[Rules] Delete Old Accounts

by **IcePack** on Tue Aug 19, 2014 7:24 pm

Against this personally. Maybe for accounts that never played or deadbeated right off the bat etc.
But for anyone who reaches any sort of threshold, should be kept around.

by **Donelladan** on Wed Aug 20, 2014 3:11 am

But for anyone who reaches any sort of threshold, should be kept around.

Why?

by **shickingbrits** on Wed Aug 20, 2014 6:16 am

Donelladan wrote:
But for anyone who reaches any sort of threshold, should be kept around.
Why?

For future researchers studying why a website goes extinct.

by **Lord Arioch** on Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:38 am

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=207752&p=4555209#p4555209

Another one ...

Something needs to be done here ... cant really punish peoples bad memory:) ... can the eticket stuff be more visible for noobs?

by **owenshooter** on Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:12 pm

i thought there was some issue with the scoreboard for not doing this... can't remember, but i do remember that Lack and Twill were very against this for some rational reason.. does anyone in the tech area that has access to that info have that answer? hmmm...-Jésus noir

by **Lord Arioch** on Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:32 pm

Can some programming be done to recognize ips? and generate auto etickets? by some guy7gal looking a bit like this :ugeek:

or maybee this :geek:

but it will change u into this O:)

if succesfull :mrgreen:

by **Arama86n** on Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:48 pm

I agree with Shannon. I strongly oppose this idea.

by **Donelladan** on Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:58 pm

Arama86n wrote:I agree with Shannon. I strongly oppose this idea.

Do you have a better solution for the pb we speak of here ?

by **Lord Arioch** on Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:15 pm

yes cause for returnees its a prob and for KA and minions its a work prob... so a solution shoul be tried to be found

by **Shannon Apple** on Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:15 pm

Donelladan wrote:
Arama86n wrote:I agree with Shannon. I strongly oppose this idea.

Do you have a better solution for the pb we speak of here ?

It's totally fine imo if you're talking about accounts with less than 10 games played, but it's not okay to remove accounts that have been here a long time, have built up a reputation, medals, tournament wins, etc. The few people who return after x amount of time as multis are few and far between and isn't worth the mistake of losing long time members who may have took a year's break from the site or whatever by removing accounts that they have medals and records on? If they are found to have been unintentional, then their old account is returned to them. The case that sparked this up was actually a multiple multi with several active accounts pretending to be a returnee (or something like that).

Totally unrelated to my reasons. One reason some sites don't do it is because of gaps in the database. Each account has a unique ID, when you delete one, that ID can never be used again. CC might not care about that, but I know some sites do.

by **blakebowling** on Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:28 pm

Shannon Apple wrote:
Donelladan wrote:
Arama86n wrote:I agree with Shannon. I strongly oppose this idea.

Do you have a better solution for the pb we speak of here ?

It's totally fine imo if you're talking about accounts with less than 10 games played, but it's not okay to remove accounts that have been here a long time, have built up a reputation, medals, tournament wins, etc. The few people who return after x amount of time as multis are few and far between and isn't worth the mistake of losing long time members who may have took a year's break from the site or whatever by removing accounts that they have medals and records on? If they are found to have been unintentional, then their old account is returned to them. The case that sparked this up was actually a multiple multi with several active accounts pretending to be a returnee (or something like that).

Totally unrelated to my reasons. One reason some sites don't do it is because of gaps in the database. Each account has a unique ID, when you delete one, that ID can never be used again. CC might not care about that, but I know some sites do.

This, as well as: Once a user has played a game, they are linked to that game forever. If that account were deleted, it would cause issues with any of the games they had previously played.

by **Dukasaur** on Thu Oct 09, 2014 11:23 pm

blakebowling wrote:
Shannon Apple wrote:
Donelladan wrote:
Arama86n wrote:I agree with Shannon. I strongly oppose this idea.

Do you have a better solution for the pb we speak of here ?

It's totally fine imo if you're talking about accounts with less than 10 games played, but it's not okay to remove accounts that have been here a long time, have built up a reputation, medals, tournament wins, etc. The few people who return after x amount of time as multis are few and far between and isn't worth the mistake of losing long time members who may have took a year's break from the site or whatever by removing accounts that they have medals and records on? If they are found to have been unintentional, then their old account is returned to them. The case that sparked this up was actually a multiple multi with several active accounts pretending to be a returnee (or something like that).

Totally unrelated to my reasons. One reason some sites don't do it is because of gaps in the database. Each account has a unique ID, when you delete one, that ID can never be used again. CC might not care about that, but I know some sites do.

This, as well as: Once a user has played a game, they are linked to that game forever. If that account were deleted, it would cause issues with any of the games they had previously played.

Do they not have a unique serial number that they are identified by on the server? And even if they don't, they could be assigned one. The account could remain as a numerically-coded database number, while the name itself could be recycled and put back into circulation.

Here's a random sampling of some famous names from history or from fiction, that are forever ruined because somone way back when took them, played very briefly, and abandoned them, rendering them useless to anyone else who might take better care of them:
Robin Hood (2 games)
Terminator (13 games)
Washington (17 games)
Julius Ceasar (24 games)
Luke Skywalker (1 game)
Lao Tzu (1 game)
Germanicus (12 games)
Billy the Kid (1 game)
Hazelnut (1 game)
Wellington (1 game)
Gollum (1 game)
Chewbacca (ZERO games!)
Galahad (1 game)
Champlain (4 games)
Blackbeard (ZERO games!)
Captain Bligh (ZERO games!)

Note: I did NOT spend hours and hours compiling that list! I very quickly typed out 25 famous names from history or fiction (well, hazelnut was strictly speaking neither, but it just popped into my head) and when I tested them, 16 out of 25 upheld my theory.

So, we are forever denied the pleasure of having a Captain Bligh roaming the site for us to hate on and attack, just because some ignorant dickhead four years ago logged in, claimed the name, didn't stick around to play one single solitary game, and wandered off, never to be seen or heard from again. And tomorrow, if somebody who is a real wild-and-crazy Captain Bligh fanatic comes to the site, we won't be able to let him role-play his favourite character because of this unknown wanderer four years ago who contributed nothing to our site in any way.

Now, I'm sure if you tried different lists of famous names you would get different results, but I'll bet that my result of 65% of the good names ruined is probably not far off the mark of what you would get with a larger sample size. Probably something between 50 and 80% of the good famous names have been ruined.

And the site is only eight years old! Can you imagine, if it's this bad now, what it will be like when the site is 25 or 30 years old? There won't be any names available at all except unpronounceable random character strings!

Let's put a stop to it now. If someone hasn't played a single game, recycle their name in one year. If they haven't played 10 games, recycle their name in two years after their last log-in. If they haven't played 100 games, recycle their name in three years after their last log-in. Or make the break-points something else. I'm not obsessing about the exact numbers, just the concept.

I'm sure there's lots of good players who would love to call themselves Wellington or Chewbacca, and end up calling themselves Caopectate_359 or something, because the good names are being occupied by ghosts.

by **blakebowling** on Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:49 am

Dukasaur wrote:
blakebowling wrote:
Shannon Apple wrote:
Donelladan wrote:
Arama86n wrote:I agree with Shannon. I strongly oppose this idea.

Do you have a better solution for the pb we speak of here ?

It's totally fine imo if you're talking about accounts with less than 10 games played, but it's not okay to remove accounts that have been here a long time, have built up a reputation, medals, tournament wins, etc. The few people who return after x amount of time as multis are few and far between and isn't worth the mistake of losing long time members who may have took a year's break from the site or whatever by removing accounts that they have medals and records on? If they are found to have been unintentional, then their old account is returned to them. The case that sparked this up was actually a multiple multi with several active accounts pretending to be a returnee (or something like that).

Totally unrelated to my reasons. One reason some sites don't do it is because of gaps in the database. Each account has a unique ID, when you delete one, that ID can never be used again. CC might not care about that, but I know some sites do.

This, as well as: Once a user has played a game, they are linked to that game forever. If that account were deleted, it would cause issues with any of the games they had previously played.

Do they not have a unique serial number that they are identified by on the server? And even if they don't, they could be assigned one. The account could remain as a numerically-coded database number, while the name itself could be recycled and put back into circulation.

Here's a random sampling of some famous names from history or from fiction, that are forever ruined because somone way back when took them, played very briefly, and abandoned them, rendering them useless to anyone else who might take better care of them:
Robin Hood (2 games)
Terminator (13 games)
Washington (17 games)
Julius Ceasar (24 games)
Luke Skywalker (1 game)
Lao Tzu (1 game)
Germanicus (12 games)
Billy the Kid (1 game)
Hazelnut (1 game)
Wellington (1 game)
Gollum (1 game)
Chewbacca (ZERO games!)
Galahad (1 game)
Champlain (4 games)
Blackbeard (ZERO games!)
Captain Bligh (ZERO games!)

Note: I did NOT spend hours and hours compiling that list! I very quickly typed out 25 famous names from history or fiction (well, hazelnut was strictly speaking neither, but it just popped into my head) and when I tested them, 16 out of 25 upheld my theory.

So, we are forever denied the pleasure of having a Captain Bligh roaming the site for us to hate on and attack, just because some ignorant dickhead four years ago logged in, claimed the name, didn't stick around to play one single solitary game, and wandered off, never to be seen or heard from again. And tomorrow, if somebody who is a real wild-and-crazy Captain Bligh fanatic comes to the site, we won't be able to let him role-play his favourite character because of this unknown wanderer four years ago who contributed nothing to our site in any way.

Now, I'm sure if you tried different lists of famous names you would get different results, but I'll bet that my result of 65% of the good names ruined is probably not far off the mark of what you would get with a larger sample size. Probably something between 50 and 80% of the good famous names have been ruined.

And the site is only eight years old! Can you imagine, if it's this bad now, what it will be like when the site is 25 or 30 years old? There won't be any names available at all except unpronounceable random character strings!

Let's put a stop to it now. If someone hasn't played a single game, recycle their name in one year. If they haven't played 10 games, recycle their name in two years after their last log-in. If they haven't played 100 games, recycle their name in three years after their last log-in. Or make the break-points something else. I'm not obsessing about the exact numbers, just the concept.

I'm sure there's lots of good players who would love to call themselves Wellington or Chewbacca, and end up calling themselves Caopectate_359 or something, because the good names are being occupied by ghosts.

While it is possible, it would still cause some issues that would need to be worked around. What I'm saying is, at this point, it's not as easy as searching and pressing the delete button a few times.

by **Lord Arioch** on Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:37 pm

Cant old accounts be stored with an IP adress but the username recycled? That way if u return u file an eticket and reawaken your account with a new name? Or label it some other way... its just a thought:)

by **betiko** on Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:57 pm

I like duka's idea. For all those players that have just been around for less than 25 -50 games... Just give them a serial number. Actually give us all a serial number so we can change our usernames! :p

I think people should be able to change username and have some place on the wall where you see all the akas...

And i don t like don s idea. Let s say i retire for 2-3 years, i d be really pissed to start from scratch and probably wouldn t bother.

by **Donelladan** on Sun Oct 12, 2014 4:35 am

betiko, what if you retire for 2-3 years, come back, and see that your name has been taken by someone else ? ^^

by **GoranZ** on Sun Oct 12, 2014 5:13 am

Only accounts without games/posts can be deleted...

If accounts with games/posts are deleted then there is a need to change the way the DB is designed(and brake few rules of modern database design). Anyway if deletion of accounts with games/posts does happen there will be reduction of game speed(braking of rules does come with price).

Alternatively some feature as deactivate account(account will still be here but without avatar/sig/additional info etc) can be made but on owners request.

by **owenshooter** on Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:00 pm

i personally would love if all my old accounts could be deleted... from what blake has said and from past discussions, it is just not THAT simple.. if it were, i believe we would see a cleaning/scrubbing of the user database on a regular basis...-Jésus noir

by **Dukasaur** on Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:26 am

Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not talking about deleting accounts. I'm talking about deleting the alphanumeric usernames associated with them, so that they could be used by someone else. I'm assuming that the original accounts still have unique, sequential ID numbers in the database that they could be referenced through, and therefore not data could be lost.

Just a simple notation, "prior to 12/12/12, 'Julius Ceasar' was associated with account 123455 instead of 480300."

by **Assassin07** on Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:11 am

I took a break after making general for 2 long years I do not support this.

by **Dukasaur** on Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:23 am

assassin07 wrote:I took a break after making general for 2 long years I do not support this.

We're not talking about deleting people who have been around long enough to have a high rank or a reputation. We're talking about recycling good names held by people who didn't stick around.

Dukasaur wrote:
Here's a random sampling of some famous names from history or from fiction, that are forever ruined because somone way back when took them, played very briefly, and abandoned them, rendering them useless to anyone else who might take better care of them:
Robin Hood (2 games)
Terminator (13 games)
Washington (17 games)
Julius Ceasar (24 games)
Luke Skywalker (1 game)
Lao Tzu (1 game)
Germanicus (12 games)
Billy the Kid (1 game)
Hazelnut (1 game)
Wellington (1 game)
Gollum (1 game)
Chewbacca (ZERO games!)
Galahad (1 game)
Champlain (4 games)
Blackbeard (ZERO games!)
Captain Bligh (ZERO games!)

Note: I did NOT spend hours and hours compiling that list! I very quickly typed out 25 famous names from history or fiction (well, hazelnut was strictly speaking neither, but it just popped into my head) and when I tested them, 16 out of 25 upheld my theory.

So, we are forever denied the pleasure of having a Captain Bligh roaming the site for us to hate on and attack, just because some ignorant dickhead four years ago logged in, claimed the name, didn't stick around to play one single solitary game, and wandered off, never to be seen or heard from again. And tomorrow, if somebody who is a real wild-and-crazy Captain Bligh fanatic comes to the site, we won't be able to let him role-play his favourite character because of this unknown wanderer four years ago who contributed nothing to our site in any way.

by **dgz345** on Wed Nov 12, 2014 10:00 pm

i guess that usernames is a key in the database so you cant really "remove" the username. tho you can rename them (key = unique cant exist 2 identical keys)

problem:
users that DO comeback cant comeback because they their username does not exist but the user still exist (unlikely)
that means that you no longer can search for that specific user by the name anymore but he still exist (unlikely)

one implementation of this could be:
server checks the users and finds a "deprecated" user.
server renames that user to "@{id}" (@= special character that is not usually allowed, {id} = unique user id <a number> )

if a user who then already have hade an account on this site uses the i forgot my password function and uses his mail.
it will give instructions to the new unique username and also a possibility to change username (who would like to be named @12345)

this was just 1 way that it could be done.

this would free that key from the database

Note: i do not take any side. there is pros and cons. and the pros and cons affects only (new users / old users / web owner / programmers)

Summary:
new users have more names to choose from
old users cant login
web owner will have less users (cant count users with names like @12345 and @54321 as users. not good for marketing)
programmers have to implement this