72 replies to this topic

[Black Flame]

With the secrecy people seem to value with some of the things on this site, it seems it would be negative to leave loose ends like inactive accounts that have access to private areas. Once someone has become that inactive, you never know what their loyalties are anymore or what they are using the site for if they do log back in.

* a board modification that keeps track of someone's last date logged in, and will automatically revoke any special privelages after a set amount of time
* varying lengths of time depending on the access of the position (i.e. 6 months for advanced member accounts, 2 months for programmer accounts, 1 month for leader/moderator accounts, or something like that)
* a vacation mode, where a user can submit a reason they will be gone and approximately for how long. An admin would have to approve the vacation mode and set a possible expiration date for the vacation mode
* the user posting would automatically disable the vacation mode

I just bring this up because I look at the member list and I see some retired members that have been inactive since last year, a mod that hasn't logged in for over a month and rarely posts, etc. etc... There should be some sort of incentive to at least log in once per month lol

So what do you all think? Yay or nay?

Vote or die!

[Hazard]

Alot of private and retired members who arent even active whats the point

[Waser Lave]

I do agree with this one, inactive members with higher ranks are just a security risk.

[Cory]

I don't believe there is a reason to remove permissions for inactive members for the general ranks ( member / advanced member / private / retired ) They where all earned for there activity and personality and as there is no real threat to the forums I don't think it's right to strip the title they earned from them.

However teams and staff positions very will should be removed if they are unable to fulfill the responsibilities that come with the privileges.

[Neo]

I think some of the retired members, who were given the rank when the site was only a few months old, should be demoted. Mainly because they haven't been on the site in aaaaaages

[Oaken]

I think some of the retired members, who were given the rank when the site was only a few months old, should be demoted. Mainly because they haven't been on the site in aaaaaages

Exactly what I would have said.

I have always wondered why Private members or even Retired members who are inactive still have the ranks. If they dropped in every so often I could understand but some of them are none existent

[Sweeney]

I don't believe there is a reason to remove permissions for inactive members for the general ranks ( member / advanced member / private / retired ) They where all earned for there activity and personality and as there is no real threat to the forums I don't think it's right to strip the title they earned from them.

However teams and staff positions very will should be removed if they are unable to fulfill the responsibilities that come with the privileges.

iawtp

[Brad]

Ya, this has been discussed in staff for a long time. I've championed it for what... a year and a half now? I'd write the damn mods myself if I knew how.

[Lawivido]

I do agree with this one, inactive members with higher ranks are just a security risk.

[adonis]

how are they a security risk if they are never around?

[Sunset]

I agree for a couple resons, main reason yes the security risk , and whats the point of having a higher rank if you are not even on the site for a very long time without reson, prob never to come back... wait a min everyone comes back to codex

[adonis]

a) the old account could be broken into
or more likely
b) where the person has left because they no longer care about the site, but will come back on to gather information to leak. Believe me this happens.

Well I will take your word for it and vote yea. I had thought of those things myself but felt the percentage of risk was minimal. But if it indeed has happened before it is best to not have to relive that error.

[redlion]

I think some of the retired members, who were given the rank when the site was only a few months old, should be demoted. Mainly because they haven't been on the site in aaaaaages

I disagree. I think some of those people are the ones most deserving of the rank. Even if they're never around to enjoy it, we should remember them as retired members.

I have always wondered why Private members or even Retired members who are inactive still have the ranks. If they dropped in every so often I could understand but some of them are none existent

There shouldn't be many inactive privvies. Most of my lot stay active, or they're lurking. I'll run through a check to make sure though.

[Cory]

Private and Retired ranks are earned based on personality as well as activity. There is no requirement of activity to stay in that position and with such removing them from that position is kinda meaningless.

They where promoted to there position under the majorities opinion that they would not link the content of that section and assuming that they have changed is kinda pointless.

I also disagree with the idea to remove it until they come back for a while and ask for it. Once I leave I'm just going to disappear and if I decide to come back even for a short time I can almost guarantee you my return will be with some sort of rant in the private or retired section. If I no longer have access to that section I would rather just not post and forget about the site in general.

Lets not forget the members who have earned there positions.

[redlion]

Well a split then? You hold the rank but see no benefits unless you actually return. Like having retired tag in member title but being member. Or having the retired tag but only seeing member areas?

Seems like a lot of work for not a lot of risk prevention.

[Frizzle]

Agreed Patrick. Waste of time since there isn't anything to protect anyway.

[Tetiel]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Laser, as obviously you know more about this than I do, but isn't it true that if there's IP security on these accounts that there is no risk. If the admins do their jobs and keep making sure that there's IP security on accounts (I still want to know what the hell happened before) then there shouldn't be a problem. It's annoying but trust me it's worth it.

[Waser Lave]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Laser, as obviously you know more about this than I do, but isn't it true that if there's IP security on these accounts that there is no risk. If the admins do their jobs and keep making sure that there's IP security on accounts (I still want to know what the hell happened before) then there shouldn't be a problem. It's annoying but trust me it's worth it.

True but as far as I'm aware it's only staff who have it turned on by default and that's only because certain people can't be trusted to secure their own accounts properly.

(IP security pisses me off if you can't tell. )

Edited by Laser Wave, 12 March 2008 - 07:20 AM.

[redlion]

True but as far as I'm aware it's only staff who have it turned on by default and that's only because certain people can't be trusted to secure their own accounts properly.

(IP security pisses me off if you can't tell. )

What, the fact that it has to exist? Or the fact that some people are stupid enough on the internet to warrant it being a sufficient problem? I'm interested to hear your reasons

[Waser Lave]

What, the fact that it has to exist? Or the fact that some people are stupid enough on the internet to warrant it being a sufficient problem? I'm interested to hear your reasons

The fact that people in positions of responsibility are stupid enough to not secure their accounts properly.

[redlion]

The fact that people in positions of responsibility are stupid enough to not secure their accounts properly.

Lawl. If there were some way to buy you a pint over the internet, I'd do it.

And DON'T find me a site that I can do it at. Fucker.

[Waser Lave]

Lawl. If there were some way to buy you a pint over the internet, I'd do it.

And DON'T find me a site that I can do it at. Fucker.

As long as it's not that piss you Americans call beer.

[redlion]

As long as it's not that piss you Americans call beer.

Well I'd be buying you a beer in England, wouldn't I? I don't drink Budweiser or Miller or Coors, if those are the brands you're implying. I enjoy Guinness, and Newcastle Brown Ale is enjoyable. Stella Artois isn't bad either. Meh, thats about it for my knowledge of English/Irish beer. I'm technically underage in the states, so getting my hands on good alcohol is a bitch.

[Waser Lave]

Well I'd be buying you a beer in England, wouldn't I? I don't drink Budweiser or Miller or Coors, if those are the brands you're implying. I enjoy Guinness, and Newcastle Brown Ale is enjoyable. Stella Artois isn't bad either. Meh, thats about it for my knowledge of English/Irish beer. I'm technically underage in the states, so getting my hands on good alcohol is a bitch.

You have good taste. The official beer of my home city.

[redlion]

You have good taste. The official beer of my home city.

So it seems finding a place for me to buy you a beer online would be to your benefit