Read reply #13, it explains a lot. Especially the first sentence, - "Firstly why are you hunting out members who haven't contributed?"
Quick question for you, do you know the full history behind the warnings he's had and the temporary ban? 
"hunting" might be as simple as randlomly clicking on the list of logged in members and just seeing if they have a review count and posted recently. Your loaded term is overly accusatory in this context.
I'm aware of how you investigate individuals brought to your attention as we have discussed it on board and via dm previously. That does not directly answer the question of proactively finding non-contributors.
Site stats declare over 130k members, daily max recently was around 12k logins and the average daily member logins reported as about 2400. Assuming these stats are true and derive from whatever reporting you guys have access to and from the sense that all of us get from browsing reviews and topics and seeing the chatter, noting who's chipping in, there's a motley crew of regular participants and then smatterings of a wider circle of occasional ones but very much less than many tens of thousands of different individual in the chorus.
If your reporting tools are showing that most of the 130k are indeed logging in and contributing useful intel and commentary then by all means post up a summary so all of us can see and be assured that everything is being done to ensure that the much fewer of us who share reviews aren't carrying the site whilst far more sponge off our goodwill.
Perhaps a clarification on membership by stating the number of grandfathered free subs and active subscriptions (paid terms ongoing) would give us all a better picture of how active the site is? Weekly/monthly total page count racked up by non-registered visitors and registrees who haven't paid due subs?
I understand a fair number of accounts were grandfathered over at the change of ownership for (assumed/confessed) retirees but such a category surely cannot be the majority of a subscription site supposedly here to support active punting?
Again if you have stats to show what the community is really made of it would be great to share that so again us contributing punters can get a sense of how many active fellows we can count on to broaden our punting scope per the raison d'etre of the site.
We all know there are only a few mods and it's near impossible to individually police every active user in just the sharing community of thousands. Everyone respects what they have to do. The impression was that the 30-day timer was meant to be an effective means of getting persons of interest to explain themselves or be ejected with reduced but certain admin by the mods. It could also be an effective tool to flush the silent out of the bushes and stand-to to commit to contribute or not.
It would be in all our interests to discover if the vast majority using the site claim to be retirees/non-punters that enjoy the same unfettered access equivalent to active contributors.
