note: this is NOT rejected. the rejection in TOLORS links to this post as “not rejected.”


automatically delete accounts that meet all of these requirements:

• have no projects (counting shared and unshared projects)
  
• have an empty about me and wiwo and a default pfp
  
• are over 6 months old since join date
  
• have never performed a social action (commenting, remixing, love, fav, following, forum posting. etc)
  
• are a new scratcher and not part of scratch team
  

tl;dr. automatically delete accounts older than 6 months that have basically not done anything. their only activity (besides anything not requiring an account) will just be joining scratch.

just, idk if this is rejected, but this can save storage space a lot. some people will register an account, and forget about doing anything on it. this wastes several bytes of storage that could be used for some actual, real users.

the username can then be taken by someone else, preventing very special and rare usernames from being taken by people who refuse to connect with the scratch community.

Yes actually there's so many of these accounts where the person creates it and then immediately goes back and leaves never to be seen again. I don't work for scratch but I don't think it would be taking up that much storage when it's just a username, email&password and some other misc settings with nothing else. And I don't think the community would like free usernames

Support! this will probably prevent scummy people who took the usernames to sell the accounts like 10 years later or something.

Support. This gets rid of namesnipe accounts, and it saves on storage. And, these users have nothing to lose other than their name.

TOLORS wrote:

8.5 Recycle usernames or delete inactive accounts
The only potential benefit to these suggestions is that Scratchers could reuse usernames. However, this is problematic in several ways. Deleting inactive accounts might mean that the user's projects get deleted, which would be extremely unfortunate should they decide to return to Scratch. Even if the account is already deleted, someone may attempt to impersonate the deleted user with the new username. In addition, there are reasons that the Scratch Team may need to refer back to the deleted account.

This includes deleting inactive accounts for any reason, including “name sniping” accounts as well as accounts that appear to have no activity at all. The Scratch Team sees no need to take down any accounts at this time to reuse usernames, free up server space, or for any other reason.

fellas we all know this is rejected

yadayadayadagoodbye wrote:

TOLORS wrote:

8.5 Recycle usernames or delete inactive accounts
The only potential benefit to these suggestions is that Scratchers could reuse usernames. However, this is problematic in several ways. Deleting inactive accounts might mean that the user's projects get deleted, which would be extremely unfortunate should they decide to return to Scratch. Even if the account is already deleted, someone may attempt to impersonate the deleted user with the new username. In addition, there are reasons that the Scratch Team may need to refer back to the deleted account.

This includes deleting inactive accounts for any reason, including “name sniping” accounts as well as accounts that appear to have no activity at all. The Scratch Team sees no need to take down any accounts at this time to reuse usernames, free up server space, or for any other reason.

fellas we all know this is rejected

oops

yadayadayadagoodbye wrote:

TOLORS wrote:

8.5 Recycle usernames or delete inactive accounts
The only potential benefit to these suggestions is that Scratchers could reuse usernames. However, this is problematic in several ways. Deleting inactive accounts might mean that the user's projects get deleted, which would be extremely unfortunate should they decide to return to Scratch. Even if the account is already deleted, someone may attempt to impersonate the deleted user with the new username. In addition, there are reasons that the Scratch Team may need to refer back to the deleted account.

This includes deleting inactive accounts for any reason, including “name sniping” accounts as well as accounts that appear to have no activity at all. The Scratch Team sees no need to take down any accounts at this time to reuse usernames, free up server space, or for any other reason.

fellas we all know this is rejected

Not inactive, UNUSED accounts.

TheInterneter wrote:

yadayadayadagoodbye wrote:

TOLORS wrote:

8.5 Recycle usernames or delete inactive accounts
The only potential benefit to these suggestions is that Scratchers could reuse usernames. However, this is problematic in several ways. Deleting inactive accounts might mean that the user's projects get deleted, which would be extremely unfortunate should they decide to return to Scratch. Even if the account is already deleted, someone may attempt to impersonate the deleted user with the new username. In addition, there are reasons that the Scratch Team may need to refer back to the deleted account.

This includes deleting inactive accounts for any reason, including “name sniping” accounts as well as accounts that appear to have no activity at all. The Scratch Team sees no need to take down any accounts at this time to reuse usernames, free up server space, or for any other reason.

fellas we all know this is rejected

Not inactive, UNUSED accounts.

now, lemme ask you this: are unused accounts active?

yadayadayadagoodbye wrote:

TheInterneter wrote:

yadayadayadagoodbye wrote:

TOLORS wrote:

8.5 Recycle usernames or delete inactive accounts
The only potential benefit to these suggestions is that Scratchers could reuse usernames. However, this is problematic in several ways. Deleting inactive accounts might mean that the user's projects get deleted, which would be extremely unfortunate should they decide to return to Scratch. Even if the account is already deleted, someone may attempt to impersonate the deleted user with the new username. In addition, there are reasons that the Scratch Team may need to refer back to the deleted account.

This includes deleting inactive accounts for any reason, including “name sniping” accounts as well as accounts that appear to have no activity at all. The Scratch Team sees no need to take down any accounts at this time to reuse usernames, free up server space, or for any other reason.

fellas we all know this is rejected

Not inactive, UNUSED accounts.

now, lemme ask you this: are unused accounts active?

unused do not equal inactive

Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

(…)
unused do not equal inactive

I'm pretty sure we're drifting away from what the OP is saying here. It's saying that if an account hasn't done ANYTHING since being created and has been around for a decent time it is deleted.

TOLORS wrote:

Deleting inactive accounts might mean that the user's projects get deleted, which would be extremely unfortunate should they decide to return to Scratch. Even if the account is already deleted, someone may attempt to impersonate the deleted user with the new username. In addition, there are reasons that the Scratch Team may need to refer back to the deleted account.

I could just be making a big goober of myself but… Imma address why this suggestion is a solution (or evasion ig) of the issues presented in the TOLORS

Deleting inactive accounts might mean that the user's projects get deleted, which would be extremely unfortunate should they decide to return to Scratch. - According to requirements for deletion in OP, only accounts with no projects can be deleted.
Even if the account is already deleted, someone may attempt to impersonate the deleted user with the new username. - If the account hasn't done anything (as shown in OP as a requirement) then impersonation wouldn't be an issue at all because they have nothing they have done on the site to impersonate or gain from impersonating.
In addition, there are reasons that the Scratch Team may need to refer back to the deleted account. - The only possible offense I can think of that an account with the OP's requirements can do is to have an innapropriate username, in which case it should be taken down anyway. I don't see any other possible reasons the account would need to be reviewed.

Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

unused do not equal inactive

Sure, but “unused” is a subset of “inactive.” As a result, “deleting unused accounts” is rejected since “deleting inactive accounts” is rejected.

yeah this suggestion is dead
rejected
guess we'll never see this for a long time

Za-Chary wrote:

Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

unused do not equal inactive

Sure, but “unused” is a subset of “inactive.” As a result, “deleting unused accounts” is rejected since “deleting inactive accounts” is rejected.

what we mean is accounts that were never used at all.

56-s wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

unused do not equal inactive

Sure, but “unused” is a subset of “inactive.” As a result, “deleting unused accounts” is rejected since “deleting inactive accounts” is rejected.

what we mean is accounts that were never used at all.

Accounts that were never used at all are certainly considered “inactive,” and as I said before, “delete inactive accounts” is rejected.

Za-Chary wrote:

56-s wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

unused do not equal inactive

Sure, but “unused” is a subset of “inactive.” As a result, “deleting unused accounts” is rejected since “deleting inactive accounts” is rejected.

what we mean is accounts that were never used at all.

Accounts that were never used at all are certainly considered “inactive,” and as I said before, “delete inactive accounts” is rejected.

so this is already rejected and case closed?

Za-Chary wrote:

Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

unused do not equal inactive

Sure, but “unused” is a subset of “inactive.” As a result, “deleting unused accounts” is rejected since “deleting inactive accounts” is rejected.

No - I don't think that's how that works. If an account is totally unused (has created nothing on Scratch other than the account) - that's different from an account that has become inactive after being active for some period of time. I personally would not have an issue with removing accounts that had never been active.

Paddle2See wrote:

No - I don't think that's how that works. If an account is totally unused (has created nothing on Scratch other than the account) - that's different from an account that has become inactive after being active for some period of time. I personally would not have an issue with removing accounts that had never been active.

This is the greatest plot twist of All Time

I will update the list of rejected suggestions to reflect this. If someone could make a post on that thread to remind me, that would be appreciated.

Za-Chary wrote:

Paddle2See wrote:

No - I don't think that's how that works. If an account is totally unused (has created nothing on Scratch other than the account) - that's different from an account that has become inactive after being active for some period of time. I personally would not have an issue with removing accounts that had never been active.

This is the greatest plot twist of All Time

I will update the list of rejected suggestions to reflect this. If someone could make a post on that thread to remind me, that would be appreciated.

i’m screenshoting it until this goes to the dustbin for whatever reason

Paddle2See wrote:

Za-Chary wrote:

Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

unused do not equal inactive

Sure, but “unused” is a subset of “inactive.” As a result, “deleting unused accounts” is rejected since “deleting inactive accounts” is rejected.

No - I don't think that's how that works. If an account is totally unused (has created nothing on Scratch other than the account) - that's different from an account that has become inactive after being active for some period of time. I personally would not have an issue with removing accounts that had never been active.

Interesting, but how would you know if an account was never “active”? An account has to have been logged in originally (unless its a class account), and so would it be considered active if, say, the owner, after creating it, sent a single comment, or stayed logged in for a week?