I think my best advice would be to send a PM to IBobi, who posts regularly in the technical issues forum, for some direction in that regard. But I think your worst case scenario of needing to re-place them on your ignore list is not necessarily a major deal.

Back on topic for this thread: I guess I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around all of this. It clearly states, as was cited from the TOS in post #17 by Dovster, what the protocol is for asking for a handle change. Sounds a little like reinventing the wheel unless someone feels one aspect of that part of the TOS needs revision for a specific reason.

I'm not sure kipper's stance that it would cause problems in OMNI or CC has much merit either. Posters can only request a handle change once, so at best (or worst, depending on your point of view), OMNI posters only need to deal with trollish behavior at most twice from the same person.

That's where a "Formerly known as ..." title would come in. The question would be how long that title should appear. 180 days? A year?


I think the issue is inconsistency. What Dovster posted (Feb 06 policy) was not what I saw in the fall of 08; someone with a low post count had a "Formerly known as" title. The reason I remember it was, when I first noticed a title along with a low post count, I thought they were a TalkBoard candidate.

We also have much newer member being granted a change per the Feb 06 policy, while another with a much longer history of contributing was denied a change.

If it's in a signature though, there are people who have signatures turned off and won't see it. I'd prefer something under the handle, and for 90 days or so.

Unfortunately, it turns out that under the handle is not logistically feasible.

I would be very surprised if one would have to re-add the new handle to one's ignore list. I would fully expect any ignore-list selections to carry over (it's probably handled behind the scenes by user number rather than by specific text-based name).

It's late, I'm tired, but my understanding is that people can request a 1-time only change & the under the handle or next to the handle or the dual handle exists for 30 days. To me that's enough for a changeover re: the dual handles.

Cheers.

That's my belief as well.

That makes sense.
My concern about 30 days is that for some, it's easy to be away from FT for 30 days, between travel and such. Is there any reason why one would be opposed to 60 or 90 days?

I'm not opposed to longer, but I think current policy is 30 days. I'm not sure there's enough reason to make it significantly longer, but am certainly willing to listen if there's a groundswell of support.

Cheers.

How many handle changes have been requested and how many have been approved over the last 12 months? The last 24 months? 36? I'd like to understand how often these requests are made. I can't imagine it's that frequent that the TalkBoard needs to weigh in on this.

I wonder what has changed from when I saw this done ~3 years ago. :confused:

I share your confusion. :confused:

jackal, are you saying this is an exception and no longer possible on FT? I knew in this particular example, the poster had a handle change not long after the original signup date in 2008 (within weeks, if not months).

Hey guess what- that was the FTer I remember. Looks like they've had that title for several years now. :eek:

I guess we share more than just confusion then. We even use the same crystal ball. ;):D

It is still technically possible but it requires admin to make a data entry and then remember to remove it at the time agreed upon. There is no automated process for either step. This is a superb example of why I prefer to request the member to show it as his/her signature for 30 days, rather than expect admin to remember to do so. I believe that this member was told that the former handle had to be shown for 30 days - but here it is, years on, and it's never been removed. (And if that member is reading this, and wants that note removed, please message me.)

Under the handle vs. Signature...
 

I just saw another thread today, which could highlight the consistency issue.

I have no idea when this OP changed the handle but in this case, said FTer has no "Formerly Known as" notation under the handle. Without reading the signature line, I wouldn't have known the handle previously associated with this person.

That brings about another confusion in consistency. Do FTers themselves get to choose between shown under the handle and signature when they request handle change? Why some have "former user name" under their handles (as my example in post#51) while some don't? Is that an admin's decision or users'? :confused:

I am aware whoever meets the 90/90 can set up her/his own signature. So the signature option is not really an either-or choice. It appears to me under the handle notation should be a system default. I just don't understand why it is not applied to those who ever had a handle change?

ETA:
Just saw SanDiego1K's post. Carol and I happened to be replying at the same time, while I worked, well, much slower.

Still, how the notation works (personal requests, timeframe...etc) is not fully covered in current TOS on handle change. More clarification of such TOS will certainly reduce unnecessary confusion.

letiole? Never heard of her. :D

I'd prefer the way that alerts the greatest number of FT'ers to the change.

Right, where does the apostrophe go? :D

As for the case how FT does NOT differentiate apostrophe, hypens, and underscore in handles, please join the party over Technical Issues Forum. ;)

Actually, I believe Randy's policy--at least as I heard when I was helping some other members deal with him--was 14 days; 30 is actually a (better, IMHO) extension of that policy.

I, too, am not opposed to longer but like Sharon am not fully convinced the need for longer exists.

The reason why was outlined by the Community Director above. She had answered my question on the issue in the private TalkBoard forum before, and I am bound to not publish what is said by others within that forum, so I couldn't specify exactly what the reason was. I'm glad Carol came by to explain it herself.

How hard is it to set a calendar reminder 30 days in the future?

If you are going to make a requirement to publicize a change, it should be in a form that everyone can see.

I tried to get my name changed several times, never happened. Would love to get rid of this name.

since not everyone has signatures turned on, I would prefer to see it under the handle as well....for 90 days and a certain number of posts. I would have no problem putting the impetus on the poster to request the removal after the required period.

That seems very fair.

Idea and reasons make sense and well presented. ^

I would expect that if the purpose of the notification of the name change is for the benefit of members, that a longer period of time be considered. Even 3 months seems short to me. It would also seem to me that having this notice running a minimum time, with the action of removing it to be the members' responsibility (in terms of an email for the notice to be removed) may be an easier approach to administrate.

Are the unofficial rules still as presented in the OP? I am considering submitting a request because of privacy issues (due to the fact that my name is in my handle.)

Thanks!