Name change drama

[Tifabelle]

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.

No, it's not.

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

Well you did:

Because Scott evidently cannot comply with our very simple aka field requirements even after being directly instructed to do so through multiple channels, his name has been changed back to his most frequently known name. Staff will furthermore refuse further name change requests from him for the next month. I regret that it has had to come down to this, but requirements are requirements and he has deliberately flouted them.

"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.

THIS IS WHY PEOPLE NEED TO USE THE SMILEYS I think though, it was determined that people did need to be reminded since they weren't always filling out the AKA field, iirc.

 

[Ⓐaron]

"Change you aka field." is not "friendly".

It's hardly particularly unfriendly either.

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.

Scott's not only wasn't even remotely up to date, it was actually a giant fuck you to anyone who didn't know who he was. It said something along the lines of, "If you have to ask, you don't know me."

There's not even a need to spampost an emote in reply to the change being done.

This is done so that people will be able to keep track of users' previous user names. The main reason I make those posts is because it contains their previous user name at the top of the quoted post.

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

This was mostly done so that he would know his user name had been changed on the off chance he was logged out.

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

I wasn't assuming anything, other than that they didn't care enough to post an opinion, which seems self-evident. I was simply pointing out another possible interpretation of their lack of posting.

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

Noted for future reference, but it's a bit too late to go back on that now.

 

[Zee]

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.

Is it just me or is that more confusing? I mean, if a new member was to look at my aka field they'd still have no idea what to call me because there's several recent names there to pick from, so they'd still have to ask. Back to square one.

If people could just leave their preffered handles & names in the aka field (like I just left mine as Zee) then there'd be no confusion. I mean say my two weeks were up and I wanted to go back to Aradia or Zee, I don't see how it matters that I was Cho Chang for two weeks.

 

[Joe]

Scott's not only wasn't even remotely up to date, it was actually a giant fuck you to anyone who didn't know who he was. It said something along the lines of, "If you have to ask, you don't know me."

Is that not Scott's choice? What if he doesn't want to talk to new members?

 

[Dana Scully]

If people could just leave their preffered handles & names in the aka field (like I just left mine as Zee) then there'd be no confusion. I mean say my two weeks were up and I wanted to go back to Aradia or Zee, I don't see how it matters that I was Cho Chang for two weeks.

Seriously, this. It's simpler than the rules now for everyone involved, and will put an end to this retarded AKA field argument.

 

[Joker]

It's hardly particularly unfriendly either.

Scott's not only wasn't even remotely up to date, it was actually a giant fuck you to anyone who didn't know who he was. It said something along the lines of, "If you have to ask, you don't know me."

This is done so that people will be able to keep track of users' previous user names. The main reason I make those posts is because it contains their previous user name at the top of the quoted post.

This was mostly done so that he would know his user name had been changed on the off chance he was logged out.

I wasn't assuming anything, other than that they didn't care enough to post an opinion, which seems self-evident. I was simply pointing out another possible interpretation of their lack of posting.

Noted for future reference, but it's a bit too late to go back on that now.

Sure it isn't.

You do see the word 'nearly' there, right? This is an exceptional case, certainly, but everyone else?

No, that's what the AKA field is for in the first place. I don't think that if someone's not sure who someone is, they dig through the name change thread to find that person's last post, then locate it and slap themselves on the forehead going OHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I think that when he...y'know, logged in...might have been a tipoff.

No, you assumed that they agreed or had no problem with that.

 

[Ⓐaron]

Is it just me or is that more confusing? I mean, if a new member was to look at my aka field they'd still have no idea what to call me because there's several recent names there to pick from, so they'd still have to ask. Back to square one.

If people could just leave their preffered handles & names in the aka field (like I just left mine as Zee) then there'd be no confusion. I mean say my two weeks were up and I wanted to go back to Aradia or Zee, I don't see how it matters that I was Cho Chang for two weeks.

We're not requiring people leave all their handles in the aka field. Some of us would prefer for as much pertinent information to be in there as possible, but there isn't widespread enough agreement on this for it to be a rule. If you want to emphasize that certain aliases are your most frequently referred to, we give you 250 characters in your aka field, so there should be enough to specify which ones are your most frequently used. Or you could just list them first, or you could only list the ones that seem most relevant. It's up to you, as long as there's something that lets people know who you are.

Is that not Scott's choice?

In a word, if he wants a name change, no it is not his choice.

What if he doesn't want to talk to new members?

He doesn't have to. But he does have to keep himself identified, at least if he wants his name changed.

 

[Ⓐaron]

Sure it isn't.

It was a lot more polite than what briefly crossed my mind, which was refusing to do a name change until he updated his shit. In retrospect, that very well may be what we will elect to do in the future as a result of this drama.

You do see the word 'nearly' there, right? This is an exceptional case, certainly, but everyone else?

As far as I'm aware, I haven't been telling people to update their aka field if it isn't up-to-date. I may have been asking people to put their most recent aliases in certain cases, but I would like to think that my tone has made it clear that in those cases it wasn't a requirement.

No, that's what the AKA field is for in the first place. I don't think that if someone's not sure who someone is, they dig through the name change thread to find that person's last post, then locate it and slap themselves on the forehead going OHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I don't either, but I prefer to be as thorough as possible.

I think that when he...y'know, logged in...might have been a tipoff.

If he had logged out, then he wouldn't have been able to log back in because he wouldn't have been entering the correct username.

No, you assumed that they agreed or had no problem with that.

No I did not. I only assumed that they didn't disagree enough to bother voicing a disagreement.

 

[Joe]

Who is this hurting, honestly?
If Scott, or anybody elses, name is changed and, heaven forbid, they do not update their AKA field or even leave it blank, who suffers?

 

[Makoeyes987]

It's not about hurting anybody, it's about respecting the request and wishes of members and staff, who have expressedly complained before (now and in the past) that the constant user name shuffling is extremely, goddamn annoying.

Again, I'm not going to fish out the previous posts that were done regarding this a month ago, and then previously around a year ago, I already did that in my last post.

The whole entire username change thread was reopened on the expressed consent of filling out the AKA field. Dac and I stated that.

No one's being punished or infracted for not filling it out. If you don't want to, that's your choice. But your name will be reverted and no new name will be given if you don't fill it out. It's give and take. That's more than fair.

 

[Tifabelle]

I think that when he...y'know, logged in...might have been a tipoff.

No, if he tried to log in with the username he thought he had, he wouldn't have been able to log in.

Far fetched as the reasoning is.

 

[Joker]

And then he'd likely use his staple username of L

 

[Ⓐaron]

I would prefer not to assume a user would be able to discern that their name had been changed without being told in some fashion. Maybe it's just me, but I felt like assuming they'd be able to figure that out on their own would be asking for trouble.

 

[Tifabelle]

hmm... maybe it was just the wording of the post then. It didn't seem to be addressing scott, but alerting the rest of the forum of what took place.

Although I'm not sure how a member would be notified of this. Are we required to submit e-mails when we register? I don't remember.

 

[Dana Scully]

Yes, you have to submit an email address.

So you could just email Scott (through the forum admin email account) and tell him that his username's been changed, rather than post it here.

 

[Ⓐaron]

hmm... maybe it was just the wording of the post then. It didn't seem to be addressing scott, but alerting the rest of the forum of what took place.

That was probably an oversight on my part. I mostly intended for it to inform him what was going on, although reading it again I can see why it might not have come off that way.

Although I'm not sure how a member would be notified of this. Are we required to submit e-mails when we register? I don't remember.

Yes. I suppose I could have just emailed him, but there's no way of knowing whether a member's email address is current, so doing so might not even have worked. There's honestly no good way to inform a user of a username reversion that I can think of.

 

[Makoeyes987]

I stated in the other thread that posting it here also serves as a reminder to other mods that since he didn't change his AKA field, he's to not have his name changed. Not everyone checks the staff forum regularly.

 

[Dana Scully]

With all due respect to the staff, maybe they should check the staff forum regularly?

I dunno I would just think that would be part of a staffer's job.

 

[Tifabelle]

Well staff business can be kept in a staff thread, though. He could have posted it in the private forum.

Not to be funny, or bring up bad memories, but wasn't there a discussion from username about having a thread that banned users can post it for staff to see? Maybe that can work with guests too so that if there is a problem with someone trying to log in, they have a way to contact staff.

 

[Joker]

The staff forums aren't the Donator Section where nothing happens ever.

It's the very FIRST thing a staffer should be checking when they sign on.

Then again, maybe my experience as a mod has led me astray in thinking so =/

 

[Ⓐaron]

The staff forums aren't the Donator Section where nothing happens ever.

It's the very FIRST thing a staffer should be checking when they sign on.

Then again, maybe my experience as a mod has led me astray in thinking so =/

I agree, but only a few of us actually do this. Perhaps we should make posting in the staff forums a requirement of being a staff member.

 

[Ⓐaron]

Well staff business can be kept in a staff thread, though. He could have posted it in the private forum.

Not to be funny, or bring up bad memories, but wasn't there a discussion from username about having a thread that banned users can post it for staff to see? Maybe that can work with guests too so that if there is a problem with someone trying to log in, they have a way to contact staff.

I'm not sure of a way to do this that wouldn't be horribly abused by spambots, but I'll look into something soon I guess.

 

[Celes Chere]

Hm... I think aka field is a pretty small requirement that isn't a really big deal, so I don't understand why people don't like filling them out. I also however, don't agree that they should be forced into it. I noticed that name changes have become a pretty common thing, there is no longer a wait period for them. You can pretty much get your name changed ANY time you want and that's pretty cool of you guys. I think asking us to fill out our aka fields in return for that is really not hard, not a big deal, and there should be no fuss over it.

At the same time it's kinda extreme to say "lol can't have your name change" and ban them from name changing and ALSO change their user name back to what it was because they did not fill out their aka field. Why not just have them fill out the field before changing the name? Saves a lot of trouble, doesn't stop any of the bitching but it's easier. AKA fields are suddenly turned into a srs bsns issue I noticed as well... no one gave a fuck months and months and months ago. I mean there were minor complaints but now suddenly we're trying to say it's a big deal? I don't think that's fair. I think to be fair there should be a thread to vote on the issue:
Should aka fields be a requirement or not?

 

[Alessa Gillespie]

I totally understand it being required. What I don't understand is that it's not listed in the rules and the punishment for not obeying it is not listed. That's all I'm asking for.

 

[Celes Chere]

Yeah I agree that it should be listed in the rules so that... threads like this DON'T happen. ^u^; But since there's a lot of conflict over should this be required or not, why not vote, if it passes then change the rules, if not, leave it. Problem solved. some might not be happy about it but at least the result would be fair.