Viewing Thread:
"Should Notables be Sacked?"

This is the question. How long should a notable stay a notable if they no longer post on the forums?

1 Year
2 Years
3 Years
or Forever

I think they should all stay. Except Sniper, he should be retired. Right now. By an angry Harrison Ford.

Timmargh wrote:
> SHEEPY wrote:
> Yes, nutsack them all.

Timmargh - example of work:

I fell off the bed and then peed on myself.

I wouldn't post if I got special treatment like that.

SHEEPY

Example of work: I like vanilla

So many different opinions, I wonder how you all get along so well together.

My view is this:

They should remain notables forever, but should be moved from the list of notables after one year and placed on a page called Retired Notables which contains some examples of their work.

Then, if they ever do return they can be re-instated to the notables list.

In the Notables list there would simply be all the names of the notables plus one link to "Retired Notables"

SHEEPY wrote:
> Yes, sack them all.

Sack 'em after 12 months, well change their status anyway. They are doing no harm and the majority of them do still post even if it is just occasionally.

Yes, sack them all.

Forever.

But accounts should be 'retired' (bladerunner style :^) ) if not used for, say, 3 years. Notables included.

Then their stats could be put in a notable hall of fame for their immortality.


(Retirement could free up user names from normal accounts (reclaim all the first names), though you might want to keep retired notable names out of circulation).

Well their posts in the past don't stop being notable posts do they? Like if Meka Dragon stopped posting, his old posts would still be far more "notable" than mine. So sacked possibly isn't the right word, but maybe change their status to retired notable or something after a year.