That's because her post is no longer in a public forum. :yes:

oh....so does it then count as a post still?

It does start to worry me that someone may have a mule that they made a one post with and then kept quiet about.

I suppose it'd come down to their trade history and if they have any activity. Obviously, if it's someone's mule and they're using it, they ought to at least have trades with their main or donations between their main and mule. It does mean that an AA has to do a lot of digging to find these things out.

I am very worried about slippery slopes, though. Because I'm sure someone else will come along and argue that if they only made (any number of) posts on their first day and haven't logged on since or made any trades or logged in since then it should be the same thing as 1 post. And then someone else will argue that if they only logged in twice, ever, it's the same thing, etc.

jellysundae and CK I can understand what you mean about the potential for the snowball down a slippery slope effect of people making higher and higher demands or slight variations. From what I can see, the account with the name in question is dead, and has been since it was the day it was created since no further logins, so therefore it's probably not being used as a mule for trades and such. Though I think my request is reasonable, on the other side of the coin I also understand the importance of setting precedent so I won't huff and puff and go emo kid and leave the site in an immature tizzy should you tell me "No, Sorry" (with good reasoning) ;)

CAN I HAVE SOME, TOO?! :heart: (Just the ice-cream though, please, under-age drinking isn't good.) >~<;

Yeah, I have a mulie somewhat like that. :ninja:
But I do have trades and stuff, so I guess that should be okay. :yes:

----

Anyways, what would you do with the account you're taking the name from? I mean, I made an account on Menewsha, left for around a year and a half and returned, I'd be pretty ticked off if someone had taken my username.

That's the whole problem in a nutshell, Omnom. Because some people do come back to what is essentially an abandoned account.

Maybe we'd have to make the time even longer. Say an account had to be 3 or more years old, and absolutely no activity. No posts, no trades, no donations, no nothing.

I think three years and no logging in since (which would exclude trade-mules. Obviously have to log in to trade) is a reasonable request. And doesn't each account have a specific ID user-account number? Like my profile link is http://www.menewsha.com/forum/members/108122.html Is 108122 my User ID? If I hadn't logged in for 3years/etc, I think the name should be changed to the account number. Just to make it simple.

This is a brilliant idea. If you don't want to totally delete the accounts, just rename them.

I'd be willing to wait another year (to make 3 years) for the account name I want. However, the ONE introduction post makes it out of bounds? That's pretty harsh... -Takes the pose of 'the thinker'-

I really like ||PWEEP||'s idea. After all, in the database our Primary ID is the user number, NOT the user name. If it was, we wouldn't be able to change the name and have everything else stay the same (Yes, I took a semester of relational database design in preparation for a semester of learning oracle 9I SQL back in the day).

I do, however, see one problem with PWEEP's idea, which is that we log in with our usernames. They wouldn't know why they couldn't access their account when their name was changed, and there's the potential problem of someone accidentally stumbling into someone elses' account because it's a name they used to have.

Does that make sense? It's late, and it's very probable that it doesn't.

But it's also username AND password. They'd both have to be the same to access, right?

Yes, but it would still be terribly confusing for the person logging in! And there's a chance, regardless of it's a once-in-a-lifetime chance, that they could stumble upon the new username holder's password, which for legality's sake sounds fishy. I just think it's a little too close to dangerous waters for Inso to agree to it.

None of us are in Insomniac's mind (and thank goodness for that!), but I think the 'legality' issue is a really weak one. Here is why:

On sailormoon.org, where I was (and still am) a forum moderator, we were a community site where our 'points' were used for level promotions and access to the extensive image libraries. At one point we had over 10,000 users circa Y2K. It was set into the code that after x amount of inactivity a user's account would become 'delete scheduled' and stay there for a week before being purged from the system. They would receive a notification email to the email in the system database, but if that was out of date, then it was merely tough cookies for them. They had to contact the user support team to get their accounts restored from 'delete scheduled', otherwise they had to create an account from scratch. MANY usernames 'died out' this way: In fact, it was the way I was able to eventually drop the numbers off my name... I noticed the name I desired was 'delete scheduled' and I waited, held my breath, and then hopped onto the new name as soon as it became free. The user was inactive for far less than 3 years, it was 6 months to a year, post count and such nonwithstanding whatsoever they were issued an email, and if their email was not current it became their liability.

Anyways, I know I'm not the only person that 'scored' a more desireable username this way. It also didn't affect my persona because I simply dropped the numbers at the end, as here I'm requesting a username with a space instead of an underscore.

In all of the years of sailormoon.org's history, from 1998 I believe until now (same owners but different 'webmasters' after a hiatus of a few years now, 'tis a bit of a graveyard) there was never once a legal issue regarding deleted usernames, even at the height of our activity and bandwidth guzzling. Sailormoon.org has always been, and still is, a not-for-profit site, as well. I believe Mene (as opposed to G***) is still not-for-profit, correct?

Also, since the site moves so slowly some 'old hat users' who should be at the 'highest level' have had to re-create accounts and are at the lowest level... and they're sure as heck taking it in stride:

Well, you need to bear in mind that a policy that's always been in place somewhere is likely to be easily accepted by the users. If someone on here lost their account because things were changed to something like that then they'd be fully within their rights to be extremely angry.

if it's just a forum, with no items that are paid for, then a direct comparison really can't be made.

jelly- Well donors did get a special icon by their names, and access to a special area of the site where they could buy 'items' not available elsewhere, the only difference is all of our 'items' were things that could not be equipped onto an avatar ('equipped' on 'head' or 'hand' on your profile with the images of said item), or collected and traded with friends so they meant alot less than items do here at Menewsha. Trying to get all of the different easter eggs come easter was fun, but I digress...

The point of my example was that 'legal issues' should not be a worry. The flaw with my example is that from the moment users accept the FAQ on the other site and sign up, they are acknowledging that their account is at risk for deletion due to inacitivty. This points back to my initial suggestion:

If the site policy is to be changed, the most important thing is setting a safe yet reasonable precedent, a hard line that leaves no room for slippery slopes, which I do agree with you on 100%. So maybe three years. Maybe an empty inventory with no trade activity. Maybe no activity after the day they signed up (ie one fresh meat post in the same session, because after all, that is what the system encourages you to do).

If the final answer comes to "can we have abandoned (with x criteria) usernames) comes be a flat-out "no" I'll live, but there seems to be a handful of vocal users interested in 'abandoned' usernames, and without a doubt there are users who do not check this forum who will find out "Whoa, you can do that?" and see if a name they desired meets the criteria.

After three years time, is it really that important to keep the information in the database about a user who has never contributed or participated in the community during said three years?

I also hope you all realise that I am debating this with all due respect and just because I'm being vocal I am merely bringing up various points and ideas all the time whilst crossing my fingers and hoping that 'the squeaky wheel gets the oil'. :sweat:

You point about no activity since the day they registered might be a better option than going by a set number of posts, actually.

*puts hand up* I just read through this thread and had a thought....

You can sign in with your email can't you? (Wait, that's how I always sign in. Silly question.) Anyway... If you sent an email to the person who's name you were "stealing" and told them that you know "as you have been inactive for X amount of years, we are changing your username to your ID number to allow somebody else to have your username." And rather than do it on a case by case basis, maybe everyone who hasn't logged on in three years? That makes it impartial (or whatever), frees up usernames, and maybe reminds people of the site... making them more likely to come back.


Only problem I can see is that when people come back they're going to go - Hey! That's my username! Maybe give them the opportunity for one free change - from number to name?

That's not a bad suggestion in itself, but if we did that it would only be on a case by case basis, as it would be rediculous to do it manually. It would need to be coded in to switch all inactive people as they hit the 3 year mark. Also, there's the issue of the emails themselves. It would likely do us no favours as many of these people would mark our mail as spam, which damages our email reputation with the provider and makes them stop delivering our mail if it happens enough.

I would like the name cora but I'd live without.

I do think however that an account 3+ years old.....only a few (like 1-3 posts) made ON the day they registered.....without a single sign in since is fair enough to have that account name changed......after all they probably don't even remember it exists in the first place. Again though......I'm fairly indifferent either way..

I'm poking this particular thread with a stick just to ask if any definate resolution was made in regards to taking the usernames of what appear with 99.99% certainty to be 'abandoned' accounts?

@beloved- generally people who make a mule where here to long to be that far gone. I know most people don't make a mule until they have scoped out the site alittle bit....and decided to stay (they may have gone missing after the fact......) but the initial account probably has more then the minimum.

That.

Here is the thing though. Regardless of activity of the account, IF these people were to ever come back they would not have the name they initially signed up for. This would create a giant shit-storm. If they were banned accounts. Yeah, I could see that. But, to upright change it due to inactivity. =/ It sounds like a giant shit waiting to hit fall far enough to hit the fan.

If someone hypothetically complained if for some mysterious reason they came back after being loggged in just once three years ago...

... didn't they agree to the TOS? The TOS states that you agree to it when you sign up, I'm pretty sure there's a bit about you agree to it if it changes, and if you don't like those changes you can leave. (And if you don't have that in there, you should) The TOS is also what makes it okay for, say, staff to have access to additional and somewhat personal info about users such as info about our IP addresses (mostly in order to investigate someone creating an army of mules).