6 month name change period

[Azie]

How is the ruling ineffective? It's purpose/effect is pretty clear. It restricts new/moderately new users from radical name changes, in turn decreasing the amount of major name change requests over a period of time making it harder to procure. The only difference between the two is the time. They both fit a role in making something harder to attain.



There seems to be a misconception here. Minor name changes aren't subject to a poll unless the name that wants to be attained is not available. All major name change requests are subject to a poll where majority rules, and rarely is one ever denied unless the name being held is unreasonable to release. See my example above. If you meet all requirements, then there is no reason to factor anything.

Note: These requirements weren't chosen on ones personal whim. There was a community held discussion of what the requirements should be, and everyone's opinion was considered. Understandably, you want this to change because you're affected by the requirements, but so is everyone else who doesn't meet it, yet they haven't went in this direction.

I have already stated that 5% of total donors are $200+. Major name changes are not that common anyway.

It doesn't matter if there was a community held discussion at any time for this ruling. We are talking about where this rule stands now and so far only you have been arguing against it being removed. There is a community discussion being held now where everyone's opinion is welcome and will hopefully be considered.

Your point about other people being affected by this rule not making this suggestion but what on earth does that have anything to do with the purpose of this thread? Dave mentioned in 1 of the name change threads that a suggestion can be made about the 6 month rule so that is what I have done.

My simple point is that staff are competent enough to take into consideration several factors where security to the website/community is always a priority and for that reason I think we don't really need this particular rule.

You mentioned the 2 year period and tbh I agree with what you said in regards to new/moderately new users being able to process a name change so yeah..

 

I have already stated that 5% of total donors are $200+. Major name changes are not that common anyway.

It doesn't matter if there was a community held discussion at any time for this ruling. We are talking about where this rule stands now and so far only you have been arguing against it being removed. There is a community discussion being held now where everyone's opinion is welcome and will hopefully be considered.

Your point about other people being affected by this rule not making this suggestion but what on earth does that have anything to do with the purpose of this thread? Dave mentioned in 1 of the name change threads that a suggestion can be made about the 6 month rule so that is what I have done.

My simple point is that staff are competent enough to take into consideration several factors where security to the website/community is always a priority and for that reason I think we don't really need this particular rule.

You mentioned the 2 year period and tbh I agree with what you said in regards to new/moderately new users being able to process a name change so yeah..

I'm arguing against it being removed because that is my position on the issue. You're arguing that it isn't necessary when it still provides a purpose. Major name changes are quite common. There have been 28 major name requests, 21 of which have been accepted, not counting probable candidates who haven't requested a change knowing they don't meet all requirements, but have the $200 requirement out of the way. I've already explained that security isn't necessarily an issue/reason for the requirements in question. You're treating this as a right instead of a privilege.

 

[Azie]

I'm not going to quote you back on this after this reply because you aren't being as objective as you should be. 28 major requests means 3.11 name change requests per month and 21 name changes being accepted means that 2.33 names have been accepted on a monthly basis since it was introduced Jan 16. That is not common in my opinion.

"counting probable candidates who haven't requested a change knowing they don't meet all requirements" irrelevant in my opinion because it accounts for nothing relevant lol.

nobody is treating it as a right instead of a privilege.... this is a simple rule on a Sythe not a piece of UN legislation. I simply created this suggestion so that users and staff members could analyse the effectiveness of this particular ruling and determine what the best outcome should be. A few people have agreed it should be removed, few have said it should be shortened and you have said it shouldn't be removed.

Anyway going to leave it at that so other members can post their opinions.

 

i support it being shortened to like a month

 

I'm not going to quote you back on this after this reply because you aren't being as objective as you should be. 28 major requests means 3.11 name change requests per month and 21 name changes being accepted means that 2.33 names have been accepted on a monthly basis since it was introduced Jan 16. That is not common in my opinion.

"counting probable candidates who haven't requested a change knowing they don't meet all requirements" irrelevant in my opinion because it accounts for nothing relevant lol.

nobody is treating it as a right instead of a privilege.... this is a simple rule on a Sythe not a piece of UN legislation. I simply created this suggestion so that users and staff members could analyse the effectiveness of this particular ruling and determine what the best outcome should be. A few people have agreed it should be removed, few have said it should be shortened and you have said it shouldn't be removed.

Anyway going to leave it at that so other members can post their opinions.

You're not accounting for the 10% of donors who meet the $200 minimum requirement. Not to mention, all 10% don't meet all requirements, nor have intentions to request a name change, so it should be estimated at a significantly lower amount, especially since the percentage of donors (in the user center) account for banned users as well. Since we're talking probability, I mentioned the conditional probability of Event A (meeting all requirements) occurring.

Shortening is not withstanding of it being removed. If you think it should be shortened, then you also agree that it should not be removed.

Effective - successful in producing a desired or intended result.

It's actually quite effective in the sense that it makes it harder to procure, otherwise you wouldn't be here suggesting that it should be easier. :c

 

[Azie]

Bumppp could do with more opinions

 

i think it was originally put in place to keep people from being pardoned, coming back, and pretending to be other people through name changes. but now that we've been doing name changes for a while and have had literally zero problems i think we can get rid of it... especially since we vote on all name changes anyway

If this was indeed the reason for the rule to be set in place, I'll support the removal of it as well.

 

[Superfluous]

If this was indeed the reason for the rule to be set in place, I'll support the removal of it as well.

i cant really see why else we would have done it

 

[Felix]

Support

 

support definitely

 

I would support a reduce to 3 months. Reason being is that as you have been banned for countless amount of years etc; if you come back and pardon and decide to change your name after a month it can become confusing say for instance when thinking about future inquiries. Not directed at anyone specifically just a general viewpoint. I'd prefer having someone who has pardoned, or DNT to have their name for at least 3 months so they become community involved etc; before being allowed the chance for a name change on top of their pardon etc.

 

[Azie]

I would support a reduce to 3 months. Reason being is that as you have been banned for countless amount of years etc; if you come back and pardon and decide to change your name after a month it can become confusing say for instance when thinking about future inquiries. Not directed at anyone specifically just a general viewpoint. I'd prefer having someone who has pardoned, or DNT to have their name for at least 3 months so they become community involved etc; before being allowed the chance for a name change on top of their pardon etc.

But most active members would be aware of the name change. Its also written clearly in the usertitle for a minimum period of 6 months. Why would it be confusing about future inquiries? Most important future queries are done by staff and major name changes are processed through staff so they are aware that x person was called x before the name change. For other users its written clearly in the usertitle? someone could even find an answer about a certain user in threads like "where did x user go" which we already have one available.

 

[-Ryan]

Posted a SL poll on this, will let you know how it goes.

 

[Felix]

Posted a SL poll on this, will let you know how it goes.

how is it looking so far @-Ryan

 

[Azie]

Been about a week any update? @-Ryan @Superfluous @Astro

 

Been about a week any update? @-Ryan @Superfluous @Astro

Still being voted on though we should be done soon.

 

[Felix]

Still being voted on though we should be done soon.

thank you astro

 

[S]

Decision should be reached within a few days, max.

 

Soon™

 

[-Ryan]

Decision has been reached. Rule was removed.