6 month name change period

Hello,

I understand there is currently a system where pardoned users can not request a name change until the 6 month period has been passed. I'm not sure as to why this is so I wanted to know what the purpose of this rule is?

A Pardon will only go through the first stage voting if enough staff members believe that the member is no longer a danger to the community and has no ill intentions.

A Pardon will only go through the USL stage voting if global moderators and administrators genuinely believe again that this user wants to return on good grounds and will not be a harm the community.

Everyone knows this but what I am trying to understand is what benefit this rule brings to the security of the website and to the security of the community. Regardless of whether a user is pardoned or not, the username title changes informing other members that this Sythe member has had a name change. It is also the responsibility of users to check enough details of any individual they are trading to identify exactly who they are trading.

I don't mean to sound ignorant so if there is a genuine reason for this than fair enough but I wanted to recommend administrators and the staff to review the effectiveness of this rule.

Recommendation:

It would be nice if the 6 month period could be reduced to a period which the staff team deems appropriate based on the users current situation and past history and if its determined that this rule isn't as effective as first thought than it could be removed.

Thankyou

 

I believe it was another measure to prevent numerous major name request submissions. Another reason was probably to have pardoned users keep their identity for a while before being able to change it. I don't think this requirement should be removed, but rather reduced, possibly to 3 months.

 

Right but numerous name changes are only available to those who have donated a minimum of $200. Only 5% (source: donation perks) of total donors are currently $200+ so I don't think there are numerous major name changes anyway.

As stated by Superfluous, there have been no issues regarding name changes and all name change requests are processed through staff which obviously means the request will only be accepted if staff feel that the change has no negative implications on the site and community.

 

Each requirement serves as a foundation to make it harder to request. Donating a minimum of $200 is only one of many requirements.

There have been no issues regarding name changes, no, but the idea of there being a waiting period for pardoned users to keep the same identity after pardoning is ideal in reason. Think of it as an ex-felon wanting to change their legal name. Most domains restrict this from being done, unless petitioned to a court, by which the process is long and complicated for obvious reasons.

I'd support complete removal for minor name changes, as ones identity isn't being completely changed and the requirement does not peer to what is being requested. Johng got a minor change well within 6 months of pardoning, so I don't even think it's enforced.

 

I mentioned $200 requirement in regards to your point about numerous name changes. The identity never is changed because for a period of 6-12 months the user title states who the user was before the name change.

If there was no user title stating the name change then I would understand but otherwise I genuinely don't see the effectiveness of this rule. I don't think it brings any advantages. A pardoned user not being able to change their name for up to 6 months doesn't stop them from scamming anyone if thats their intention.

The rule was introduced as a security mechanism but now I just feel like its there for the sake of having a rule. For example, if I had the intention to damage the website or the community, not being able to change my name for 6 months doesn't stop me from doing that.

 

A pardoned user should reintegrate with the community for a period of time before requesting a major name change.

The same argument can be had for this rule: Have a join date which dates to at least two years prior to their name change request.

I can nitpick each requirement and give a reason why it should not exist, but together it creates a collective barrier that makes it harder to procure. I do think the length is too long and should be reduced, and I do think it should not exist for minor name changes.

 

I support reducing the time needed to wait for a name change after pardoning or even better, removing it all together.

 

If name changes have to be voted on by staff this needs to be removed.

Staff aren't idiots, their not going to let coinking pardon then change his name the next day.

Support this, just scrap it.

 

After the Gun name change fiasco, I believe the voting now specifically deals with how reasonable the request is, and not whether that person is deserving of a name change.

Example: Bob5751 requests a name change to Bob, but Bob is already taken by a user who last logged/joined 2 years ago with about 196 post count and is a $5 donor. Staff would vote whether the name Bob should be released under these circumstances, and not if Bob5751 deserves the name Bob.

 

Gun was originally denied a name change because of his character. This was reverted soon after.

 

What was his history? I already stated in my original post staff can also process name changes based on the users history.

 

His history no longer matters, as he was pardoned and his slate was wiped clean. He was denied due to his behavior on the forums subsequent to being unbanned. Where is the proof for your last statement? I don't recall this.

 

Apologies I may have gotten confused with another thread. Well if any user who has been pardoned means his or her slate is wiped clean than the need to wait for 6 months is even more pointless and ineffective.

 

What is the difference between the 2 year waiting period and the 6 month waiting period subsequent to being pardoned?

 

Not sure what you're referring to?

 

It's a question.

 

2 years is 24 months of ineffective ruling and 6 months is 6 months of ineffective ruling, they're both unnecessary. Its simple to understand that the name change process goes through staff where they all decide whether any name change should be accepted or denied. ALL staff members get the opportunity to determine all factors that will result from changing a users name. We really don't need it in my opinion and quite a few others here.

 

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.