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

How about instead of a retired/sacked status, they get a 'hunted' status?

Yes a select few become "hunted" for a few months, if they make no effort to use the account after they've become "hunted" then they become "axed"...

ho ho.

so many notables in one topic. its like a convention

It's even scarier when there are more 'regulars' grouped together! It's like a 'Notable' convention, but with more people wearing purple!

I think they should be Notable forever because they were voted for a reason. Perhaps have less elections? The retired or MIA is a pretty good idea.

Is there actually any notables that no longer post?

er-no, Rav and IB seem to be quite rare these days

IB's probably busy in his own Pornotrooper movie, and er-no's probably directing it. I guess Rav is doing the catering, or something..

I've posted too much this month.

You've no-one to blame but yourself

Grix Thraves wrote:
> er-no, Rav and IB seem to be quite rare these days

er-no pops by the Nintendo forum occasionally... as does Sonic Rav, Rav'll be back soon.

As for IB... haven't a clue but if we're talking after a year of not posting I can almost guarentee that all notables will post at least once a year...

There would need to be a limit.

How about Notables are retired the Hunter way, although if Edgy ever got retired he'd probably debate whether sticking an axe into his own head is a good idea.