more key members, TR generally falls in appeal, this clan is mostly made of the key members, sometimes our new recruits enter that category, sometimes they dont, but if the key people fall in attendance, the clan begins to look empty, thus also begining to turn away potential new members.

by Snukems Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:50 am

First, Chamb.

Chamb, you have not even read this whole debate. Please read it and then try posting. I do hope you realize your argument to be futile due to the fact that you never read any posts, and thus made an obvious fail by not even giving the basic details of my idea while you debate.

Second, Zerato has a point. We need to clear the inactives, who, once more, haven't posted much. I mean, I said people with under 5-30 posts should be warned that they may be deleted and to make a single post unless they wish to experience deletion. However, noone reads the posts, except Pere and a select few others. The good old key members will have a higher chance of returning from their quitting and inactivity (For the inactive ones) if the new members are deleted.

Third, Caeel.

Caeel, you're right. Most people who join don't join to brag. However, there are the fools who do. Besides, most of the people who are inactive joined for lulz or something along those lines (I.e., boredom)

by Guest Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:55 am

Chamb gets the basic idea, and that grants him the right to post a response. Chamb can post whatever he wants regardless, because Chamb is god.

by Sponsored content