SimplyTHEBEST Posted:

OH LAUD, IZZAT SOME TROLLAN IN GD?

Uh, no, simply a humorous play on words. Stop trying to incite a flamewar where there is none. Even if what I said had been trolling (and, I bumure you, it most certainly was not, since I followed it up with constructive discussion), then your response still would not have been warranted. If you believe a rule has been broken, then contact a Mod. ‘Returning Fire’ isn’t any more justified than ‘Opening Fire’.

Ok, great. Now explain to me how you bribe a level 1 re-re who signed up a year ago and never actually pwned a forum.

You can’t, obviously. My specific point was, obviously, in reference to active players. See above for a decent suggestion on how to handle inactive players.

Yea, because “Longcats” and “Stacgnol” do a REALLY good job. Both players have been inactive for over 8 months, and I don’t think that anybody here would argue that they are either likely to come back. Why should they be denying those names to players who are most likely going to actually use them?

Who, exactly, is clamoring to have the screenname ‘longcat’? And why is that addition of an extra letter or number or some such a big deal? If you want to be ‘Longcat’, and it’s already taken, then simply sign in as ‘Longcat_01’ or some such. On the off chance that the ‘original’ Longcat comes back to the game, then the bribery option all of a sudden becomes viable. And if they are inactive (i.e., not posting in Flamebate or IDC) then when and how, exactly, is their name going to be an issue? Simply because you dont get to be ‘Longcat’ and have to settle for ‘Longcat_01’?

The way I see it, people are trying to nitpick at implementation specifics instead of looking at the general idea.

I see that most people are looking at the general idea, and finding it to be pointless. I haven’t seen a huge outcry amongst the FWZ mbumes that a coveted name is unavailable. This thread is the first I’ve seen or heard about it.

What if the activity cutoff was six months? What if inactivity protection was free to anybody who bought and/or used BP? There are a variety of ways to do it that wouldn’t be susceptible to abuse and would be HIGHLY unlikely to affect people who deserve their names.

So, can anybody voice objection to the general idea of making it so that people can take names from accounts that are unlikely to ever return to activity?

Yes, I can. The general idea is simply an over-reaction to a minor inconvenience at best. There was never any warning given to previous players that inactive accounts would be tampered with.

Now, I think Orson & CaptainDDL’s ideas are a good starting point.

Any account that never purchased BPs AND consists of a single character (of any clbum) that is Level 5 or less, and has been inactive for at least six months, that would be a fair candidate for deletion, but only if such a policy was made clear to all new & existing players. New Players would see a warning screen upon character creation, and Existing players would receive a warning email that their account was due for deletion.

However, any player that purchased BPs, for any reason, should be immune to any such purge.