ITD Members with no Activity

[hop_goblin]

Hey guys, should we start pulling the weeds and start terminating members who have no activiting? like Chip? Just an idea

[xine]

muahahaha. Wait...that list would probably include me. don't deletes!

[tenuki]

What about members with too much activity or, useless / annoying contributions?

[Chip]

What about members with too much activity or, useless / annoying contributions?

Members with more than say 1950 posts would be exempt from such a rule, right?

What about members who beget excessive TeaWare lust in other members?

And on a totally unrelated topic...or is it. Did anyone notice TeaChat had a milestone yesterday, surpassing 30,000 posts!

[Wesli]

Yes to weeding.

[scruffmcgruff]

I would accept the weeding-out of inactives as long as they have some expedited way of getting back in, should they become active again. Also, if we do trim the fat (what other metaphors are there, by the way?), I think it should be an elective thing, and should require a higher majority than it takes to get elected (say, unanimous, or 75%, or whatever).

[Mary R]

I second everything Scruff says. And I've got a couple questions.

I've looked over the list of ITDers, and I have to say...I don't see *that* many inactives. I know that Andy (what is he now...Yeah Tea?), EO, and Marshaln don't really post much here, but they are all pretty active in the Chat... Honestly, the only people I see on the list that are inactive here are Phyll and Adagio peeps. The Adagians must stay (obviously), and I'd feel just awful revoking Phyll's access...

Just what exactly would be grounds for a pruning? Any cases you've got in mind?

[Space Samurai]

I don't think we should.

What purpose would it serve? Is it that important to keep our numbers down? Kicking someone out is sort of a negative thing, and I don't think it would be worth it. Really, what does it matter if you have someone who isn't active? Its not like they're taking up space.

This is mostly just a place for us to goof off, *BOO*, and post the occasional serious question. I think sometimes we over think it a bit.

[Chip]

I think sometimes we over think it a bit.

True, just mention to Mary that a member is a slacker, and poof. Problem solved, and we can simply blame Mary.

[CynTEAa]

Was I gone too long?

[scruffmcgruff]

The more I think about it, the more I agree with Space.

[Proinsias]

What about members with too much activity or, useless / annoying contributions?

Don't be too hard on yourself tenuki.

Using the banhammer is always tempting but not on Phyll please, his potential could spring back into action at any moment - I still check his blog every week or so in the hope that something has appeared.

I would prefer if it was done on a case by case basis. If a poster feels that another poster should have the banhammer thrown at them then it would be nice if they could start a thread detailing why or providing evidence, or lack of in the case of this thread, we could respond and it could give the poster a platform to put across their view, or not in this case. Perhaps if someone is inactive on the ITD but is posting well below the standards expected of an elite ITDer on the rest of teachat then a temp ban could be put in place by Mary or Chip while we discuss the situation in a thread here and then they are either excluded or the thread is removed and the access reinstated.

Perhaps I am over thinking.

[Space Samurai]

Perhaps I am, too.

I think banning a person who has quite litteraly done nothing is a step or two in the wrong direction. The ability to do a thing is not cause enough to do it.

We have our little playhouse, and its cute, and I agree with choosing carefully who we let in. But once they're here, I think it is honestly snobbish to kick them out for so trifle an offense as not posting. If this is the direction we're heading, count me out.

[Wesli]

Space is right, but Phyll is dead.

[EvenOdd]

teachat> ping