OG proposal #1 (June 09) - Cull worthless members?

[Oli]

Ripleofdeath for the reasons Liebling stated.
Bishadi for much the same reason: plus the fact that as soon as one thread is locked for devolving into more of his nonsense after he's been shown to be wrong he starts another on the same subject.
Quantum Wave: seems to think Sci is his personal blog, asks for expert opinion and then puts anyone who disagrees (i.e. those who know what they're talking about) on ignore and solicits other opinion.

 

[madanthonywayne]

So you want people like you out, so you can enjoy the community more ?

He's sort of quoting Woody Allen (who was quoting Groucho Marx) who said,

“I'd never join a club that would allow a person like me to become a member."​

 

[James R]

Just quickly, I'd like to respond to takandjive's off-topic complaint:

... Scott3x sends me a PM about fingering a minor and is generally a pain in the ass. James, I sent you a PM about it, and yes, I'm absolutely pissed off that I sent you my password to prove that I'm not bullshitting and your reaction is little more than a shrug. You want to be some sort of a leader, big boy? Well, then do it.

I have just sent a PM to you now, copied to Plazma Inferno! and containing your original PM to me and my respond (on the same day).

For the public record, my response was not "little more than a shrug". On the contrary, my response was to immediately close then-open threads on pedophilia, to give the member concerned an ultimatum, and to thereafter keep a close eye on the member concerned.

As for you, takandjive, I heard nothing more from you until now. You did not contact me again by PM to say that you were dissatisfied with my actions. Instead, you waited 2 months, then chose to make a public issue of it here. That's bad form, and quite rude, in my opinion.

If you have any further issues with this, please take it up with me by PM. Or, if you prefer, we can do it in public, but I'd prefer not to.

 

[Plazma Inferno!]

I've checked CC and I just have to say that James' respond was consistent with site policy that concerns promoting illegal activities (i.e. paedophilia), and with the agreement we (staff) have regarding action that should be taken in the future.
It wasn't just a shrug. I would respond in same manner.

 

[Stryder]

Look at the list. More than half have a big fat 0 for number of posts....

Agreed. It's not a huge community by any means, the numbers are rather deceiving.

I wonder if many of those aren't started by bots or something?
Sometimes I think the naming convention is a dead giveaway.

To be honest a number of users do exist that don't post. They have the username in case they post and occassionally new posters appear with names that have existed for years to express they've been an avid reader of the forums (and possibly picked up a bit of bias against one or other poster)

This makes it difficult to just cull names.

What I would pose instead is that we sort out some TOS/TOC for the site which govern's both the moderators job and what is expected of the members. With such a TOS/TOC change, the usual requirement is to make such a change public knowledge, which would mean announcing not just to the forums but also the Members via their signup email.

Obviously it will have to be constructed to deal with concerns that the message might be misconstrued as spam, however one of the things that could be added to the TOS/TOC is those accounts over 6 months old with no posts will be deleted. It's then up to the account holder to post in the timeframe after that if they want to keep their username/account.

It would clear up the database I'm sure, however it would be something that Plazma would have to look into if it was to be done, It could be expected to be done easily or without hitches.

 

[S.A.M.]

Couldn't you make it so that everyone who logged in after the date of the TOS, saw a TOS which they had to sign? Only the first time?

 

[Stryder]

Then you must have misunderstand my post, because in numerous chances in this thread I have already stated, I am against permanent ban, because I believe that each individual should be given chance to improve their quality. If you don't like the idea, though, fine, Enmos. I am giving my opinion as the respond to the OP.

Permaban's are usually only a last resort and have been for a while. for the most part a user would have to have a repeated history of being abusive and fragrantly disrespectful should a moderator or administrator actually ask them to mend their ways. It hasn't happened a lot in the past, however when it has, nobody has missed them (Mainly because they were a new poster, limit post count and likely a sock puppet of someone else)

On the subject of bringing people back (not of course raised by Inzomnia)Those that have been Permanently Banned can't be re-instated, the main reason for this is they tend to have been abusive previously and don't forget that they were got rid of, so they upset the community and the moderators on return and promptly get banned again.

(Perhaps it's because some of them are predatorial and see this liberal need to "Forgive and forget" as weakness. It's a shame in the long run, but some people just won't learn from their mistakes and that's a given.)

 

[Stryder]

Couldn't you make it so that everyone who logged in after the date of the TOS, saw a TOS which they had to sign? Only the first time?

Yes, that would kind of be the idea. Most Social sites nowadays have TOS's as they are a necessity, the main problem is though they are usually written to be interpreted by the law since some people are fickle.

I mean we can draft a public one up and eventually work out what's required, but without any legal body looking at it, it's just going to be a guideline.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why do we need a legal contract? Is the admin afraid of being sued by disgruntled members?

I'd assume that members, mods and admin could, between them come up with something that everyone could live with.

 

[Stryder]

Why do we need a legal contract? Is the admin afraid of being sued by disgruntled members?

I'd assume that members, mods and admin could, between them come up with something that everyone could live with.

Actually it's more to do with the way sites evolve on the internet than any fear of legal recourse. Although it is good to know where a site stands and what's expected from them.

And yes, I'm not suggesting a TOC/TOS should be written in "legal Language" considering it's old and antiquated, it needs to be written clearly and made to be capable of being understood by a majority.

 

[takandjive]

James,

Thank you for digging up that old PM.

 

[Anti-Flag]

To be honest a number of users do exist that don't post. They have the username in case they post and occassionally new posters appear with names that have existed for years to express they've been an avid reader of the forums (and possibly picked up a bit of bias against one or other poster)

This makes it difficult to just cull names.

What I would pose instead is that we sort out some TOS/TOC for the site which govern's both the moderators job and what is expected of the members. With such a TOS/TOC change, the usual requirement is to make such a change public knowledge, which would mean announcing not just to the forums but also the Members via their signup email.

Obviously it will have to be constructed to deal with concerns that the message might be misconstrued as spam, however one of the things that could be added to the TOS/TOC is those accounts over 6 months old with no posts will be deleted. It's then up to the account holder to post in the timeframe after that if they want to keep their username/account.
It would clear up the database I'm sure, however it would be something that Plazma would have to look into if it was to be done, It could be expected to be done easily or without hitches.

Although I generally agree that some may be waiting to post, or only log in infrequently, I'd bet the vast majority of registered names no longer visit us, if indeed they ever did. I also find it perplexing that people register and not post as you can read the forum without registering.
All in all however I do think you have a good idea.

 

[(Q)]

3. Q , IF he wouldn't stop being hostile to SAM. From his posting history, I think > 75% of his posts are being hostile to SAM or other theists. Some 20% perhaps is ok, but >75% is too much, which makes me wonder of his motive coming to sci

I miss people like Kadark...

Why would you defend Kadark and Sam, who wouldn't utter an honest word if their lives depended on it?

Are you that dense?

 

[Gustav]

infidel!
are you dense?

 

[Orleander]

To be honest a number of users do exist that don't post. ....

I'm confused. Are the members who don't post the ones who are worthless and need culled? Why??
Isn't it a good thing to show potential advertisers that we have 'this many' members?

 

[Gustav]

orly

there are those that stuck to a literal interpretation of the op while ignoring intent

I would like to gauge the opinions of the general membership as to whether sciforums currently has any members that do not contribute anything useful, and who should therefore be banned from the forum.

0 post count=nothing useful

/giggles

ahh
dumbfucksci

/pridefilled

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

I'm confused. Are the members who don't post the ones who are worthless and need culled? Why??
Isn't it a good thing to show potential advertisers that we have 'this many' members?

No, not as this proposal was intended but evidently some members seem to think they might as well clean that up too.

 

[Gustav]

I've been really tryin', baby
Tryin' to hold back this feeling for so long
And if you feel like I feel, baby
Then, c'mon, oh, c'mon
Let's get it on​

 

[Gustav]

OMG!
the mighty jamesr can really carry a tune!

 

[Gustav]

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breath free;
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless,
Tempest-tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame is the imprisoned lightning,
And her name, SciForums.
From her beacon-hand glows world-wide welcome;
Her mild eyes command the air-bridged harbor
That twin cities frame.
"Keep, Ancient Lands, your storied pomp!"
Cries she with silent lips.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breath free;
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless,
Tempest-tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

play​