MS Update ModSquad Update - May1-7th

Moderator News

Bria has gone on hiatus from modding. She should be back in a fortnight.

Kit? is also cutting down on her mod/JC time until the 24th of May.

Main News

* Unused user names were discussed this week and whether they should be redistributed or left alone. Discussion is still continuing.

* New Banners are being discussed for FanFiction, The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones Forums. The Attack of the Clones forum banner contest has officially started, and will end on May 25th. You can find more information on the contest in this thread. More news on the other forums soon!

* KnightWriter tried to follow up on the letter to IGN about the faults and errors with the board. He is still trying as this goes to post.

* Dagsy started a discussion on the future of the JC. Some excellent points were made and moderators gave opinions on everything from community ties, changes to boards and post-Ep3 life.

* AmazingB asked whether potentially offensive words should be edited from thread titles. The consensus was that words that are offensive will be edited from titles. Disciplinary action will be totally dependent on the author's intent.

* RPF reforms.
At the beginning of this month, Protege-of-Thrawn instituted the long awaited reforms to the rules and policy of the Role Playing Forum. As this was done, all of the forum specific rules were compiled into the one easily referenced sticky thread to aide newcomers to the forum. Anyone wishing to view these reforms need only look here.


***


The Passive-Aggressive Troll Love Ballad (to the tune of "Love Me Tender"):

Ban me tender,
Ban me sweet,
never let me post.
You have banned my ISP,
and I love you so.

Ban me tender,
ban me true,
all my posts delete.
For my moddie I love you,
though we'll never meet.

Ban me tender,
ban me long,
ban me from the start.
For it's there that I belong,
with "Banned" I'll never part.

Ban me tender,
ban me dear,
the boards will not be mine.
I'll be banned through all the years,
till the end of time.

 

Nice and simple update, Kit!

Unused user names were discussed this week and whether they should be redistributed or left alone. Discussion is still continuing.

I've always held by the opinion that unused usernames should be left alone. After all, if a user came back from a really long break just to find out that his username no longer belonged to him, or that all his posts, some of them which may have been extremely insightful and had effort put into them, were gone, I'm sure the user may feel very bitter and angry. Each username is unique to one and only one person. Not only does redistributing usernames defeat that purpose, it is really unnecessary considering that any original name is probably still up for grabs.

KnightWriter tried to follow up on the letter to IGN about the faults and errors with the board. He is still trying as this goes to post.

Thanks KW. I doubt there will be much progress in this area, but it's good to know that there's at least some effort.

 

Great update Kit'!

Unused user names were discussed this week and whether they should be redistributed or left alone. Discussion is still continuing.

Are we talking about usernames that have been registered but never been posted or logged under the name? I think they need to be distributed - but others, where people tend to post sporadically, and may end up missing for a year or two because they want to go away from the boards for a while ... shouldn't they be left alone because the user obviously is going to be very unhappy when (s)he returns to know that (s)he can't log back in?

Besides, if the user already posted once or twice, are you going to delete those posts if you're going to redistribute the names?

Because it's easier - I'm going to assume that you simply are talking about those usernames that have 0 post count.

Aunecah

 

I've always held by the opinion that unused usernames should be left alone. After all, if a user came back from a really long break just to find out that his username no longer belonged to him, or that all his posts, some of them which may have been extremely insightful and had effort put into them, were gone, I'm sure the user may feel very bitter and angry.

What if the user hasn't logged in in 3 years and has 0 posts? I doubt they still remember they have the name much less care about the post count.

 

I tend to agree with you about the unused usernames, Val. I know I've registered names at boards that I used for a while, got bored of, and eventually returned to after a long time. The JC is a little different from most boards, though, because many names here are either socks or names people registered and never used. How does it change the formula if an old username has no posts?

Edit: FlamingSword and I are on the same wavelength.

 

Just a note that users with 0 for a post count doesn't necesarily mean they registered and did not post. It could very well mean, and this is more the case than not, that they registered, posted a lot of vulgar, spam, trollish material, flames, and baits and a manager or above clicked Remove User Posts and banned them.

 

But Sapient - in that case the user's most likely to be banned already. Of course, the user could also post in forums were we have pruning every six months (I think there are forums like that) which could lead to 0 post count.

So, we probably have to look into log-in date as well as post count....

Aunecah

 

No, it doesn't work like that. You need to understand virtual post counts and such and be careful to be positive of the information you're giving. Your post count will remain, the posts themselves won't be there.

 

But if your posts were removed by a mod, then your virtual post count would remain higher than zero. A mod would have to reset the post count in order for it to return to zero.

However, I don't think the admins would want to give out profiles that belonged to trolls, somehow.

 

Actually, all of this is really not pertinent to the greater issue of the names themselves. They key for the admins is to ensure we all make updates to the admin notes so we have a record for those folks when we have to take action.

 

I assume you have a record of any users whose posts were reset to 0 and banned. If the names shouldn't be used, leave those usernames alone. If it's been so long no one even remembers the name and the user was permbanned, what's the harm in giving the name to someone else? Just make a note in the usernotes that they're not the same person.

But even if you leave banned users and users with any posts out, there are plenty of usernames that could be reused.

 

Well, we're not completely done with a decision yet in MS. I'm of the mindset that considerations can be made and it's all case-by-case.

 

If it's a name that's been registered but never used, I don't see any harm in removing it.

But I'd hate to see classic members from the JC's past lose their names just because they haven't posted in years.


So fanfic has gone from 3 mods to 1.5 (temporarily)? It's a good thing those forums don't require the constant monitoring that other forums do.

 

Herman - I think Kit' and Am are actually there to Mod the WR, not the actual fanfic forums. Really, it's such a nice place to be in.

Aunecah

 

I would hope that WR doesn't require two people to moderate it.


My previous post was meant more as lighthearted praise for the type of forums that the fanficcers have.

Had it not been for the move from two forums to five, I have no doubt that there'd still be only one mod.

One and a half mods - even only temporarily - should be more than enough coverage.

 

I'm a perfect example of someone who registered, posted a couple of times, and left for 3 years. I came back last May but I couldn't remember the password to this name or exactly what this name was so I registered a new name and forgot about this name. After a while, I started hunting for this name again. I had a general idea what this name was and did a user search for this name specifically. After I found this name, I noticed that an old website that I used to own was in the profile. I PM'd an admin to get the password and told him what email address the name was registered with. The post count was zero when I came back, but I know for a fact that I posted a couple times on the UBB board. A few months after I found this name, I did a user search for every name registerd at the JC that included my nickname. I happened to find the name I registered in December of 1998. It had the same website in the profile that was listed in this name's profile. Once again I PM'd an admin, told him what email address was used to register the name, and got the password for my original 98 name. I think the old names should be left alone even if they have a 0 post count. You never know when somebody is going to return.


EDIT: Clarification

 

I agree, Salty, and I think I even used you as an example of a member returning after a long absence one of the times that the issue has been brought up.

Also, the information for the AOTC banner contest can be found here. It looks like the link didn't get carried over in the first post, and I'd hate for anyone to miss out on it.

 

I must appologize if this has already been discussed, but will this new thing for un-used names delete them entirely? If so this may be good on my part as I have a few I no longer use.

 

We can't delete names. This is about giving the passwords out to names not used in a long time or with zero posts. And besides, a quick IP check tells me that a current active member, you, owns those names and thus aren't subject to being handed over.

 

Master_Salty is one good example of someone who came back, remembered his old name, and managed to get the password back.

But really, how often does this happen? Most people probably either don't come back to the JC or remmeber their username after 3 years.

So my question is: is tf.n/JC obliged to keep usernames for people who never log in? In my opion, they're not.

Finally, is there really a demand for old usernames? If there is not, why even worry about procedure for it.

 

This is about giving the passwords out to names not used in a long time or with zero posts.

Do you mean that you're planning on handing out old names to whom ever wants them?

 

No, it's a discussion about whether or not we should. And if so, in which cases?

 

I see.

Well, i couldn't care less if you go ahead with it or not, i'm sure allot of people out there would love to get their hands on a username from 98 or 99 so they can be an 'oldbie'.
I myself think that's a stupid reason to change names, but i don't have a problem with it.

 

Well, that's only one possible reason. There are plenty of other reasons. For instance, if someone registered a name you absolutely loved or it was one letter different than yours, then you may be interested in the name.

 

I don't think we're under any "obligation" to keep the names. However, it's not like this site is as bad as MSN/Hotmail or AOL, where it can literally take 10 minutes to find a halfway-decent name that hasn't been registered already.

I just don't see a reason to give out old names. I can't think of one good reason why we should.