Name change drama

Alex · Jul 26, 2011

Everyone needs to get down off their high horses imo because the rest of us just don't give a shit.

Sheva Alomar · Jul 26, 2011

Tyrion Lannister said:
Scott was told to update his username field three times, and was given over two weeks to do so. The last time he was told to update it, he responded by changing his aka field to "Chuck Norris," which would be no help to anyone. All he actually had to do was put "L" or "Scott" in there and the requirement would have been satisfied. But he did neither. He was given his name change solely provisionally on the condition that he would comply with the aka field requirements within a reasonable amount of time. Since he did not do so, he has had his name change undone.

Many of you seem to be under the mistaken impression that user name changes on this board are a right. They're not. They're a privilege. Many message boards don't even allow user name changes more than once a year. As long as users comply with our very simple aka field requirements (leave something that will enable users who haven't kept track of the latest name changes to identify you), you are allowed to change your username as often as you want. If you are unwilling to comply with the requirements, you do not get the privilege of having your name changed at will. Users who do not visit the forum every day should not be forced to ask someone what their identity is. The aka field is there for a reason and if a person for some reason thinks they don't need to identify themselves in it, then we don't need to comply with their name change requests.

Now I'm perfectly willing to concede that disallowing name changes for a month is probably a bit draconian, but we have to do something, and we are disallowing him a name change for less than two days for every day he has not complied with the aka field requirements (which, by the way, he still isn't in compliance with). It's gotten absurd. I'll be willing to lower the time Scott can't have his name changed to a number of days equal to the number of days it takes him to finally update his aka field to something compliant with our rules if people really find it that offensive, but we gave him three chances and more than two weeks to comply with a very simple demand and not only did he not comply with it but he deliberately disobeyed it. Use of the aka field has never been an option when it comes to name changes; it's always been a requirement. If this is going to be such a source of drama then we can just stop performing name changes at all until people learn to deal with it.

Also, I've never been "just a tech admin" since I rejoined staff, and this was a decision made by several staff members after discussion had been open for a week.

Oh my god, Aaron. Get the fuck out.

Ⓐaron · Jul 26, 2011

I didn't realise that not running a tight ship on a message board would cause the universe to implode.

This isn't a matter of "running a tight ship;" it's a matter of enforcing rules that have been deliberately flouted. Even certain staff members don't know who everyone is right now. That's unacceptable.

Bex · Jul 26, 2011

I don't think I need to change my AKA field or carry any ID.

Do you know why?

People should know who I am.

Alessa Gillespie · Jul 26, 2011

so like

has it ever been posted that if you don't add your old name to your aka field that you will lose name change privileges equal to the number of days you don't change it or was that just randomly decided and never told to the rest of the forum

cause i gotta say this is almost as fun as trying to figure out my deductible at the beginning of the year. 'oh well it's 1000 cause that's the family deductible' 'oh it's 2500 because you have to pay your deductible and the family deductible' 'yeah it's like 2000 because you have to pay for your first medication of the year' etc.

Tifabelle · Jul 26, 2011

Ok. So Scott was asked a few times to change it, and was purposefully defying the request. Was he told though what the consequences would be if he didn't? If scott was given a reasonable request by staff, then I think it's hard to argue in his favor.

I do agree that name changes are a priveledge, and the point you've made about other boards is a fair one.

Now after the few messages back and forth between myself and kimble, I did come to this conclusion:

me! said:
Although I suppose as long as there is at least one consistent name that is always in your AKA field, it should serve its purpose. Because even if you change your name everyday, you will have that unchanging AKA for people to identify you by.

If scott has "Scott" in there at all times, then the identifier is there no matter what his username is. Same for the rest of us, of course. And I think it's a fair requirement.

I think lowering the punishment time is not really the issue, but the fact that there is a punishment at all.

Use of the aka field has never been an option when it comes to name changes; it's always been a requirement.

Is this a rule? I didn't see it in the rule thread, and I know we discussed it earlier. But I thought it was still under the "strongly recommended" idea.

And even if it is something that you claim was clearly known, but I don't know that the consequences were ever stated. At least not that I saw. This is the first I've heard that failure to fill out an AKA field would result in a suspension of the priveledge.

My next issue is: is this something that all (or at least most) staff agree upon? If so, it's not exactly fair to have aaron be the only one on the forefront since it seems to mostly be coming from him. Especially when he says things like "I'm willing to lower the time" - that either indicates to me that aaron is doing this on his own, or that the staff don't have an agreed upon consequence to the rule.

Joe · Jul 26, 2011

Aaron your usertitle is upside down.

You are making a mockery of this institution with your vandalism.

Ⓐaron · Jul 26, 2011

Locke Cole said:
Ok. So Scott was asked a few times to change it, and was purposefully defying the request. Was he told though what the consequences would be if he didn't? If scott was given a reasonable request by staff, then I think it's hard to argue in his favor.

I'm not sure whether Road told him what the consequences would be if he did not comply with the request. However, he deliberately disobeyed the request. I'm not sure how anyone could expect there not to be some form of retribution, especially since the rules have this:

If you think you've found a loophole in these rules and are convinced that using it will protect you from punishment for rulebreaking, think again. Any clear attempt to work through a loophole in these rules will be treated as a violation of the rules and dealt with accordingly.

If scott has "Scott" in there at all times, then the identifier is there no matter what his username is. Same for the rest of us, of course. And I think it's a fair requirement.

Yep.

Is this a rule? I didn't see it in the rule thread, and I know we discussed it earlier. But I thought it was still under the "strongly recommended" idea.

We haven't put it in the rules thread yet because we still haven't come to a consensus about what exactly constitutes a properly filled in aka field, despite the fact that there was drama about this two months ago. I have been trying to get staff to discuss this issue for months but most of them don't seem to want to talk about it at all. In any case, it is obvious that "Chuck Norris" is not a properly filled in aka field, unless a user actually happens to be Chuck Norris, or has used that as a SN. We are at a consensus that the aka field needs to be properly filled in for a user to receive name changes; we have repeatedly stated this throughout the history of this board, and I will link to some examples in my next paragraph.

And even if it is something that you claim was clearly known, but I don't know that the consequences were ever stated. At least not that I saw. This is the first I've heard that failure to fill out an AKA field would result in a suspension of the priveledge.

Maybe we didn't make it clear. Mako is certain we said something that indicated that people who did not fill in aka fields would get names changed back and/or name change privileges suspended, but I cannot for the life of me find the post. The shitty forum speed is not helping. That said, we have made it clear in multiple posts in this thread alone that using the aka field is mandatory. For example, here, here, here, and here. It was also implied here that not changing one's aka field would actually result in an infraction, which to me seems a much more severe punishment than not getting one's name changed for a month. (Admittedly this is quite an old post, and for the record, I disagreed with giving infractions over it here).

My next issue is: is this something that all (or at least most) staff agree upon? If so, it's not exactly fair to have aaron be the only one on the forefront since it seems to mostly be coming from him. Especially when he says things like "I'm willing to lower the time" - that either indicates to me that aaron is doing this on his own, or that the staff don't have an agreed upon consequence to the rule.

A few of us discussed it; several other people on staff didn't bother to say anything so I went ahead and went with what the general consensus seemed to be since over a week had passed since I had raised the issue. If anyone didn't get around posting about it by then, too bad; they obviously didn't care enough. I think there was one dissenting opinion but as far as I know everyone else who bothered to post did not disagree that what Scott did merited some form of punishment. If they did disagree, they certainly didn't bother to say anything.

Joe · Jul 26, 2011

Remember the forum days when we didn't have AKA fields. How chaotic they were. I even sent Reg four nude pictures of myself thinking he was some hot chick. It was absolute pandemonium!

Makoeyes987 · Jul 26, 2011

This is extremely bizarre. We've been through this the last time user name issues came up and this thread was reopened on the use of the AKA field.

We've stated so many, many, many, times. That the AKA field needs to be filled out with the most recent/relevant user names of the person getting their named change.

Staff repeatedly asks that the AKA field be filled out whenever a name change is done.

I stated it myself as the one rule required to get your name changed. If you're not even going to abide by the one rule we ask in order for you to enjoy the privilege of changing your name essentially on the fly, then you're not gonna have said name changed. It's gonna be changed back. It's pretty fair. We're not gonna infract or ban anyone from the forum over it. But if you can't abide by the simple request of keeping your AKA field up to date so members/staff can identify you, then the name goes back to its previous state. If you can't even be arsed to just fill out an AKA field to keep things from being chaotic then that's cool. Just keep your name as is then.

L was repeatedly asked again and again in public and in private to update the field. He took the piss and just added "Chuck Norris." Ergo, the name was reverted back. There was no sane reason for it to be an issue and not changed.

Bex · Jul 26, 2011

why is it such a big deal we need to know who made a post or not
it might be inconvenient, but it's no big deal

a post is still a post, with or without a username to match it up to

Joker · Jul 26, 2011

Does it occur to anyone else that not caring enough to post about something is, in itself, giving an opinion?

(namely that it doesn't matter)

Alex · Jul 26, 2011

My aka field is filled out.

If you know what I mean :awesome:

Ⓐaron · Jul 26, 2011

Bex said:
why is it such a big deal we need to know who made a post or not
it might be inconvenient, but it's no big deal

a post is still a post, with or without a username to match it up to

For starters, staff need to know who made an offending post so they can know whether to warn or ban a user for it. Furthermore, before we introduced the aka field members repeatedly complained about not being able to identify other users. The fact that you don't think it's a big deal is irrelevant; plenty of other people do. We were repeatedly asked to stop changing people's names at all until we introduced the compromise of the aka field, but the aka field doesn't help anyone if people don't use it.

Makoeyes987 · Jul 26, 2011

Because as stated before, not everyone likes having all the members shuffling through their user names weekly and being unable to figure out who's who is frustrating and we've gotten complaints and suggestions about it. This was again, the same shit we went through the last time the user name thread had this issue. This is how we resolved the issue the last time.

It's a fair enough compromise. You change your name, you keep your previous user names up to date so no one can be bothered about names being changed.

Joker · Jul 26, 2011

also I'm pretty sure that the ability to give someone a warning or infract doesn't require am aka field...just clicking on their username

it's just poor form to make a post about how you're disciplining people, since that is a private matter and more or less asking for trouble

Tifabelle · Jul 26, 2011

Tyrion Lannister said:
I'm not sure whether Road told him what the consequences would be if he did not comply with the request. However, he deliberately disobeyed the request. I'm not sure how anyone could expect there not to be some form of retribution, especially since the rules have this:

ok, but then:

We haven't put it in the rules thread yet because we still haven't come to a consensus about what exactly constitutes a properly filled in aka field, despite the fact that there was drama about this two months ago. I have been trying to get staff to discuss this issue for months but most of them don't seem to want to talk about it at all.

If it's not in the rule thread, then that whole "loophole" thing can't be quoted to apply to this rule. And if staff hasn't agreed upon the parameters and consequences, then how can a punishment be given out? I can understand the frustration amongst staff trying to get together on the issue, but it seems wholly unjust to serve a punishment no matter how defiant he was being. (and I don't even agree with his actions either)

That said, we have made it clear in multiple posts in this thread alone that using the aka field is mandatory. For example, here, here, here, and here. It was also implied here that not changing one's aka field would actually result in an infraction, which to me seems a much more severe punishment than not getting one's name changed for a month. (Admittedly this is quite an old post, and for the record, I disagreed with giving infractions over it here).

Fair enough. Although it seems quite disjointed. Maybe we can put something together so that it is clear to all members that this is a rule and that there are consequences and what those consequences are. (that post by mog was made before I was even a member, for example)

Maybe the staff could take a vote on what they want. People don't have to vote if they don't want, but then all staff have to adhere to the decision. And then let the userbase know what the decision is.

EDIT: For the record, I think the AKA field should be filled out with at least one unchanging identifier. And I will happily follow any rules the staff want to implement. I think it's just something that, if you've been saying it for 2 years (as it seems by mog's 2009 post), but no action has been taken, it just seemed quite sudden.

Makoeyes987 · Jul 26, 2011

Locke Cole said:
ok, but then:

If it's not in the rule thread, then that whole "loophole" thing can't be quoted to apply to this rule. And if staff hasn't agreed upon the parameters and consequences, then how can a punishment be given out? I can understand the frustration amongst staff trying to get together on the issue, but it seems wholly unjust to serve a punishment no matter how defiant he was being. (and I don't even agree with his actions either)

It's not in the rules thread yet, but it's been repeatedly asked and mandated in the very thread itself that the AKA field must be used.

The whole name change system came back because we compromised that if you're gonna keep changing your name, you need to keep the AKA field up tod ate.

And that's why we're not punishing anyone. We're just changing your name back.

If you're not gonna respect the simple asking of keeping the field up to date so people know who the heck you are, then why are we gonna give you the privilege of name changing that's based on you doing that in the first place?

That makes no sense.

Fair enough. Although it seems quite disjointed. Maybe we can put something together so that it is clear to all members that this is a rule and that there are consequences and what those consequences are. (that post by mog was made before I was even a member, for example)

Maybe the staff could take a vote on what they want. People don't have to vote if they don't want, but then all staff have to adhere to the decision. And then let the userbase know what the decision is.

We'll add it to the rules post but again. Did people really think staff repeatedly asking for the AKA field to be filled out with each name change was just for their health? And seeing as how L was more than aware of it, I sincerely doubt there was any confusion at all. Since...we told him repeatedly.

Ⓐaron · Jul 26, 2011

Locke Cole said:
ok, but then:

If it's not in the rule thread, then that whole "loophole" thing can't be quoted to apply to this rule. And if staff hasn't agreed upon the parameters and consequences, then how can a punishment be given out? I can understand the frustration amongst staff trying to get together on the issue, but it seems wholly unjust to serve a punishment no matter how defiant he was being. (and I don't even agree with his actions either)

Simply put, one of several purposes of that rule is to indicate that if you not only do not comply with staff instructions but deliberately disobey them, then staff have grounds to punish you for doing so.

Fair enough. Although it seems quite disjointed. Maybe we can put something together so that it is clear to all members that this is a rule and that there are consequences and what those consequences are. (that post by mog was made before I was even a member, for example)

I will edit something into the OP, and I guess I will edit something into the rules as well.

Maybe the staff could take a vote on what they want. People don't have to vote if they don't want, but then all staff have to adhere to the decision. And then let the userbase know what the decision is.

Omega said:
also I'm pretty sure that the ability to give someone a warning or infract doesn't require am aka field...just clicking on their username

That's assuming that all information about users is in their user profile. In point of fact, we usually discuss how to deal with people's misconduct before acting on it, but if the person we're talking about can't be identified from staff discussions then it makes it a lot harder for staff to have a discussion about it. Granted, I suppose any staff member who wasn't clear about a person's identity could just ask, but there's no reason any of us should have to do that. Keeping the aka field updated takes twenty seconds tops, and that's with the server in such shitty shape.

it's just poor form to make a post about how you're disciplining people, since that is a private matter and more or less asking for trouble

We've left all specific about how we discipline individuals private. No details about anyone's warning history have been revealed in this thread.

Omega said:
Does it occur to anyone else that not caring enough to post about something is, in itself, giving an opinion?

(namely that it doesn't matter)

Or it could also mean that their opinions have already been expressed and that the punishments suggested are appropriate. Unless a person actually states their opinion, it's impossible to discern what it actually is.

Joker · Jul 26, 2011

Telling people to change their aka when the change is made is also a bit rude in and of itself, particularly if they haven't had a chance to yet.

Makoeyes987 · Jul 26, 2011

So giving a friendly reminder to do it is rude now...?

"Remember to change your AKA field" hardly seems to be a rude thing to say, so no one forgets to keep their field up to date.

Bex · Jul 26, 2011

i changed my name and lost my mod powers
can i have them back please

Tifabelle · Jul 26, 2011

If you're not gonna respect the simple asking of keeping the field up to date so people know who the heck you are, then why are we gonna give you the privilege of name changing that's based on you doing that in the first place?

I do think it's a fair enough request.

And like I said, if scott was asked several times, then there really is no defense for his actions.

What about making a new name change thread with this in the OP?

Ⓐaron · Jul 26, 2011

Locke Cole said:
What about making a new name change thread with this in the OP?

I'll just edit into the OP of this one.

Joker · Jul 26, 2011

Smooth Criminal said:
So giving a friendly reminder to do it is rude now...?

"Remember to change your AKA field" hardly seems to be a rude thing to say, so no one forgets to keep their field up to date.

"Change you aka field." is not "friendly". And it's also hardly unnecessary to remind people to do it in the first place, given that nearly everyone who requests a namechange keeps their stuff up to date. There's not even a need to spampost an emote in reply to the change being done.

Tyrion Lannister said:
We've left all specific about how we discipline individuals private. No details about anyone's warning history have been revealed in this thread.

Or it could also mean that their opinions have already been expressed and that the punishments suggested are appropriate. Unless a person actually states their opinion, it's impossible to discern what it actually is.

Like the time that you posted that his change had been reverted and he's been stricken from namechanging?

And making assumptions in regards to a discussion regarding rule? C'mon.

This whole thing is a massive overreaction to nothing to begin with, but making the resulting consequences public was a bad idea.

Name change drama

alex is dead

I'm Alive and on Fire

Factiō Rēpūblicāna dēlenda est.

fresh to death

a letter to my future self

Pro Adventurer

I KEEP MY IDEALS

Factiō Rēpūblicāna dēlenda est.

I KEEP MY IDEALS

Listen closely, there is meaning in my words.

fresh to death

We have come to terms

alex is dead

Factiō Rēpūblicāna dēlenda est.

Listen closely, there is meaning in my words.

We have come to terms

Pro Adventurer

Listen closely, there is meaning in my words.

Factiō Rēpūblicāna dēlenda est.

We have come to terms

Listen closely, there is meaning in my words.

fresh to death

Pro Adventurer

Factiō Rēpūblicāna dēlenda est.

We have come to terms