Ack! I posted the above message when the first, original message was all I saw (I opened this thread just after it was posted, it just took me a long time to reply...guess I should have refreshed first!).

As a comment to bira's comments...what you say is true, but consider this. After a prune or anytime messages or entire threads are deleted, a user's post count goes down. The post count only counts how many posts are in the database for that user. Now by the same token as what you said, this would seem to be unfair, because a person may have posted 1000 times but only have a count of 950 due to thread deletions or whatever. Now in UBB, the count never goes down. When I upgraded to vB, someone wrote for me a little script to actually change everyone's post count to how many posts the user actually had in the database. Because, in UBB, we had a huge thread (1000+ replies) get corrupted, and deleted, many members, including myself, saw our counts go down by quite a bit...for some users, by a few hundred posts. (Not just due to the one big thread, but also the odd small one here and there over time, you know.) Now is this fair to us? My post count is ~6000, but I've probably posted about 6400 messages.

But on the other hand, is it fair for a user's post count to not reflect their actual current count? Or for their thread started count to not reflect how many threads there are, right now, that have been started by the person? People could begin silly games like "accidentally" double-posting, or try posting and deleting, whatever, just to increase their post count. Maybe this is a philosophical debate, I don't know. But I think I prefer these counts to reflect what is actually current.