Delete all the old and unused accounts.

[Coef]

Admins, consider deleting all the accounts that haven't been used for the last 6 months or more with Brand New, Newbie (with 10 or less posts/activity) and banned and abandoned accounts so that a lot of usernames will be available and also it will free up some space (I don't know where).. ....

It is not like we are having any performance issues now with "too many accounts".
So, are there any real benefits for such account pruning? 

[Koko]

Maybe the owners of accounts that have been inactive for a LONG time can get automated emails, maybe a few over a period of time, asking them if they still wish to remain members. A simple "yes" to one of the emails would prevent that account from being deleted. It might help find accounts that have clearly been abandoned. Although like others have said, I don't know how useful that would be apart from freeing up some usernames.

[tspacepilot]

Yes, as far as I can tell, this proposal can introduce all sorts of problems and issues and I can't really see that it offers any benefits.  Maybe there's a benefit for someone who really wants a username that's taken but jeezus, that's really something that you just have to get used to if you're going to use the internet, imho.

[wolfYella]

The only reason I would say it would be appropriate to delete an account would be if an account is perma banned and all the posts have been deleted and no PMs have ever been sent/received (other then the PM notifying a post has been deleted). There is also somewhat of an argument to delete accounts that have never posted period and never sent/received a PM after several months, although this argument is somewhat weaker.

If the account has posted or has sent/received a PM then it absolutely should not be deleted. 

[tspacepilot]

The only reason I would say it would be appropriate to delete an account would be if an account is perma banned and all the posts have been deleted and no PMs have ever been sent/received (other then the PM notifying a post has been deleted). There is also somewhat of an argument to delete accounts that have never posted period and never sent/received a PM after several months, although this argument is somewhat weaker.

If the account has posted or has sent/received a PM then it absolutely should not be deleted. 

I think even in the 'perma banned' scenario you want to leave that name banned.  Otherwise how do you prevent either (1) the perma-banned user simply resigns up under the same name or (2) some other user signs up under the banned name?  In (1) the perma ban has failed.  In (2) an unwitting user just inherited a terrible reputation.

[marcotheminer]

The only reason I would say it would be appropriate to delete an account would be if an account is perma banned and all the posts have been deleted and no PMs have ever been sent/received (other then the PM notifying a post has been deleted). There is also somewhat of an argument to delete accounts that have never posted period and never sent/received a PM after several months, although this argument is somewhat weaker.

If the account has posted or has sent/received a PM then it absolutely should not be deleted. 

I think even in the 'perma banned' scenario you want to leave that name banned.  Otherwise how do you prevent either (1) the perma-banned user simply resigns up under the same name or (2) some other user signs up under the banned name?  In (1) the perma ban has failed.  In (2) an unwitting user just inherited a terrible reputation.

Solution - the name remains "taken"

[Bitcoins101]

The only reason I would say it would be appropriate to delete an account would be if an account is perma banned and all the posts have been deleted and no PMs have ever been sent/received (other then the PM notifying a post has been deleted). There is also somewhat of an argument to delete accounts that have never posted period and never sent/received a PM after several months, although this argument is somewhat weaker.

If the account has posted or has sent/received a PM then it absolutely should not be deleted.  

I think even in the 'perma banned' scenario you want to leave that name banned.  Otherwise how do you prevent either (1) the perma-banned user simply resigns up under the same name or (2) some other user signs up under the banned name?  In (1) the perma ban has failed.  In (2) an unwitting user just inherited a terrible reputation.

Solution - the name remains "taken"

Solution: We don't delete accounts in the first place.

Not that an idea like this would ever be implemented in a thousand years. Why don't we delete all transactions off the blockchain pre-2014 too, because they're old.

[SHA255]

The only reason I would say it would be appropriate to delete an account would be if an account is perma banned and all the posts have been deleted and no PMs have ever been sent/received (other then the PM notifying a post has been deleted). There is also somewhat of an argument to delete accounts that have never posted period and never sent/received a PM after several months, although this argument is somewhat weaker.

If the account has posted or has sent/received a PM then it absolutely should not be deleted. 

I think even in the 'perma banned' scenario you want to leave that name banned.  Otherwise how do you prevent either (1) the perma-banned user simply resigns up under the same name or (2) some other user signs up under the banned name?  In (1) the perma ban has failed.  In (2) an unwitting user just inherited a terrible reputation.

Solution - the name remains "taken"

I would say this should be the case for accounts like "`theymos" (with the ' before the t), but should not be for simple spamming accounts. I don't think that spamming accounts really have that bad of a negative reputation but rather were just a nuisance and were deleted.

[tspacepilot]

The only reason I would say it would be appropriate to delete an account would be if an account is perma banned and all the posts have been deleted and no PMs have ever been sent/received (other then the PM notifying a post has been deleted). There is also somewhat of an argument to delete accounts that have never posted period and never sent/received a PM after several months, although this argument is somewhat weaker.

If the account has posted or has sent/received a PM then it absolutely should not be deleted. 

I think even in the 'perma banned' scenario you want to leave that name banned.  Otherwise how do you prevent either (1) the perma-banned user simply resigns up under the same name or (2) some other user signs up under the banned name?  In (1) the perma ban has failed.  In (2) an unwitting user just inherited a terrible reputation.

Solution - the name remains "taken"

Yes.  As far as I can tell, you completely agree with me.  The name remains "taken" which is equivalent to not deleting it which is what I'm arguing for.

[Bitcoins101]

The only reason I would say it would be appropriate to delete an account would be if an account is perma banned and all the posts have been deleted and no PMs have ever been sent/received (other then the PM notifying a post has been deleted). There is also somewhat of an argument to delete accounts that have never posted period and never sent/received a PM after several months, although this argument is somewhat weaker.

If the account has posted or has sent/received a PM then it absolutely should not be deleted. 

I think even in the 'perma banned' scenario you want to leave that name banned.  Otherwise how do you prevent either (1) the perma-banned user simply resigns up under the same name or (2) some other user signs up under the banned name?  In (1) the perma ban has failed.  In (2) an unwitting user just inherited a terrible reputation.

Solution - the name remains "taken"

Yes.  As far as I can tell, you completely agree with me.  The name remains "taken" which is equivalent to not deleting it which is what I'm arguing for.

Remaining taken is different from not being deleted. With many websites, even after deleting an account, the account name remains taken.

[tspacepilot]

The only reason I would say it would be appropriate to delete an account would be if an account is perma banned and all the posts have been deleted and no PMs have ever been sent/received (other then the PM notifying a post has been deleted). There is also somewhat of an argument to delete accounts that have never posted period and never sent/received a PM after several months, although this argument is somewhat weaker.

If the account has posted or has sent/received a PM then it absolutely should not be deleted. 

I think even in the 'perma banned' scenario you want to leave that name banned.  Otherwise how do you prevent either (1) the perma-banned user simply resigns up under the same name or (2) some other user signs up under the banned name?  In (1) the perma ban has failed.  In (2) an unwitting user just inherited a terrible reputation.

Solution - the name remains "taken"

Yes.  As far as I can tell, you completely agree with me.  The name remains "taken" which is equivalent to not deleting it which is what I'm arguing for.

Remaining taken is different from not being deleted. With many websites, even after deleting an account, the account name remains taken.

What's the point of the deletion then?  I thought the OP was suggesting to delete old accounts so that the usernames could be freed up for new users.  If that's not what this discussion is about, then I've missed something important.

[Bitcoins101]

The only reason I would say it would be appropriate to delete an account would be if an account is perma banned and all the posts have been deleted and no PMs have ever been sent/received (other then the PM notifying a post has been deleted). There is also somewhat of an argument to delete accounts that have never posted period and never sent/received a PM after several months, although this argument is somewhat weaker.

If the account has posted or has sent/received a PM then it absolutely should not be deleted.  

I think even in the 'perma banned' scenario you want to leave that name banned.  Otherwise how do you prevent either (1) the perma-banned user simply resigns up under the same name or (2) some other user signs up under the banned name?  In (1) the perma ban has failed.  In (2) an unwitting user just inherited a terrible reputation.

Solution - the name remains "taken"

Yes.  As far as I can tell, you completely agree with me.  The name remains "taken" which is equivalent to not deleting it which is what I'm arguing for.

Remaining taken is different from not being deleted. With many websites, even after deleting an account, the account name remains taken.

What's the point of the deletion then?  I thought the OP was suggesting to delete old accounts so that the usernames could be freed up for new users.  If that's not what this discussion is about, then I've missed something important.

There is no point. It's a not a good idea and will never, ever be implemented on a forum like this. Recycling usernames doesn't work in a community where financial transactions are taking place.

Sounds like we agree with each other. This is just semantics.