Every idea might be a good idea if it needs more information and research.
Cut me some slack, I was trying to show my support without diving head first before knowing the facts.
Is it unreasonable to put restrictions on usage and leave the responsibilty for complying to these restrictions with the user, rather than anyone else?
That would depend on the restriction and who is defining "reasonable", but of course you are speaking of the restriction of a "mandatory minimum" and we are the ones defining reasonable. I would say that it probably is unreasonable in this context, because if we start by requiring just a single post (as that is what is required from Brand New > Newbie) to remove these bad-apples, then what is stopping incremental increases in this minimum requirement of participation? As these bad-apples get more savvy and start making their single post, wouldn't it be reasonable to increase this number in order to continue reasonable enforcement of this proposal? There would be no stopping this.
Is the forum in fact restricted in terms of visibility for non-registered visitors, or: does the forum need 'lurkers'? (Your opinion on losing your account is apreciated but lies outside the scope of this thread.)
I am not entirely sure, this is what I meant by I need more information and research, because it might be the case that the forum is limited. If you are asking me sarcastically because you already know the answer is no, then I am sorry for missing that. The word "need" is something I have been disagreeing with people about all day, but if you mean it how it is defined then no, at face value I would say we do not
need lurkers or almost anyone for that matter. I acknowledge that my anecdote wasn't in the scope of what is being proposed, so perhaps I should've kept it to myself, but there is the possibility that certain users only operate via PM instead of public posts. Since it is unlikely such a person would ever come forward, would it be fair to shun these people for trying to remain out of the public eye?
Renewal/reactivation implies the account remains active as a part of the forum and one could imagine certain (moderated) action following from this state. This is not the same state as being wiped from the registry. This has other implications which, oposite to not being wiped demand an action from a aspiring user rather than a moderator. Anyone who signs up is responsible for its own account and one of the terms for using this forum could be 'if you sign up and don't use your account for six months we'll delete your account'.
Fair enough, I can agree to that. You are right about the distinctions there. This still would inevitably put more of a workload on the moderators, whenever an aspiring user does have the ambitions to reactivate/renew. Although, I agree that this would help minimize the cost to our staff. That might be a fair rule if you signed up under that being the case, but then would it be fair to retroactively impose this on already created accounts that never agreed to such a thing?
That's not a conclusion, that's rhetorical(-ish). I fail to see how we (me and him) agree here and moreover why it's identified as an agreement to go for the path of the least resistance and, more boldly, that not wasting forum recources is a trivial means to an end of it all.
Not wasting forum resources is a good thing I think.
I was building off an incorrect assumption, after I had failed to see the distinction between renewal and deletion, which was certainly my error. So, this would not be an agreement as you've pointed out. My mistake!
Assuming this is an end to it all, then yes the resources it would cost would be trivial; although, I can't say that I believe this to be the case.
