Level 5's are not an exception. Inactive level 5s are removed from the group. Same goes with moderators. However they are given a bit more leniency given the fact that they have obviously contributed a significant amount (hence their status as level 5). And I'm thinking expon meant those who bought AU, not those who donated 10 cents. Course, I can't speak for him.
All I know is from what the person linked to me. And from that, my two statements above still stand. Nonetheless, they were two cheap shots that likely lessened the credibility of my post more than it did aid the overall message. Oh well.
Then shall I share with you something else? This is from the old Level 5 application guidelines. So now you know. And yes, member are often demoted. former level 5 members: MarcelAjax, antikitra, X Joe Kickass X, MCheezie, Mipsy, ang, Smirnoff, natskaya As for my other "cheap shot," it wouldn't be very hard to ask expon for the information would it? I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove here though. That the removal of AU from inactive users was unfair? I can't really be the judge of that as "fair" is subjective, but what expon says goes. He wrote the program; he can do whatever he wants with it.
Oh, ok. Thanks for that info. I was actually referring to my own two comments (level 5+donating) at the end as cheap shots; both points weren't really relevant with what I was trying to say in that post. All I'm trying to prove here is that the removal of AU from inactive may be unfair. As far as I am concerned, that distinction between fair and unfair is not one so easily drawn. And what expon does with it is what he does with it. He has the final say. But it certainly doesn't make it fair. And if one of you says that it doesn't matter if it is fair or not, and to suck it up - well, that's besides the point.
From my programming experience, I can tell you that AU is not just a standard piece of code like every other autobuyer. Expon spent a lot of time (probably some of the time he was "inactive" was used to develop it) on its coding, and well, 300 posts on this forum (which you don't even have to pay for) is nothing compared to the effort he put in the autobuyer. So yeah, in my opinion what he did is generally fair, as I would imagine how I'd feel if I saw a lot of inactive users using a program I made (and put a lot of time in it) without having made a post in months. Yeah, I would probably do what he did as well. On the other hand, in your specific case it might not seem fair, too. But I don't think complaining about how "unfair" it was will help solve the situation. If you want the program back, do something. Either try PMing expon to get it back, or start posting again.
I understand that fully. The thing is, I'm not even complaining, and I've personally moved on. All I'm trying to do is make some of the others understand my viewpoint. The thing is, I just feel that there are more effective methods of preventing inactive users of using AU than what is being done right now.
I understand that you feel that this wasn't what you thought of as effective. What I'd suggest is that you talk to expon, since it is his program and he does have the rights to do whatever to it. This was not and will not be the forum's decision, so there is no point in trying to post something publicly. Whether or not expon accepts this suggestion also cannot be guaranteed, but I can tell you, you will have a hard time trying to convince him.
With regards to expon, I'm sure (or at least hope) that he has already stumbled onto this thread. As for whether or not there is point in trying to post this publicly, I find that it has fulfilled my goals. It was not meant to change expon's decision at all. I began posting in this thread simply asking for information regarding the taking away of access, and suggesting that these requirements for the continued use of the program to be posted somewhere, so in the future if someone is, I don't know, unable to log on to NF for whatever reason, he or she knows what will happen. (Then again, I can see why this may not be good as not letting people know serves as an effective tool in weeding out undedicated users - the only caveat to that is that it might be weeding out some dedicated contributors as well.) It was only with a few posts that I felt were a bit too self-righteous for my tastes that I replied and attempted to allow them to see my perspective on this matter. And anyways, this has made for some interesting and fun discussion for me
In no particular order: 1. SoS = Sword of Skardsen. For the analagous explanation, see point 3. 2. If Deno never had the chance to even use AU, then okay, I see no problem? If he never had time to use it anyways then its absence didn't change anything. 3. Of course I read your entire post. I wish you'd read mine. 4. The car crash bit is a fair point. See point 5. Although, most users who leave because they have to, not because they don't feel like posting anymore, do post goodbye. 5. Don't worry, the authorization system will be changed so this isn't a problem again. Inactive users will be barred from AU without the three month grace period that we gave in this instance. So no worries. 6. 'Dedicated users' won't leech by using programs while inactive, so not publicly posting the rule seems fine by your argument, thanks. Thanks for your input.
Maybe I'm merely a poor interpreter of tone over the Internet with the use of text, but dear me, is it getting frosty in here or what? 1. The SOS doesn't DISAPPEAR, which is the point. 2. Deno never had the chance. He now wants to. He must now either donate or post more. You may be fine with that. I respectfuly disagree. 3. Read it again. 4. "most users who leave because they have to... do post goodbye." By your logic, if I'm in a car crash tomorrow, I should say goodbye today? 5. Good. Inactive users get penalized more efficiently. However, I still think once inactive users who want to contribute once more need not be penalized. So for me, yes worries. 6. Thanks for agreeing with the first portion of my sentence - please proceed to the latter portion of it now. Thank you for your continued patience in working with me to improve the system...? ^ are there truly needs for such formality?
You're a poor interpreter of tone? I wasn't frosty at all. But okay, I can be if you want me to be. 1. Sigh. I'll quote my original post: On a bit of a side note, I've been playing Neo for nearly a decade. Believe me, I'm well aware of the item use status of an SoS. 2. A valid, argument, but sorry if I'm a bit skeptical. A lot of inactive users lately seem to all be returning, coincidentally right when AU access was removed, coincidentally they all were too busy doing A, B, or C to have used AU before. Funny how those things happen. 3. Why? 4. Like you said. Read it again. 5. Great, welcome back to the forum. 6. See point 4. If you want me to be an overweening 'frosty' bitch towards you, then fine, I will. That's on you. That's your choice.
Is it really needed to fight over a decision of a program's privileges? You disagree, and you have suggested it: -mods disagree, expon does, too -this has been discussed before -you have really had many shots at it -Why not just try again? There's no point in arguing anymore...even if Phee does change her mind, you'd have to convince the rest of the mods and expon too. Is it really that hard to retry and get the program again?