Edit as of 9/6/10: Pets on banned accounts should be released/deleted to allow names and good pets to be available to the public again, which can better help Res' economy.

Thank you Darkfire62 for ideas on how this could be taken care of:

After a couple of months of being banned (which should be long enough to inquire about/recover a wrongly banned account), the pets from a banned account could be deleted or released into the forest :) This way, if a person who's account was banned creates a new account, they have to work hard if they plan to get the pets they owned on their banned account, which gives everyone an equal opportunity to get the pets.

Direct Quote from Darkfire62: "Also, people who want certain names could be looking out for them as well. If one used the pet search, they would see the account had been banned and could simply check daily to see if that name was avalible. That's what people who take graveyard names do from what I can tell. Leaves the pets a fair game.

I think that if a user has been banned, no they do not deserve the stuff on their account just given back, but if they're now following the rules on a different account, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to work their butts off to try to get their old stuff back."

Previous Idea:

I was surfing people's profiles' the other night when I came across someone who had decided to quit Rescreatu a while back. They had posted that they were leaving all of their pets in their rancher shop to sell for rediculous prices that virtually no one could ever afford (2,147,483,647 tu). There were at least 30 pages worth of pets in that rancher shop alone, but the real issue I found was that the majority of the names of the pets were absolutely AWESOME. I mean, what a waste? Why should they get to keep all of the RNs and RWNs that could be helping the economy from circulating? D:

So I've been thinking about it a little, what if there was a way to get those gorgeous names back on the market (like for reals this time)? Well, one way I thought is that perhaps after so long, the pets that haven't sold in a rancher shop would eventually die or be directed back to the person's profile or something. Something that will allow the pets to die and the names become available again at some point in time. I just think it's really unfair to the rest of the users on Res, especially the far future users who will be joining as Res gains popularity.

If a player earns a pet fairly it is theirs to do with as they please, including leaving to rot.

It would be unfair to punish players for inactivity, which is certainly not against the rules!

I support.

But they left. Not coming back. Ever. Then what's the point for caring? if they're not coming back ever then get their pets. T_T

Actually, on Neopets, they send an email if you're inactive too long, saying your account will be deleted. I got some awhile ago from accounts i made from when i was wayyyy little, i dont even remeber making them XD

Maybe this would help?

Yeah, what if people like Ka, or Rainbow, find that all their pets are gone? hard earned beloved pets?

...Right.

Anyway, there should be a time limit. After a year, Res sends an email to the user about their acount. If they still dont come back, their acount is deleted.

I think two years at minimum would be more appropriate.

But I love Fizzy's idea for a time bomb thing. That way, they have to agree to let their pets be given away after a certain time of inactivity and won't be surprised if they come back five years later to nothing.

I couldnt' care either way, though. I think finding RWNs that haven't been taken is much more fun and satisfying.

I agree with Gravy, about the two years thing...

See, cuz I was gone for about a year... and sometimes I don't check my email. I would be devastated to come back and find my account gone just cuz I was inactive for 12 months and some ten year old wanted all of my pet names. 

And that makes me agree with Xeeroh. If I want to buy a pet and taunt everyone with how I've got it and they don't, and then leave forever... well I should be able to. ]= as unfair as that is. 

Well hold on, I'm not talking about terminating accounts or anything. I was simply saying that if someone makes the choice to ditch Res forever, and then lock all their pets in their rancher, that they eventually become available to the public somehow, after maybe a year or two. If a person puts a pet in the shop, they should accept that the pet is allowed to be bought.

 However, I do agree with xeeroh. But I honestly am not talking about account deletion after a period of time. Just the pets becoming available after a person has actually decided to quit forever.

*** And how about this? if a person decides to quit Res, why couldn't there be an option saying "Allow pets in shop to return to profile in:" and then have a few options, like "1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years" and 5 years(or maybe more) will be the highest selection, so that if they truly feel they will not return to Res in 5 years or less, the pets will go back on their profile, and if not fed in time they will die, and eventually the names will become available again. And if they do rejoin afterwards, they just have to accept the fact that they agreed to it? I'm not sure. Perhaps that is unfair as well. It's just a thought. It just seems so unfair for people to quit forever with so much that could potentially help the economy. That's all I'm saying. Maybe it could work for the showrooms too, if it's considered.

@Yaizhbeen:

Well, see, it wouldn't be the ten year old that got my pets names. D: probably some other mean person like me who decides to name it and then chuck it in their showroom forever. meh.

Banned users, I think, should have their pets deleted. Cuz they're banned. D: they don't need pets.

I'm still against users who have just "left" getting their pets deleted. Like I said, I take breaks sometimes... but I always come back. So yeah. Banned users, have at you. Respectable users taking breaks/leaving forever, no. The way I see it, if they REALLY didn't plan on coming back, they would have forested all of their pets/given them away, not kept a hold of them.