Particracy Forum

Does anyone have any opinions on the idea of booting parties out of orgs after they've been inactive for about a year a so? I think a lot of org leaders like to keep as many inactive parties in as possible because it can sort of be used as a gauge of how 'important' an org is, and of course they don't want their org to drop down on the list below orgs with 300 members (4 active).

But if it became standard practice to prune the organisations of long-gone parties, with moderation occasionally stepping in when org leaders refuse to cull their numbers, the list of orgs would actually rank their general level of activity somewhat more accurately.

Does anyone agree with this? Disagree? Have other suggestions on how to go about it?

Just browsing through some of these old threads, and saw this. I think it would be an excellent idea. Working out which organisations are worth joining, I want to know their current membership, not a long list of obsolete party names.

Also, looking through the list, I noticed that there are some organisations which have 0 active members. There definitely needs to be a way to remove them.

Who cares? I don't think removing dead (or moribund) orgs is really a first priority.

GreenChristian wrote:I noticed that there are some organisations which have 0 active members. There definitely needs to be a way to remove them.

There is. If you find one, just post a link to it in the relevant thread in the Game Moderation section of the forum.

Wow. This thread's out of the blue.