Name Control

[Muluck]

I will make this short and sweet.

 

This is not JC Penny, you don't try on names here. You can't say who can use a name just because you used to call yourself smoejack. If you change your name any right that this system allowed you to have to that name is gone.

 

Just because someone is part of the Staff Team should not enable them to an automatic name copyright. Yes the target to your name is in greater demand, but being on the Staff Team is not a right, it is a privledge.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I'm glad you're starting to see things our way. Kudos to this man's insight! Bravo!

[.Leo]

Yeah. This happened to Hunter. He changed his name for Halloween. Someone created an account with that name. Now he has to go with Napoleon. He was a spammer to. So he took it and abused it and know he can't get it back unless the Spammer's account is Deleted.

[Death Bishop]

Yeah. This happened to Hunter. He changed his name for Halloween. Someone created an account with that name. Now he has to go with Napoleon. He was a spammer to. So he took it and abused it and know he can't get it back unless the Spammer's account is Deleted.

Why don't they just un-register/delete the account?

[.Leo]

Yeah. This happened to Hunter. He changed his name for Halloween. Someone created an account with that name. Now he has to go with Napoleon. He was a spammer to. So he took it and abused it and know he can't get it back unless the Spammer's account is Deleted.

Why don't they just un-register/delete the account?

 

don't know. Hunter can't becaues he is not a Super.

[Guest JoshIcy]

There is a difference...

 

If a person who uses the name has malicious intent, we reserve the right and so do you (if you have that name) to change it back. But if it's a legit new member, then no you or I don't.

[.Leo]

There is a difference...

 

If a person who uses the name has malicious intent' date=' we reserve the right and so do you (if you have that name) to change it back. But if it's a legit new member, then no you or I don't.

[/quote']

 

oh. so was this Malicious Intent or a legit new member?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

There is a difference...

 

If a person who uses the name has malicious intent' date=' we reserve the right and so do you (if you have that name) to change it back. But if it's a legit new member, then no you or I don't.

[/quote']

 

But in this case, you can't prove someone's intent unless they tell you theirselves which intent they acted out of am I right?

 

There is a difference...

 

If a person who uses the name has malicious intent' date=' we reserve the right and so do you (if you have that name) to change it back. But if it's a legit new member, then no you or I don't.

[/quote']

 

oh. so was this Malicious Intent or a legit new member?

 

A legit new member.

[Cowboy Dan]

Who the hell would steal a name like that? He must have no respect at all. Anyway, I bet the person who stole the name is a well known member. This looks like a job for...

THE SCOOBY DOO GANG!

lolz.

Can't a Super Moderator just delete the account? Or maybe I'm not following.

[Guest JoshIcy]

There is a difference...

 

If a person who uses the name has malicious intent' date=' we reserve the right and so do you (if you have that name) to change it back. But if it's a legit new member, then no you or I don't.

[/quote']

 

But in this case, you can't prove someone's intent unless they tell you theirselves which intent they acted out of am I right?

 

Such malicious intent, would constitute trolling/spamming etc.

Registering with said name, with the sole purpose of causing a ruckus.

[Death Bishop]

I feel sorry for Napoleon.. and yet, we can't do anything. =X

[.Leo]

There is a difference...

 

If a person who uses the name has malicious intent' date=' we reserve the right and so do you (if you have that name) to change it back. But if it's a legit new member, then no you or I don't.

[/quote']

 

But in this case, you can't prove someone's intent unless they tell you theirselves which intent they acted out of am I right?

 

There is a difference...

 

If a person who uses the name has malicious intent' date=' we reserve the right and so do you (if you have that name) to change it back. But if it's a legit new member, then no you or I don't.

[/quote']

 

oh. so was this Malicious Intent or a legit new member?

 

A legit new member.

 

well. he lsot that name. he could go as Hunter or Huntr or Huntre.

 

I agree with this though. Even though that it was a mods old name doesn't mean you can't have it.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

There is a difference...

 

If a person who uses the name has malicious intent' date=' we reserve the right and so do you (if you have that name) to change it back. But if it's a legit new member, then no you or I don't.

[/quote']

 

But in this case, you can't prove someone's intent unless they tell you theirselves which intent they acted out of am I right?

 

Such malicious intent, would constitute trolling/spamming etc.

Registering with said name, with the sole purpose of causing a ruckus.

 

What you're saying is that the vast majority of warnings/bans for "trolling" and "intentional spamming" are moot. You can't prove one's intent unless they ACTUALLY verify it.

[Guest JoshIcy]

I feel sorry for Napoleon.. and yet' date=' we can't do anything. =X

[/quote']

 

Yes we can...

And if that was your account, you could as well.

 

Polar, stop grabbing at straws.

[.Leo]

I feel sorry for Napoleon.. and yet' date=' we can't do anything. =X

[/quote']

 

Yes we can...

And if that was your account, you could as well.

 

Polar, stop grabbing at straws.

 

yes. since he is Perma Banned there is nothing we can do now.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Polar' date=' stop grabbing at straws.

[/quote']

 

Attempts to silence and control people doesn't invalidate their arguments, friend.

[Guest JoshIcy]

Polar' date=' stop grabbing at straws.

[/quote']

 

Attempts to silence and control people doesn't invalidate their arguments, friend.

 

That doesn't stop you from arguing for the sake of arguing.

We obviously can't know. ANd if that user isn't an obvious troll, we won't IP ban etc. So they have ways to talk it out.

[NeoDemonX]

I'm glad you're starting to see things our way. Kudos to this man's insight! Bravo!

 

so what is your way and I'm I seeing your way

[.Leo]

Polar' date=' stop grabbing at straws.

[/quote']

 

Attempts to silence and control people doesn't invalidate their arguments, friend.

 

That doesn't stop you from arguing for the sake of arguing.

We obviously can't know. ANd if that user isn't an obvious troll, we won't IP ban etc. So they have ways to talk it out.

 

yeah. he just Spammed attacked us so he can talk it out i guess. [understanding what u said]

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Polar' date=' stop grabbing at straws.

[/quote']

 

Attempts to silence and control people doesn't invalidate their arguments, friend.

 

That doesn't stop you from arguing for the sake of arguing.

We obviously can't know. ANd if that user isn't an obvious troll, we won't IP ban etc. So they have ways to talk it out.

 

The only reason not IP banning them would be relevant to their having alternative means of "talking it out" would be by alting, alts being banned on the spot by tradition here. >_>

 

They'll either have a totally valid argument of you not knowing their intent, or they'll just have to wait out their ban. They should never be banned in the first place for "trolling" or "intentional spamming".

 

Unban ZenQued?

[Guest JoshIcy]

^: Said alt will be banned if they make a post. Otherwise, it can stay.

And yes Dark knows the rules of that...

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

^: Said alt will be banned if they make a post. Otherwise' date=' it can stay.

And yes Dark knows the rules of that...

[/quote']

 

Why should they have to alt in the first place when there's a seemingly irrefutable argument in favour of their ban being unfair? Should they suffer simply because they don't know of it?

[Muluck]

Polar' date=' stop grabbing at straws.

[/quote']

 

Attempts to silence and control people doesn't invalidate their arguments, friend.

 

That doesn't stop you from arguing for the sake of arguing.

We obviously can't know. ANd if that user isn't an obvious troll, we won't IP ban etc. So they have ways to talk it out.

 

The only reason not IP banning them would be relevant to their having alternative means of "talking it out" would be by alting, alts being banned on the spot by tradition here. >_>

 

They'll either have a totally valid argument of you not knowing their intent, or they'll just have to wait out their ban. They should never be banned in the first place for "trolling" or "intentional spamming".

 

Unban ZenQued?

 

If warning's do nothing to help them follow the rules, the only other option is to ban them.

 

I question your intellectual intentions, and or logic.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Polar' date=' stop grabbing at straws.

[/quote']

 

Attempts to silence and control people doesn't invalidate their arguments, friend.

 

That doesn't stop you from arguing for the sake of arguing.

We obviously can't know. ANd if that user isn't an obvious troll, we won't IP ban etc. So they have ways to talk it out.

 

The only reason not IP banning them would be relevant to their having alternative means of "talking it out" would be by alting, alts being banned on the spot by tradition here. >_>

 

They'll either have a totally valid argument of you not knowing their intent, or they'll just have to wait out their ban. They should never be banned in the first place for "trolling" or "intentional spamming".

 

Unban ZenQued?

 

If warning's do nothing to help them follow the rules, the only other option is to ban them.

 

I question your intellectual intentions, and or logic.

 

These "rules" are at fault. "Intentional spamming" and "trolling" cannot warrant warnings/bans because intent cannot be proven unless the person in question tells you it's their intent to spam or make someone angry. The staff can't read minds. <_<

[Muluck]

Polar' date=' stop grabbing at straws.

[/quote']

 

Attempts to silence and control people doesn't invalidate their arguments, friend.

 

That doesn't stop you from arguing for the sake of arguing.

We obviously can't know. ANd if that user isn't an obvious troll, we won't IP ban etc. So they have ways to talk it out.

 

The only reason not IP banning them would be relevant to their having alternative means of "talking it out" would be by alting, alts being banned on the spot by tradition here. >_>

 

They'll either have a totally valid argument of you not knowing their intent, or they'll just have to wait out their ban. They should never be banned in the first place for "trolling" or "intentional spamming".

 

Unban ZenQued?

 

If warning's do nothing to help them follow the rules, the only other option is to ban them.

 

I question your intellectual intentions, and or logic.

 

These "rules" are at fault. "Intentional spamming" and "trolling" cannot warrant warnings/bans because intent cannot be proven unless the person in question tells you it's their intent to spam or make someone angry. The staff can't read minds. <_<

 

If the post does not in anyway pertain to the topic at hand then it is Intentional Spamming.

 

Posting song lyrics in a thread about yor favorite book in which the lyrics don't even talk about literature is obviously Intentional Spamming.

 

You can question the rules, and I praise you for that, it shows you can think for yourself. But frivolous acusations and rebuttals do not prove them wrong.