Actually, I've seen that in the past where someone had requested a change, but that practice seems to have fallen out of use for some reason. I don't recall how long that title was in effect, though.

Another reason for having that in the title rather than the sig is that there is an option to turn signature visibility off.


Slapshot The Cat :D^

I agree. If a topic like this gets started on the TB forum, it will go 100's of posts, with posters making lots of comments that will make everyones head turn. Why waste any time and energy on something that will affect a small handful of Flyertalkers. Doesn't TalkBoard have better things to do? ;)

I think a little history is in order:

I was on TalkBoard when this issue was first raised (but not when the 2006 vote was finally taken).

One member had written to Randy asking for permission to change her handle. Randy turned to TalkBoard and asked it whether it felt this should be allowed and, if so, under what circumstances and with what restrictions.

That is how it became a TalkBoard issue.

+ 1

If there is one question people always ask me when they meet me in person its about my handle change and how to do it. It's not clear to most members and as a result I think we have a fair number of people who simply don't post or participate as much because they have a handle they don't like to use (ie: in haste established one that matches their name or use the handle on other sites and now realize the importance of a unique handle for FT).

Agree entirely with what XXXXXXX, er I mean, itsaboutthejourney said! ^ ;)

I use the same handle for most forums I frequent, unless it happens to be taken, but then again, I don't see why I'd want to remember a completely different handle for each forum.

I think that this topic deserves reworking for clarity.

I was under the impression that I was allowed a one time only name change, only to find my recent request denied. I don't think measuring replies to this thread is the best indicator to call for action

History.
8 1/2 years ago, I questioned the relevance of my ID and registered a second. FT friends encouraged me to keep the current/original one, so I did. But with the intention of requesting a change, in the future, when a nickname suitable to me finally dawned upon me.

Earlier this year, after giving the name change A WHOLE LOT of thought, I put in the request to change my name. About the same time, a 1 1/2 year - 10,000 post member also asked for a name change. Theirs was approved, mine was denied. It really left me feeling quite sour about my participation on FT, but that's a personal issue.

Now, FT has been good to me. In turn, I have tried to be good to FT. So, I didn't make an issue. But I would encourage the Talk Board to take a look at creating a definition that would bring the process out of the grey zone.

The sig notification requirement suggests that approvals would only be made for members who meet the 90/90 requirement. Plus, some folks turn off display of sigs making that less useful as a notification means.

Beyond those technical limits, I cannot fathom why the community would ever see fit to deny such a change as a one-time courtesy to a member. For ANY reason. What good does it serve to be so limiting? All the fine print and couching of terms seems to be more about exercising control and a display of power rather than actually helping members of the community. We're talking about a one-time change here, not allowing folks to do so with frequency. How is that a bad thing?

Oh, and apparently it isn't only the CD who makes such changes.

I think the scenario that is in the thread you posted was that there were 2 accounts, and the person simply wanted to "merge" them, keeping the one they used regularly. They weren't looking specifically at changing their handle.

{Quote from now deleted post removed by moderator, along with reply}


I could see where handle changes could be used to "game" the system in CC or OMNI, unless everyone is made aware that the poster changed their handle. For example, if handle changes are granted without due consideration, and without something visible to everyone that can't just be hidden/deleted, someone could post a trade in CC, not follow through with their part, and request a handle change to avoid others hearing about their failure to complete the trade. In OMNI, one could contribute the minimum to access OMNI, then act very much like a "troll," to the point that most OMNI posters know to ignore them. They then could request a handle change, and if there isn't due consideration, and without something visible to everyone that can't just be hidden/deleted, they could simply antagonize people again, without regular OMNI posters knowing it was the same person.

A general question about handle changes... If a poster is on someone's ignore list, and that poster requests, and is granted a handle change, does the person who opted to ignore them have to add the new handle to their ignore list?

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.