|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:10 pm
This guild currently has about 160 members, of which about eight members participate. Only 1/3 to 1/4 of all members have even posted. I think the guild in general would benefit if members with a post count of zero were 'banned'. Those people that have become inactive on gaia, or don't care about the guild, wouldn't be a great loss. Anybody who is banned that wants to be a member can rejoin and may even be encourged to participate. Then, with the inactive members removed, we should be able to more acurately calculate how many members should be around.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:23 am
Does banning a person prevent them from re-joining?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:01 am
Aperium Does banning a person prevent them from re-joining? Nope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:03 pm
Then I'm all for it. Anyone who wants to rejoin will be able to, and they might learn why it's a good thing to post. Hey, might I also suggest a USBBB Forum for them to go to? It may not be very productive, but it'll keep people around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:47 am
ChaosZorya Then I'm all for it. Anyone who wants to rejoin will be able to, and they might learn why it's a good thing to post. That's what I'm hoping, and if people don't openly object to this I start the banning on the 28th. ChaosZorya Hey, might I also suggest a USBBB Forum for them to go to? It may not be very productive, but it'll keep people around. ...which reminds me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:33 pm
I agree. Ladyfriend ...if people don't openly object to this I start the banning on the 28th. Mind if I help?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:01 pm
You can if you like, but there isn't much to it. It should only take a few minutes to ban them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:00 pm
What should we do about Mules and alternate Avaters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:14 pm
Aperium What should we do about Mules and alternate Avatars? I believe that, as a minimum, one person shouldn't have more than one personal avatar that is crew or above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:14 am
Aperium What should we do about Mules and alternate Avaters? I hadn't even thought about it. Although we should do something as mule voting could create unfair poll results. The trouble is that we can only know if an account is a mule if people tell us. So maybe we should a 'declaired mules' list and post our votes instead of using a poll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:25 am
Ladyfriend Aperium What should we do about Mules and alternate Avaters? I hadn't even thought about it. Although we should do something as mule voting could create unfair poll results. The trouble is that we can only know if an account is a mule if people tell us. So maybe we should a 'declaired mules' list and post our votes instead of using a poll. Though my feelings tell me no, I agree. That will mean sacrificing privacy so that coruption can be limited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:24 am
Would anyone object if I started banning? For some reason we missed the date we said we would do it at.
Edit: I didn't realize that Ladyfriend already did it. The number at the bottom of the main page hasn't updated yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:08 am
make sure you tell them that if they wish to return and beactive members they are welcome, it means that the nanning would take eight minutes instead of five but we might get a few active mebers out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:23 am
The NCS guild is facing the same dilemma and is deciding that they should keep the members. Those people support the plan but just don't have time to post often.
In the case with our guild, most of them (probably) have either forgotten about us or are inactive. I suggest warning all of them with PMs two (2) months before we ban them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:25 am
We should probably make a genaric pending-ban message then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
