i was thinking of those that do not contribute at all (either played a game or created a board). Yertle had a good point that i hadn't thought about -- those winning/losing games affect points so they really can't be deleted. at one point all 3 of those you mentioned were highly involved so they've obviously been contributors.

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

If memory serves, the reason why Tom doesn't delete (only disables) accounts is because of points, and things not evening out (points are taken from the losers and given to the winner).
Deleting the accounts (and the associated records) makes the net +/- not equal to zero.

Deleting players does create problems if they have played a game and not just ranking calculations. If someone ever goes back to an old game where one of the players was deleted it will cause problems all over the place.

I'm happy to adjust the definition of 'Founder' to be more appropriate... any ideas?

Yertle wrote:

tom wrote:

Should be fixed now.

What/When...It's Not...

Assuming this was in regards to the Friends Achievement...it's still not fixed for me...

tom wrote:

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

If memory serves, the reason why Tom doesn't delete (only disables) accounts is because of points, and things not evening out (points are taken from the losers and given to the winner).
Deleting the accounts (and the associated records) makes the net +/- not equal to zero.

Deleting players does create problems if they have played a game and not just ranking calculations. If someone ever goes back to an old game where one of the players was deleted it will cause problems all over the place.

I'm happy to adjust the definition of 'Founder' to be more appropriate... any ideas?

The criteria should be the longest-lived active members, say the lowest  1000 active numbers.

There are a number of ways to enforce this.  The simplest that comes to mind is the player must always have an active game..

OR have been a Premium member OR been on vacation while not having an active game.

M57 wrote:

tom wrote:

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

If memory serves, the reason why Tom doesn't delete (only disables) accounts is because of points, and things not evening out (points are taken from the losers and given to the winner).
Deleting the accounts (and the associated records) makes the net +/- not equal to zero.

Deleting players does create problems if they have played a game and not just ranking calculations. If someone ever goes back to an old game where one of the players was deleted it will cause problems all over the place.

I'm happy to adjust the definition of 'Founder' to be more appropriate... any ideas?

The criteria should be the longest-lived active members, say the lowest  1000 active numbers.

There are a number of ways to enforce this.  The simplest that comes to mind is the player must always have an active game..

OR have been a Premium member OR been on vacation while not having an active game.

Eh, I don't think that should necessarily be the requirements, 'Founders' should be the early Members, not based on current activity.  It could be based on Time since Site Go Live instead of 'X' number, ie those that joined within the first 6-12 months, which may include a few more members (or not...?).  I don't think it should be too big of a deal if an old inactive player gets the Founder Achievement even if they didn't play much or at all.

Yertle wrote:

M57 wrote:

tom wrote:

BorisTheFrugal wrote:

If memory serves, the reason why Tom doesn't delete (only disables) accounts is because of points, and things not evening out (points are taken from the losers and given to the winner).
Deleting the accounts (and the associated records) makes the net +/- not equal to zero.

Deleting players does create problems if they have played a game and not just ranking calculations. If someone ever goes back to an old game where one of the players was deleted it will cause problems all over the place.

I'm happy to adjust the definition of 'Founder' to be more appropriate... any ideas?

The criteria should be the longest-lived active members, say the lowest  1000 active numbers.

There are a number of ways to enforce this.  The simplest that comes to mind is the player must always have an active game..

OR have been a Premium member OR been on vacation while not having an active game.

Eh, I don't think that should necessarily be the requirements, 'Founders' should be the early Members, not based on current activity.  It could be based on Time since Site Go Live instead of 'X' number, ie those that joined within the first 6-12 months, which may include a few more members (or not...?).  I don't think it should be too big of a deal if an old inactive player gets the Founder Achievement even if they didn't play much or at all.

+1

Yertle wrote:

Eh, I don't think that should necessarily be the requirements, 'Founders' should be the early Members, not based on current activity.  It could be based on Time since Site Go Live instead of 'X' number, ie those that joined within the first 6-12 months, which may include a few more members (or not...?).  I don't think it should be too big of a deal if an old inactive player gets the Founder Achievement even if they didn't play much or at all.

I don't really care that much because it is not really 'achievable' by most of us.  But mow many of the first 1000 or so joined, played 1 (or no games) ..got booted and left?

Yertle wrote:

I believe there is a Bug somehow with the Friend Achievement...as I'm fairly certain I should have one (if for no other reason other than my Board Test Account Yurog "Friending" myself )...unless I'm missing something.

I still don't have my Friend Achievement