[LaDullahan]

So I know this might get shot down, but I mean if the user is banned its not like they'll be able to use the bytes anyways, or maybe a "sink hole" for bytes spent on unlocks for banned users.


I mean for like closed / permanently banned users.

[Komodo]

Kind of like a free parking in monopoly of a bytes stockpile?

How would someone get the chance to “win” said bytes?

[LaDullahan]

Kind of like a free parking in monopoly of a bytes stockpile?

How would someone get the chance to “win” said bytes?

Thats not what I'm going on about, What I mean by my suggestion is content unlocks that are usually paid for with bytes, if the posted is closed/permanently banned make the content unlockable for free to users, if not maybe make it an "upgraded" feature.

[Komodo]

Thats not what I'm going on about, What I mean by my suggestion is content unlocks that are usually paid for with bytes, if the posted is closed/permanently banned make the content unlockable for free to users, if not maybe make it an "upgraded" feature.

Ah I misread, my brain don’t work too good sometimes.

[Allelujah]

Making their content free could have a negative impact. Depending on what the content is, it could saturate a method. I don't think this is a likely scenario, just an example.

When making a decision like this, it would be easy to just reason: "They're no longer here and cannot benefit from the bytes so just make it free and accessible for all." I'd think we should keep it as is for now, until a good reason comes along to remove their paid walls.

[Omniscient]

You're talking about their attachments for Bytes.

If anything, I am more inclined to simply remove their attachments permanently. Often times they are closed because their attachments are a problem. I just closed a guy and had to delete about 50 attachments he had because they were leaks/warez which HF does not allow.

Yeah, I'm gonna go look at my CLOSE feature and make sure it deletes the attachments. Thanks for the suggestion.