Yes, but how many of those 23 are actually sockies?A Thing of Eternity wrote:WE BEAT THEM SO FAR FOR NEW MEMBERS, they have only 23 new members.

Moderators: Freakzilla, ᴶᵛᵀᴬ, Omphalos
Yes, but how many of those 23 are actually sockies?A Thing of Eternity wrote:WE BEAT THEM SO FAR FOR NEW MEMBERS, they have only 23 new members.
At least more than one.SandChigger wrote:Yes, but how many of those 23 are actually sockies?A Thing of Eternity wrote:WE BEAT THEM SO FAR FOR NEW MEMBERS, they have only 23 new members.
I think you should replace that "but" with an "and", as it strengthens my statement, not contradicts it.SandChigger wrote:Yes, but how many of those 23 are actually sockies?A Thing of Eternity wrote:WE BEAT THEM SO FAR FOR NEW MEMBERS, they have only 23 new members.
A Thing of Eternity wrote:I think you should replace that "but"...![]()
![]()
You know what, I'm not sure where, but somewhere along the line I messed up, our posts per day have RISEN in average since my first comparison, not dropped like I had thought.Omphalos wrote:Just as an FYI, the boardware says that this site averages 95.30 posts per day since inception, so our rates actually are pretty stable.
Most of whom are complete tools. It would be awesome if you could figure that into the forumla (like maybe a tool only counts as three-fifths of a person?A Thing of Eternity wrote:DN has however gotten themselves some fairly prolific new posters ...
Didn't the constitution used to say that?TheDukester wrote:Most of whom are complete tools. It would be awesome if you could figure that into the forumla (like maybe a tool only counts as three-fifths of a person?A Thing of Eternity wrote:DN has however gotten themselves some fairly prolific new posters ...)
Yeah, I remember that from school:Omphalos wrote:Didn't the constitution used to say that?
"Tleszer" is still there. On occasion I get email notifications for new posts in threads.Eyes High wrote:Plus, I personally think there membership number is skewed. After all, how many of those 'members' are like StarGazer... still counted on the roll but not able to post nor access their account to delete their names?
Eyes High wrote:Plus, I personally think there membership number is skewed. After all, how many of those 'members' are like StarGazer... still counted on the roll but not able to post nor access their account to delete their names?
Nah, if any house cleaning is done it should be based on logins. There's absolutely nothing wrong with people lurking and reading posts, using their login capabilities to sort the new posts from old. It would be moronic to boot people for that.SandRider wrote:
Omph was talking about clearing out our memberlist awhile back;
I'm for that - anybody with less than 5 posts should be kicked out ...
fuck lurkers ... post or GTFO ...
One point I would make though. The members on here who have zero posts or low posts are still here by their own choice. They still have access to their accounts. (I only know of two or three that have been banned from here with legitimate reasons and after several warnings.SandRider wrote:...
... not anywhere
near as bad as Merritt, but if I'm gonna ride his ass about it, I want my own boots to be clean ...
I'd rather have the membership list reflect the truth .... true, we're a small handful or regular
posters, and a little bigger handful of occasional posters, and some of the members with
really low counts, like around 20, obviously don't check in daily, or weekly, or even monthly,
but have been members for a long time, and when they do post, it's usually quality ....
but a member with Zero posts is a waste of moisture ....
just my opinion, now, I ain't real het-up about it either way -
Well, how about it Red bug? You stand accused of fraud and being a jerk. How do you defend your actions?StarGazer wrote:One point I would make though. The members on here who have zero posts or low posts are still here by their own choice. They still have access to their accounts. (I only know of two or three that have been banned from here with legitimate reasons and after several warnings.
Byron on the other hand has many that he has banned but not removed their names from the membership lists. It is those numbers that I have a problem with. I keep bringing up StarGazer because that was my account and feel like I have a right to talk about her. I did nothing wrong over there and received no warnings, yet my user name is still listed as a member, boosting his numbers. If he's not going to allow access to those accounts then he should remove them.
True I don't see why someone would register on a board and not post but it's not Freak is fluffing his numbers by leaving them on the list. There are members. Members who don't post, but still members just the same.
Those who have been freakbanned over there are not members any more. They had no choice (except for those who intentionally got banned)