# Question for the admins/mods



## Growly_Genet (Nov 6, 2006)

Is there any way to remove an entire account.  I would prefer to delete the account and no longer have it listed on FA - yet I have seen no option on the site to do so.


----------



## uncia2000 (Nov 6, 2006)

No, sorry, not possible for various reasons.

And even if it were, someone else could register under your identity and pose as you, which is a situation we would rather did not have the opportunity to occur.

The best available option available at present is just to remove everything and put a clear "not here/left (date)" notice in the profile.

Regards, 
David.


----------



## Zelinko (Nov 6, 2006)

Also sleep on it before you decide to do such drastic acts


----------



## Arshes Nei (Nov 6, 2006)

Seems people are treating FA like a pet door. Not an attack on the user of this thread, just an observation of the whole situation in general.


----------



## Serpenthor (Nov 6, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> No, sorry, not possible for various reasons.
> 
> And even if it were, someone else could register under your identity and pose as you, which is a situation we would rather did not have the opportunity to occur.
> 
> The best available option available at present is just to remove everything and put a clear "not here/left (date)" notice in the profile.



So basically I have no ability to remove my name from this site?  Once a member, always a member, regardless of my own wishes?  Giving the excuse that it can't be done for 'various reasons' is rather vague.  If you were aware from the beginning that there was no way to remove a gallery completely, should not the potential user have been warned in the ToS?  If you don't know enough of the basics about coding to retain the name in the system the way DA, LJ, and a host of other sites do, then you have no business running something the size and scale of FA.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 7, 2006)

Serpenthor said:
			
		

> So basically I have no ability to remove my name from this site?  Once a member, always a member, regardless of my own wishes?


Most online galleries have the same issues. At last count, it was the same on Sheezy, Deviant and Y!.

In the new version of FA, I'd like to be able to have a livejournal like "Deactivate" mode that would allow people to basically turn their account off. Their account, and all its content, would still be there... but it would not display and would be hidden from public view.

That way, if they ever decided to come back... they could.


----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

Serpenthor said:
			
		

> uncia2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As Dragoneer said, it's not just FA. DA also has the same issue.

And even if you did manage to remove yourself from the server, there's still ways of associating you with the site.

Welcome to the Information Age. You can't run. Or hide.


----------



## Serpenthor (Nov 7, 2006)

Summercat said:
			
		

> And even if you did manage to remove yourself from the server, there's still ways of associating you with the site.



Just like I'm sure there are still ways of removing my furaffinity page and account.  I still have not been given a valid reason why this is not possible, aside from "Various reasons", which could mean anything, and likely means nothing.


----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

Serpenthor said:
			
		

> Summercat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The way the entire code is set up, as it was explained to a friend of mine, would involve pulling the site down, sifting through the raw data of many tables and code, and looking for your specific information, and manually deleting it in a text or code editor.

Sure, you could demand that they do it still. But you know what? They don't have to, nor are they obligated to do so. And even then, you could still be found to be associated with this site via cache files, server backups, and there's always the Internet Wayback machine.


----------



## Serpenthor (Nov 7, 2006)

Summercat said:
			
		

> The way the entire code is set up, as it was explained to a friend of mine, would involve pulling the site down, sifting through the raw data of many tables and code, and looking for your specific information, and manually deleting it in a text or code editor.



And this couldn't have been stated when the question was originally asked?  Why is it so difficult to get straight answers on *anything* around here lately?


----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

Serpenthor said:
			
		

> Summercat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because the devil is in the details. Besides, now knowing what you know, does it really affect ANYTHING?


----------



## Serpenthor (Nov 7, 2006)

Summercat said:
			
		

> Because the devil is in the details. Besides, now knowing what you know, does it really affect ANYTHING?



Sure.  Getting a straight answer when the question is originally asked, instead of having to drag it out of people tooth and nail would make the administartion look a lot less incompetant than it appears.


----------



## Summercat (Nov 7, 2006)

Serpenthor said:
			
		

> Summercat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But what I just said can be summed up with 'It's complicated'.

Yes, a straight answer would have been nice from hte begining. So would Communism, if it worked.


----------



## vellos (Nov 8, 2006)

> Most online galleries have the same issues. At last count, it was the same on Sheezy, Deviant and Y!.



Simply because others have the same issue does not mean a site should not take effort to overcome the issue.  If one does not wish to be associated with a group/site, then the group should stop acknowledging it.  This is fairly straightforward in real world applications, I see why not virtually to be a thing to strive for.  As for applying an LJ-like system, that sounds great.  But what you could do, now, is something more like what DA does.  Upon request, they will essentially "ban" your account, and any requests to it will result in "User does not exist anymore".  Account is protected from fraud in this sense, and is still unrelated.  I'm quite sure you have had the ability (and knowing drama) and have used bans like this.  Why not do it upon request?



> The way the entire code is set up, as it was explained to a friend of mine, would involve pulling the site down, sifting through the raw data of many tables and code, and looking for your specific information, and manually deleting it in a text or code editor.



That sounds like a poorly designed database system.  An add() function, but no del() function?  Tsk tsk.  Then again, you're hearing this from a secondary source, so you may not be understanding the actual nature of the situation.  Any competent system dev would not allow such a fallacy.  If they did, they deserve to be FIRED.  My banning recommendation does not suffer from this issue, however, if true, or even if not, however.



> They don't have to, nor are they obligated to do so. And even then, you could still be found to be associated with this site via cache files, server backups, and there's always the Internet Wayback machine.



Google cache updates, and eventually would be updated to show "account is banned", or whatever, it's only a matter of time.  Server backups?  Umm, any trace would then be removed when those respective backups were deprecated.  Otherwise, FA has an metric assload of magnetic backup tapes lying around.  Additionally, Wayback sucks for anything other than site front pages, it is nowhere near comprehensive enough to delve into individual user pages.  All three of these problems, thus, are non-issues.  There is no excuse that deleting an account is without point.  Also, I provide another issue.  Security.  An inactive account houses sensitive data.  Passwords, email addresses, various IM protocol names, and so on.  With all the security breeches FA has had over time, having that stuff remain on there after I would be long gone would make me REALLY NERVOUS.  I'd prefer it, myself, to be gone.



> Because the devil is in the details. Besides, now knowing what you know, does it really affect ANYTHING?



Actually, you make a point, no, it didn't affect anything.  You kinda failed to make a point, which leaves the situation unmodified.



> But what I just said can be summed up with 'It's complicated'.



I'd prefer to hear that from administrative staff.  Because, yanno, if anyone knew the answer to the question (or even had the AUTHORITY to answer that question), it would be them.  While your word on the matter is appreciated, it holds no weight until an admin confirms it to be true.  So, sit back, chill, and wait for the 'ol holies to regale us with the fact of the matter.



> Yes, a straight answer would have been nice from hte begining. So would Communism, if it worked.



Thank you for the false analogy.  Hearing logical fallacies in arguments always makes the world a better place.  You can't relate a straight answer to Communism.  It, just, does, not, make, sense.  Does not follow.  So, please, all you've accomplished is tossing mild flames back and forth with Serpenthor without actually answering the questions in the process.  As I've stated, you hold no authority, so why are you even answering or debating possibilities?  Chill, and wait for someone who actually knows something about the matter to speak.

(First post.  Had to come to the aid of a friend.)


----------



## Summercat (Nov 8, 2006)

vellos said:
			
		

> As I've stated, you hold no authority, so why are you even answering or debating possibilities?  Chill, and wait for someone who actually knows something about the matter to speak.
> 
> (First post.  Had to come to the aid of a friend.)



Because he was getting upset at the lack of answers, and I felt someone with no authority who had a kinda clue how things are working behind the scenes might be slightly more helpful.

At least now he can't complain he was being ignored.


----------



## vellos (Nov 8, 2006)

> Because he was getting upset at the lack of answers, and I felt someone with no authority who had a kinda clue how things are working behind the scenes might be slightly more helpful.
> 
> At least now he can't complain he was being ignored.



First off, she.  And for someone with a "kinda clue" about the matters, you sounded quite definite about the nature of the system.  If you aren't sure, state that.  "It might be because" is a great way to make that statement.  If you don't understand something, then do not assert yourself in a way that you feel you do.  It's misleading, and in the way you directed yourself, was very demeaning to users who are your equals.  If you aren't authorized (or capable) of speaking for site staff, don't.  If you have a suspicion, fine, share it, don't project it as absolute truth.

Serp and the original poster were not exactly ignored, but then again, they weren't answered either, only an excuse was given.  In that sense, while they have not been ignored, their questions have.  Any explaination that you give is not acknowledgment by administrative staff, which is REALLY what everyone here is after.  So, yes, they can claim they have been ignored.  Just because someone comes along and gives uncited information is not acknowledgment.

Also, I wonder why you haven't responded to any of the points I've brought forward in my previous post?  Why are you only fixating on the last few lines?  I'd hate to be the victim of a TL;DR, but I know statistically with my verbose nature, it's more than likely.


----------



## vellos (Nov 18, 2006)

Still wondering on this.  I bet the others are too.  I mean, we agree to the EULA to even be granted an account.  Should we violate it (as in, yanno, no longer respecting it) the contract between the user and the site is then nullified, and as a result, all "business" ended.  This is the point of the contract, that any deal between the user and the site can be nullified should either party disagree on whatever bounds of the situation be.  If you state "no doing X", and we say "we don't agree with that", then there is no longer an agreement.  Serp and OP no longer wish to agree to it, so why is this contract not nullified?

There is no doubt a legal bullshit aspect to this, and it can be found if needed.


----------



## Ahkahna (Nov 18, 2006)

Some are saying that no one was giving any answers, yet, Uncia stated clearly right below the original post that,

_"And even if it were, someone else could register under your identity and pose as you, which is a situation we would rather did not have the opportunity to occur."_

And then, not far afterwards, Dragoneer replied as well,

_"In the new version of FA, I'd like to be able to have a livejournal like "Deactivate" mode that would allow people to basically turn their account off. Their account, and all its content, would still be there... but it would not display and would be hidden from public view.

That way, if they ever decided to come back... they could."_

Answers were recieved, but it seems some are upset since the answers given aren't the answers they were looking for. Which would be to have ones self removed permanently, which in any case is understandable. Please don't take this in any was as an attack, I'm just making a general guess as well as pointing out the above.

I do agree that this should be stated in the TOS in the future to prevent any further incidences as this situation.


----------



## N3X15 (Nov 18, 2006)

Dragoneer said:
			
		

> Serpenthor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*adds to the stack of shit we have to do ;;*


----------

