Change Requirements for Username Requests

[MisfitNerd]

The original thread has gone kind of inactive, plus my suggestion I posted within it may not be noticed by the time it gets reviewed so I'm just making a new thread. If this needs to be closed, please feel free to close and deny it. Original thread can be found here, and my original comment can be found here.

Anyways, the current system of username requests has the following requirements:

1. The user must not have purchased any account upgrade.
2. The user must have under 25 messages.
3. The user must not have logged in for at least 6 months.
4. The user must not have posted any thread or post in at least 6 months.

Which really limit us users on which names we can get. Many users come here and take really good names then get just enough activity before scamming or being caught ban evading, thus entirely ruining those names. The current system basically allows for no names to be used.

So here are the changes I would want to make.

For banned member names:
Account has to be banned at least 6 months (guaranteeing it won't have any chance at an unban for whatever reason).
Only cases of high message counts should be debated by staff directly. [Ex: I own the MC account "Ninja", but Ninja1 is banned here, so let the staff debate if I could make Ninja my alias here.]

For inactive member names:
If the user has a post count between 0-250 messages, 6 months inactivity wait period.
If the user has a post count between 500-1000 messages, 1 year inactivity wait period.
Any higher post count beyond 1000 messages needs direct admin approval after over 1 year of inactivity.
In special cases, rules could maybe be bent based on administration opinions. With inactive users, if they return, they can be given 2 months max upon losing their name (from the day it's lost) to request it back, in case they do return.

Beyond these things, I don't know why it needs to be so difficult to get a name you want. It shouldn't matter if they purchased Premium/Supreme or anything.

Some may say that this will complicate things. Well, not really. It provides a more fair system for people to get desirable names. We all have the ability to check someone's Username History (and if they have their profile hidden, this is where that suggestion about not allowing users to hide their profiles should come back in as that's the stupidest thing in the world anyways). So you can't "impersonate" a banned user. Besides, who would even be stupid enough to actually attempt that??? This system would allow for more names to be given out, and allow direct staff correlation between them, rather than saying "Sorry he has 50 posts so no can do", when in reality that's rather silly.

Please give some thoughts and insights into this for me. If you disagree, please explain why.

 

[MisfitNerd]

I believe a suggestion for new name change requests was already made. Let me see if I can find it.

The original thread has gone kind of inactive, plus my suggestion I posted within it may not be noticed by the time it gets reviewed so I'm just making a new thread. If this needs to be closed, please feel free to close and deny it. Original thread can be found here, and my original comment can be found here.

 

[MisfitNerd]

Oh, sorry! Didn't read that part

It was the first part of the thread...

 

[Colton]

I also agree with this suggestion wholeheartedly.

 

[Mick]

For banned member names:
Account has to be banned at least 6 months (guaranteeing it won't have any chance at an unban for whatever reason).
Only cases of high message counts should be debated by staff directly. [Ex: I own the MC account "Ninja", but Ninja1 is banned here, so let the staff debate if I could make Ninja my alias here.]

This seems reasonable. If someone wanted the name 'Ninja' then I guess that's fair enough as long as they're not trying to impersonate them. If someone requested the name 'avsterbone' or something like that then I probably wouldn't give it to them as the only purpose of that would be to impersonate him.

For inactive member names:
If the user has a post count between 0-250 messages, 6 months inactivity wait period.
If the user has a post count between 500-1000 messages, 1 year inactivity wait period.
Any higher post count beyond 1000 messages needs direct admin approval after over 1 year of inactivity.
In special cases, rules could maybe be bent based on administration opinions. With inactive users, if they return, they can be given 2 months max upon losing their name (from the day it's lost) to request it back, in case they do return.

I don't really like the idea of giving a username back to the user who we take it from, but giving them the option to choose whatever username they want if they do come back seems reasonable (as long as it isn't already claimed or something). Not 100% sure how Doge does it right now though.

Doge, could you give your input on this? You currently handle name changes so you've dealt with a bunch of different situations. Do these updated requirements seem reasonable?

REDACTED

I also agree with this suggestion wholeheartedly.

I also agree with this suggestion wholeheartedly.

http://usetheagreebutton.com

 

[MisfitNerd]

This seems reasonable. If someone wanted the name 'Ninja' then I guess that's fair enough as long as they're not trying to impersonate them. If someone requested the name 'avsterbone' or something like that then I probably wouldn't give it to them as the only purpose of that would be to impersonate him.


I don't really like the idea of giving a username back to the user who we take it from, but giving them the option to choose whatever username they want if they do come back seems reasonable (as long as it isn't already claimed or something). Not 100% sure how Doge does it right now though.

Doge, could you give your input on this? You currently handle name changes so you've dealt with a bunch of different situations. Do these updated requirements seem reasonable?




http://usetheagreebutton.com

Something else I forgot about.

I feel that any name taken by someone who was banned for ban evasion should be have no wait requirements. So many ban evaders come, take a good name, and get banned within days to where no one knew them. I'd say only in rare cases of major ban evading would it be denied.

Thoughts?

 

[Mick]

Something else I forgot about.

I feel that any name taken by someone who was banned for ban evasion should be have no wait requirements. So many ban evaders come, take a good name, and get banned within days to where no one knew them. I'd say only in rare cases of major ban evading would it be denied.

Thoughts?

Having it as 6 months would just be so much easier. If you ban evaded last week on the name and were a member for ages then that still might cause confusion.

 

[MisfitNerd]

Having it as 6 months would just be so much easier. If you ban evaded last week on the name and were a member for ages then that still might cause confusion.

Fair point. Was just a thought.

 

[Doge]

This seems reasonable. If someone wanted the name 'Ninja' then I guess that's fair enough as long as they're not trying to impersonate them. If someone requested the name 'avsterbone' or something like that then I probably wouldn't give it to them as the only purpose of that would be to impersonate him.

I don't really like the idea of giving a username back to the user who we take it from, but giving them the option to choose whatever username they want if they do come back seems reasonable (as long as it isn't already claimed or something). Not 100% sure how Doge does it right now though.

Doge, could you give your input on this? You currently handle name changes so you've dealt with a bunch of different situations. Do these updated requirements seem reasonable?

So far, I haven't seen anybody whose name was changed come back. But if they did, allowing them to pick a new name or their old one if it was changed again sounds fair to me.

I think if the user made a purchase and isn't banned, their name shouldn't be requestable. Most of the time the names I end up denying are users who have about 50 posts, no upgrade and have been inactive for over a year.

I think these requirements work best as they should allow many good names to be requested while still ensuring the users are inactive and won't be returning:

1. The user must not have purchased any account upgrade if they are not banned.
2. The user must have under 250 messages.
3. The user must not have logged in for at least 6 months.
4. The user must not have posted any thread or post in at least 6 months.

(The last one is kinda redundant since if they haven't logged in in 6 months, they couldn't have posted anything anyway.)

 

[MisfitNerd]

So far, I haven't seen anybody whose name was changed come back. But if they did, allowing them to pick a new name or their old one if it was changed again sounds fair to me.

I think if the user made a purchase and isn't banned, their name shouldn't be requestable. Most of the time the names I end up denying are users who have about 50 posts, no upgrade and have been inactive for over a year.

I think these requirements work best as they should allow many good names to be requested while still ensuring the users are inactive and won't be returning:

1. The user must not have purchased any account upgrade if they are not banned.
2. The user must have under 250 messages.
3. The user must not have logged in for at least 6 months.
4. The user must not have posted any thread or post in at least 6 months.

(The last one is kinda redundant since if they haven't logged in in 6 months, they couldn't have posted anything anyway.)

That first one automatically removes a ton of potential requestable names and number 2 isn't hard for a user to get to 250 posts.

 

[Mick]

I've moved the other thread about this to pending, so I'll move this one to denied.

Thanks.