You forgot to double the numbers, since the stats were taken when the user count was half what it is today. That would make it 528. Not really that far off of 300, though, so kniz was probably thinking of the 50 that also appeared in that quote.
<< What real harm is there in letting on that you know what everybody else knows, that some are Banned, some are blocked from posting, and some are erased entirely. What good does it do to pretend? Who is left to convince? >>
That discussion belongs in the Pit. Speaking generally, however, it depends. Most of the ones who are just erased are the pure spammers – like the 'bot who popped in last week and dropped about 20 posts that linked to a porn site. What, you’d prefer that we keep that name up and call it “BANNED”, and that we go through by hand deleting the individual links? Pfaugh. A complete purge and wipe-out was fastest and easiest.
Administrators (like Mods) are not paid, and we often do what takes the least time.
Of course, if you’d rather think of it as a deep conspiracy, we’re secret Illuminati sympathizers out to deceive and delude you, then please go open a topic in the Pit.
Conspiracy? That’s your word, NOT mine. I said Lynn’s statement was “not true”. And that is correct. She has often taken that stand however, so that’s why I asked what the difference is. As you yourself say, it’s easier to do some things than others. What matter if the end count is 50 or 500 or 1000? It don’t matter, as banning is at most temporary, often as previously mentioned the bannee returns within minutes.
Hah! Now you’re banned. Let’s see YOU come back within minutes. ::Timing…tick.tick::
Completely unrelated, but what the heck do Aslan2 and parteee’s sigs mean?