Should inactive group members be dropped?
- Thread starter Armadillo of Doom
- Start date
ryodoan
Resident Bum
- Nov 2, 2007
- 409
- 117
Or just don't kick them at all... :mellow:
I have yet to see a single significant reason to kick people from the group. If there was a good reason, then I would be for it, but there has not even been a coherent argument presented by those for the kicking.
I presented an entire list of arguments against kicking people, yet without responding to a single one, people were kicked.
My final question is if its not open for debate then why title the thread "Should inactive group members be dropped" the title should be, "Inactive group members WILL be dropped."
*Note* I am using the definition for "Argument" which is defined by: "[SIZE=-1]a fact or assertion offered as support for a position"
[/SIZE]
Last edited:
I never once said this issue was not open for debate. That's the whole reason I created this thread. If I didn't care about what you all thought, I wouldn't have started this thread lol. I'm sure you didn't mean to put words in my mouth, so no hard feelings 
Now then, I have said countless times that if people just want to browse, that is perfectly acceptable. You don't have to be registered in either Steam group or the website to read through the discussions here. All the forums are open to public viewing. I'm not convinced that removing people from the Steam group was a bad idea. With the exception of Schwa (again, my bad), those who were kicked hadn't even registered here, nor were they seen in chat.
If every single one of them came to this site to browse, their removal won't affect that in the slightest, and it helps me know who is still active. And Intraman, even I think that 6 months is rather harsh lol. IF drpepper and I ever decide to do this for the website, we're going to be a bit more generous. To be fair, only the 3 or 4 of you have voiced protest. I honestly think you're making a bigger issue about this than is necessary. Kicking inactive members isn't really a big deal in my mind. Though I am always willing to entertain convincing otherwise.
Now then, I have said countless times that if people just want to browse, that is perfectly acceptable. You don't have to be registered in either Steam group or the website to read through the discussions here. All the forums are open to public viewing. I'm not convinced that removing people from the Steam group was a bad idea. With the exception of Schwa (again, my bad), those who were kicked hadn't even registered here, nor were they seen in chat.If every single one of them came to this site to browse, their removal won't affect that in the slightest, and it helps me know who is still active. And Intraman, even I think that 6 months is rather harsh lol. IF drpepper and I ever decide to do this for the website, we're going to be a bit more generous. To be fair, only the 3 or 4 of you have voiced protest. I honestly think you're making a bigger issue about this than is necessary. Kicking inactive members isn't really a big deal in my mind. Though I am always willing to entertain convincing otherwise.
ryodoan
Resident Bum
- Nov 2, 2007
- 409
- 117
Ok, lets look at the numbers according to this thread because this is the only place I see it being discussed.
For Kicking: 3
Immortal-D - Tighter Community
Shmitz - No stated reason.
DJive - To improve the Chat / In-game / Online ratio
Against Kicking: 4
Ryodoan (Paul) - multiple reasons
Big Nick Digger - Unless they violate a rule or TOS
What is Schwa - Got Kicked for inactivity
Youme
No State Opinion or other: 4
Intraman - sorta against, but maybe if inactive for 6 months or a year
TheBladeRoden - no statement of opinion
Cdsand - said he was alive.
MacNetron - explanation of why he appears inactive.
So, now we have a total of 8 people commenting on this issue, (not counting Roden, Cdsand, and MacNetron because they stated no opinion), and of those eight, 4 said don't kick at all, 3 said kick, but offered no terms for the kicking other than "Inactive" and one stated that they dont think kicking is a good idea, but if we do kick after 6 months minimum of inactivity.
So far from having a small minority against the kicking, we seem to have a slight MAJORITY against kicking.
My next point.
The stated reasons FOR kicking are:
I hope everyone takes the time to actually read this post and don't just glance over it.
For Kicking: 3
Immortal-D - Tighter Community
Shmitz - No stated reason.
DJive - To improve the Chat / In-game / Online ratio
Against Kicking: 4
Ryodoan (Paul) - multiple reasons
Big Nick Digger - Unless they violate a rule or TOS
What is Schwa - Got Kicked for inactivity
Youme
No State Opinion or other: 4
Intraman - sorta against, but maybe if inactive for 6 months or a year
TheBladeRoden - no statement of opinion
Cdsand - said he was alive.
MacNetron - explanation of why he appears inactive.
So, now we have a total of 8 people commenting on this issue, (not counting Roden, Cdsand, and MacNetron because they stated no opinion), and of those eight, 4 said don't kick at all, 3 said kick, but offered no terms for the kicking other than "Inactive" and one stated that they dont think kicking is a good idea, but if we do kick after 6 months minimum of inactivity.
So far from having a small minority against the kicking, we seem to have a slight MAJORITY against kicking.
My next point.
The stated reasons FOR kicking are:
- To promote a "Tighter" community. (Immortal-D)
- To improve the Chat / In-game / Online ratio (DJive)
- The first thing I want to hit on is that i think the Chat / In-game / Online ratio is kinda bogus. Nobody looks at it, and quite frankly if you go by our numbers we have one of the most active chat rooms out there.
- Its a waste of time because people will continue to join and go inactive. Kicking people will become a 24/7 job where you are constantly kicking people from the group.
- You will incorrectly kick people. My chat bot got kicked because you did not recognize it. You dont know everyone that has ever joined the chat room, and it is impossible to tell who has just lurked in the forums.
- We have no set criteria for how we kick people. If this does become an official position we need to have set rules for this. "6 months of inactivity which consists of not logging into steam for 6 months and not responding to emails for 2 weeks."
- Having a large group full of inactive people hurts no one. In fact it will help the group grow because we will rank higher on the Steam group list helping new people
- How do you define Tighter Community? One definition I can think applies here, and what you might be referring to is community with a smaller number of members all of which are active. How is this goal achieved by kicking inactive members? Yes you will get rid of all the people who were not currently actively participating, but it does not change the number of active members we have in the group.
I hope everyone takes the time to actually read this post and don't just glance over it.
Last edited:
What Is Schwa
L6: Sharp Member
- Jan 13, 2008
- 375
- 445
I had intended to use TF2 Maps as a place to bounce ideas off people.
I have randomly contacted people who were in the TF2 group and online to ask for opinions of projects I am working on. I am most interested in the guy who has no experience with the engine as they are the ones who most resemble the average end user. I actually LIKED the lurkers, because to me they were a resource that is unavailable anywhere else: They are people who have expressed an interest in custom TF2 maps, but aren't necessarily mappers.
Every stranger I contacted through TF2Maps has been incredibly happy to oblige my requests. They all have said something along the lines of "I think it is neat to be involved with a beta test, thanks."
By kicking people you have actually made TF2Maps less useful to me.
-Aaron
I have randomly contacted people who were in the TF2 group and online to ask for opinions of projects I am working on. I am most interested in the guy who has no experience with the engine as they are the ones who most resemble the average end user. I actually LIKED the lurkers, because to me they were a resource that is unavailable anywhere else: They are people who have expressed an interest in custom TF2 maps, but aren't necessarily mappers.
Every stranger I contacted through TF2Maps has been incredibly happy to oblige my requests. They all have said something along the lines of "I think it is neat to be involved with a beta test, thanks."
By kicking people you have actually made TF2Maps less useful to me.
-Aaron
- Nov 12, 2007
- 1,128
- 746
I should probably qualify my "for" statement, given the debate this has become.
To clarify what I have said in this thread, it probably wouldn't be a problem to drop people only if they have not logged on to steam in a long time. It should have nothing to do with whether or not we have seen them in chat, and I definitely wouldn't tie group membership to forum membership. Absence from chat or forum would only be a symptom of an inactive member, not a qualification for being removed.
Even Schwa shouldn't have a problem with that, because you wouldn't be removing lurkers, just people who aren't even making themselves available to the community.
But that's only a reason why I'm not against it, which is different from a reason why I would be for it. The only reason I would be for it is because with the group over Steam's dumb friends limit, you can't invite people into the group chat. Not being able to invite group members into the group chat is very frustrating, and I'd much rather be able to get lurkers more active than worry about offending someone by making them put forth the great effort required to rejoin the group once they renew their interest in TF2.
But, I must qualify even this statement. I don't think the ideal solution to that problem is to cull the member list. I think steam chat is severely limited, annoying, and buggy. I would much rather move the chat to an IRC channel, because I think the benefits would outweigh the loss of chat invite and joining a server someone else is playing on (which doesn't work if you already have TF2 open anyway). This is somewhat a separate issue, but suffice to say if we moved the chat to IRC, I would no longer think there to be any reason at all in favor of removing group members.
That was a lot longer than I thought it would be. But yeah, that's my thoughts on the matter.
To clarify what I have said in this thread, it probably wouldn't be a problem to drop people only if they have not logged on to steam in a long time. It should have nothing to do with whether or not we have seen them in chat, and I definitely wouldn't tie group membership to forum membership. Absence from chat or forum would only be a symptom of an inactive member, not a qualification for being removed.
Even Schwa shouldn't have a problem with that, because you wouldn't be removing lurkers, just people who aren't even making themselves available to the community.
But that's only a reason why I'm not against it, which is different from a reason why I would be for it. The only reason I would be for it is because with the group over Steam's dumb friends limit, you can't invite people into the group chat. Not being able to invite group members into the group chat is very frustrating, and I'd much rather be able to get lurkers more active than worry about offending someone by making them put forth the great effort required to rejoin the group once they renew their interest in TF2.
But, I must qualify even this statement. I don't think the ideal solution to that problem is to cull the member list. I think steam chat is severely limited, annoying, and buggy. I would much rather move the chat to an IRC channel, because I think the benefits would outweigh the loss of chat invite and joining a server someone else is playing on (which doesn't work if you already have TF2 open anyway). This is somewhat a separate issue, but suffice to say if we moved the chat to IRC, I would no longer think there to be any reason at all in favor of removing group members.
That was a lot longer than I thought it would be. But yeah, that's my thoughts on the matter.