Name Changes motion
Feb 10, 2006, 10:49 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 736
Name Changes motion
I see a motion is posted as passed on name changes, specifically to add the following to the TOS:
Forgive me, but this seems a slightly odd policy. There was recently a one time offer to change handles, as in renaming an existing account (no resetting of post count etc.), subject to certain restrictions. This was a nice offer to make and I appreciate it was over and above the minimum level of service.
This new wording effectively states that it's OK to simply cancel your registration and get a new one, but you can only do that once. The implication of this is that it appears to make it a TOS violation to have more than two FT accounts over the course of your lifetime. For example, say you were active a few years ago but changed job, forgot about FT, lost your details, changed PC etc. Would it be a TOS violation if you simply sign up for a new account and start afresh? What if you did that a second time?
Similarly, what if your first time on FT was a little embarrassing to you? Say you wrote stuff that you might no longer wish to be associated with. I would assume that it would be acceptable to throw away your old account and start again - as long as you never use your old account again. I don't see why it would be so wrong to do this multiple times, so long as you were not doing it merely to evade suspensions or for other nefarious purposes. It would also be rather hard to police - sure, you can tell if someone is simultaneously using multiple accounts, but it's harder to prove if someone has simply thrown away an old one and started again (particularly if some time elapses in between)
The rules seem to be quite specific on the subject of multiple handles:
This treats multiple handles as a problem if they are being used maliciously (and quite rightly too), but does not cover the case of simply wanting to start again.
It also raises the interesting (to me, anyway) question of whether a user has the right to cancel their account. We all know the forum operator may cancel your account, but does a user, once they have signed up, have the right to do so? No idea of the answer on that one, IANAL.
I'm not trying to be difficult here. I have no axe to grind - I have no desire to change my handle, and none of the hypothetical situations above apply to me - but I thought the wording was odd, and it implies a strangely restrictive and hard to enforce rule. The "one-time only" bit would make more sense if attached to an offer to modify your existing account.
Can I change my Flyer Talk handle?
The short answer is NO. In general the handle you registered with is the one you are known by during your time in this Community. However, if for instance you started 2 years back as FargoFlyer and are now based in Tampa, we will allow you as a ONE TIME courtesy to re-register your handle. Once you have registered under that new name, you must email a FT admin to cancel the duplicate handle. Failure to do so is a violation of the Flyertalk Terms of Service as each member may only have one handle. Be warned your post count then re-starts at zero, and your "join date" will reflect the date of the new handle. And this is a strictly ONE TIME offer to members, so please think carefully before asking!
The short answer is NO. In general the handle you registered with is the one you are known by during your time in this Community. However, if for instance you started 2 years back as FargoFlyer and are now based in Tampa, we will allow you as a ONE TIME courtesy to re-register your handle. Once you have registered under that new name, you must email a FT admin to cancel the duplicate handle. Failure to do so is a violation of the Flyertalk Terms of Service as each member may only have one handle. Be warned your post count then re-starts at zero, and your "join date" will reflect the date of the new handle. And this is a strictly ONE TIME offer to members, so please think carefully before asking!
This new wording effectively states that it's OK to simply cancel your registration and get a new one, but you can only do that once. The implication of this is that it appears to make it a TOS violation to have more than two FT accounts over the course of your lifetime. For example, say you were active a few years ago but changed job, forgot about FT, lost your details, changed PC etc. Would it be a TOS violation if you simply sign up for a new account and start afresh? What if you did that a second time?
Similarly, what if your first time on FT was a little embarrassing to you? Say you wrote stuff that you might no longer wish to be associated with. I would assume that it would be acceptable to throw away your old account and start again - as long as you never use your old account again. I don't see why it would be so wrong to do this multiple times, so long as you were not doing it merely to evade suspensions or for other nefarious purposes. It would also be rather hard to police - sure, you can tell if someone is simultaneously using multiple accounts, but it's harder to prove if someone has simply thrown away an old one and started again (particularly if some time elapses in between)
The rules seem to be quite specific on the subject of multiple handles:
Originally Posted by http://flyertalk.com/help/rules.php
Using Multiple FlyerTalk Accounts to Mislead Posters
Members are allowed one FlyerTalk account. In the past some members used multiple handles to harass other members. Multiple accounts will be closed and involved members will be subject to the disciplinary process.
Members are allowed one FlyerTalk account. In the past some members used multiple handles to harass other members. Multiple accounts will be closed and involved members will be subject to the disciplinary process.
It also raises the interesting (to me, anyway) question of whether a user has the right to cancel their account. We all know the forum operator may cancel your account, but does a user, once they have signed up, have the right to do so? No idea of the answer on that one, IANAL.
I'm not trying to be difficult here. I have no axe to grind - I have no desire to change my handle, and none of the hypothetical situations above apply to me - but I thought the wording was odd, and it implies a strangely restrictive and hard to enforce rule. The "one-time only" bit would make more sense if attached to an offer to modify your existing account.
Feb 10, 2006, 7:09 pm
#2
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MDW, ORD
Posts: 332
I agree with everything you've said. The new rule seems bizarre and unnecessary to me, but what do I know?
Feb 11, 2006, 9:56 am
#3
Flyertalk Evangelist and Moderator: Coupon Connection and Travel Products
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milton, GA USA
Programs: Hilton Diamond, IHG Platinum Elite, Hyatt Discoverist, Radisson Elite
Posts: 19,041
Cargo Cult,
You articulate very succinctly many of the reason I voted against the motion.
If people had very good reasons to change their handle it could be done by Randy outstanding technical team.... they have been doing that already.
I feel that many people want to change their handle because they no longer want to be known by the persona they created... oftentimes negative in nature.
I believe people need to stand behind their posts and their name...
I only hope this does not get misused... but some of the recent name changes bear out my concerns.
William
You articulate very succinctly many of the reason I voted against the motion.
If people had very good reasons to change their handle it could be done by Randy outstanding technical team.... they have been doing that already.
I feel that many people want to change their handle because they no longer want to be known by the persona they created... oftentimes negative in nature.
I believe people need to stand behind their posts and their name...
I only hope this does not get misused... but some of the recent name changes bear out my concerns.
William
Feb 12, 2006, 1:39 am
#4
Moderator Communications Coordinator, Signatures
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: deep within the Eskimo lair
Programs: TubWorld, Bar Alliance, Borratxo Legendarium
Posts: 16,968
Originally Posted by Cargo Cult
ISimilarly, what if your first time on FT was a little embarrassing to you? Say you wrote stuff that you might no longer wish to be associated with. I would assume that it would be acceptable to throw away your old account and start again - as long as you never use your old account again. I don't see why it would be so wrong to do this multiple times.
Honestly, if you never caused any trouble, and just changed your name periodically... you're right... it would probably not get noticed. But having the rule in place does give the Talkteam and Randy's staff some ground in which to discipline someone who does like to stir up the pot, then return under a new handle rinse and repeat.
Feb 12, 2006, 8:44 am
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sunny SYDNEY!
Programs: UA Million Miler. (1.9M) Virgin Platinum. HH Diamond + SPG Gold
Posts: 32,333
Originally Posted by senoreit
The new rule seems bizarre and unnecessary to me, but what do I know?
Talk Board was specifically asked by Randy Petersen to look at this issue of name changes, and similar names etc.
We did. In great depth.
It was decided to split the issue (as there were indeed 2 issues) into 2 motions and vote on them seperately.
Both motions were comfortably approved by Talk Board.
The exact results you can see on the special sub forum above, and who voted for what.
I voted YES for both motions.
In short for new members the message is clear - to think carefully about the handle you choose. The wording we approved will become part of the TOS, and read by all new members.
If you initially call yourself FargoFlyer or FargoUnited1K and after 1000 posts and 2 years on FT feel that as you are now based in Tampa and fly AA or DL, and want to call yourself TampaBayAAFan and also feel that FargoUnited1K was not such a bright choice, you can change your handle (one time only) as long as you advise Admin to disable the FargoFlyer account.
And the new handle will now read:
TampaBayAAFan
(Formerly FargoUnited1K)
To ensure that no members can be misled or confused - most important in venues like Coupon Connection.
But your post count and date registered clock re-sets to zero. So - for all new members - think carefully about the handle you choose.
Feb 12, 2006, 8:50 am
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sunny SYDNEY!
Programs: UA Million Miler. (1.9M) Virgin Platinum. HH Diamond + SPG Gold
Posts: 32,333
Originally Posted by Cargo Cult
Forgive me, but this seems a slightly odd policy. There was recently a one time offer to change handles, as in renaming an existing account (no resetting of post count etc.), subject to certain restrictions. This was a nice offer to make and I appreciate it was over and above the minimum level of service.
I believe they are one and the same thing you are referring to. The motion posted here just has all the voted upon detail outlined.
Feb 12, 2006, 11:07 am
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 736
First off, I have to say that I am generally in agreement with the sentiment of the TalkBoard on the topic, as expressed in the motion and amplified upon by the TB members to post here. To allow people to change their handles (on a one-off basis or otherwise) is a generous thing for Randy and the TB to do. I just disagree a little on the wording of the motion.
Very good point - to borrow from Oscar Wilde, to stuff up one FT account might be regarded as misfortune, to stuff up many looks like carelessness at best.
I think we all may say or write things that we might regret sometimes (and I'm hoping that my original post on this topic won't be one of those), and I feel that someone might geniunely want to start again with a clean slate. One of the advantages of a pseudonymous forum such as this is that it is possible for someone to start anew, if they really want to put an embarrassing past behind them.
As for trollers stirring the pot with handle after handle, I would have thought that the existing TOS condition on multiple handles should catch that.
Respectfully, I disagree with you on that. The text appears to confuse the concepts of changing a handle and re-registering a new account. If you change your handle, for any of the very good reasons that you outlined in your earlier post, I would expect your posting history to remain. In this case, you are changing your name but not your actual persona. Presumably someone who is changing their handle in this way wants to still be associated with all their past postings. In this case, the user ID would be the same (for example, yours would still be 2922) but the handle would change. All your posts would appear to be from the same person. This was the very "nice offer" I was referring to - there is no requirement for FT to do this, it is a favour being done for members who did not really select their handle carefully enough in the first place.
However, the text of the motion does not indicate that this is what is taking place. Instead, it points to an officially sanctioned deactivation and replacement of an account. The user ID would presumably be different, and there would be no association of posting history. Again, I think it is a nice gesture to make, but it does strike me as odd, at least as it has been worded. The option to throw away an account and just start with a new one has always been there for people, just not with an official deactiviation of the old account. If someones intentions are not malicious (i.e. they are not doing it just to allow them to stir up more trouble, or to try and get away with hit and run postings), then I don't see why this would be a problem for anyone. If it is being done with malicious intent, then the existing rule on multiple handles can be applied to discipline them.
I guess in short, what I am trying to say is that the "one time only" bit makes sense if used in conjunction with a handle change that preserves all other aspects of the account, but does not make so much sense if you are talking about just getting a new account instead, which is what the text of motion appears to be saying. In practice, anyone can just register a new account at any point, without any intervention required from the administrators, and if they are doing it for honourable reasons, then there's no reason (IMHO) that it should bother anyone.
I'm not complaining that an offer to change a handle while preserving history is not being made, because the TB has looked at that option and decided not to do that, and I respect your decision entirely.
Full discolsure here: I took Randy up on an offer a while ago to change my handle. I am very grateful for this, because I did not have a particularly valid reason to do so. In my case, I'd just chosen a handle that wasn't very good, not realising the prominence that it had at the time. I was considering just dropping the old one and registering a new account, but I'm very grateful to Randy for allowing me the option to keep my history.
I absolutely agree that there should be a bold message to new users when they sign up saying that it's generally not possible to change your handle in future, and you should just get it right first time. Mea culpa
As I said before, I'm not trying to be difficult or cause trouble. I'm not even trying to get you to change the text, as it's not something I'm likely to lose sleep over. I just thought I'd comment on what I feel to be a slightly flawed TB motion.
Originally Posted by missydarlin
If you're having to run from your embarrassing FT history multiple times, then maybe you're better off posting elsewhere.
Honestly, if you never caused any trouble, and just changed your name periodically... you're right... it would probably not get noticed. But having the rule in place does give the Talkteam and Randy's staff some ground in which to discipline someone who does like to stir up the pot, then return under a new handle rinse and repeat.
Honestly, if you never caused any trouble, and just changed your name periodically... you're right... it would probably not get noticed. But having the rule in place does give the Talkteam and Randy's staff some ground in which to discipline someone who does like to stir up the pot, then return under a new handle rinse and repeat.
I think we all may say or write things that we might regret sometimes (and I'm hoping that my original post on this topic won't be one of those
), and I feel that someone might geniunely want to start again with a clean slate. One of the advantages of a pseudonymous forum such as this is that it is possible for someone to start anew, if they really want to put an embarrassing past behind them.As for trollers stirring the pot with handle after handle, I would have thought that the existing TOS condition on multiple handles should catch that.
Originally Posted by ozstamps
If you liked what you read and thought it was a "nice offer", and yet think this motion is "odd policy" please think again. You seem very hard to please.
I believe they are one and the same thing you are referring to. The motion posted here just has all the voted upon detail outlined.
I believe they are one and the same thing you are referring to. The motion posted here just has all the voted upon detail outlined.
However, the text of the motion does not indicate that this is what is taking place. Instead, it points to an officially sanctioned deactivation and replacement of an account. The user ID would presumably be different, and there would be no association of posting history. Again, I think it is a nice gesture to make, but it does strike me as odd, at least as it has been worded. The option to throw away an account and just start with a new one has always been there for people, just not with an official deactiviation of the old account. If someones intentions are not malicious (i.e. they are not doing it just to allow them to stir up more trouble, or to try and get away with hit and run postings), then I don't see why this would be a problem for anyone. If it is being done with malicious intent, then the existing rule on multiple handles can be applied to discipline them.
I guess in short, what I am trying to say is that the "one time only" bit makes sense if used in conjunction with a handle change that preserves all other aspects of the account, but does not make so much sense if you are talking about just getting a new account instead, which is what the text of motion appears to be saying. In practice, anyone can just register a new account at any point, without any intervention required from the administrators, and if they are doing it for honourable reasons, then there's no reason (IMHO) that it should bother anyone.
I'm not complaining that an offer to change a handle while preserving history is not being made, because the TB has looked at that option and decided not to do that, and I respect your decision entirely.
Full discolsure here: I took Randy up on an offer a while ago to change my handle. I am very grateful for this, because I did not have a particularly valid reason to do so. In my case, I'd just chosen a handle that wasn't very good, not realising the prominence that it had at the time. I was considering just dropping the old one and registering a new account, but I'm very grateful to Randy for allowing me the option to keep my history.
I absolutely agree that there should be a bold message to new users when they sign up saying that it's generally not possible to change your handle in future, and you should just get it right first time. Mea culpa
As I said before, I'm not trying to be difficult or cause trouble. I'm not even trying to get you to change the text, as it's not something I'm likely to lose sleep over. I just thought I'd comment on what I feel to be a slightly flawed TB motion.
Feb 12, 2006, 10:32 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sunny SYDNEY!
Programs: UA Million Miler. (1.9M) Virgin Platinum. HH Diamond + SPG Gold
Posts: 32,333
Originally Posted by Cargo Cult
I absolutely agree that there should be a bold message to new users when they sign up saying that it's generally not possible to change your handle in future, and you should just get it right first time. Mea culpa
Feb 14, 2006, 8:37 am
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 15,363
Originally Posted by Cargo Cult
First off, I have to say that I am generally in agreement with the sentiment of the TalkBoard on the topic, as expressed in the motion and amplified upon by the TB members to post here. To allow people to change their handles (on a one-off basis or otherwise) is a generous thing for Randy and the TB to do. I just disagree a little on the wording of the motion.
Very good point - to borrow from Oscar Wilde, to stuff up one FT account might be regarded as misfortune, to stuff up many looks like carelessness at best.
I think we all may say or write things that we might regret sometimes (and I'm hoping that my original post on this topic won't be one of those), and I feel that someone might geniunely want to start again with a clean slate. One of the advantages of a pseudonymous forum such as this is that it is possible for someone to start anew, if they really want to put an embarrassing past behind them.
As for trollers stirring the pot with handle after handle, I would have thought that the existing TOS condition on multiple handles should catch that.
Respectfully, I disagree with you on that. The text appears to confuse the concepts of changing a handle and re-registering a new account. If you change your handle, for any of the very good reasons that you outlined in your earlier post, I would expect your posting history to remain. In this case, you are changing your name but not your actual persona. Presumably someone who is changing their handle in this way wants to still be associated with all their past postings. In this case, the user ID would be the same (for example, yours would still be 2922) but the handle would change. All your posts would appear to be from the same person. This was the very "nice offer" I was referring to - there is no requirement for FT to do this, it is a favour being done for members who did not really select their handle carefully enough in the first place.
However, the text of the motion does not indicate that this is what is taking place. Instead, it points to an officially sanctioned deactivation and replacement of an account. The user ID would presumably be different, and there would be no association of posting history. Again, I think it is a nice gesture to make, but it does strike me as odd, at least as it has been worded. The option to throw away an account and just start with a new one has always been there for people, just not with an official deactiviation of the old account. If someones intentions are not malicious (i.e. they are not doing it just to allow them to stir up more trouble, or to try and get away with hit and run postings), then I don't see why this would be a problem for anyone. If it is being done with malicious intent, then the existing rule on multiple handles can be applied to discipline them.
I guess in short, what I am trying to say is that the "one time only" bit makes sense if used in conjunction with a handle change that preserves all other aspects of the account, but does not make so much sense if you are talking about just getting a new account instead, which is what the text of motion appears to be saying. In practice, anyone can just register a new account at any point, without any intervention required from the administrators, and if they are doing it for honourable reasons, then there's no reason (IMHO) that it should bother anyone.
I'm not complaining that an offer to change a handle while preserving history is not being made, because the TB has looked at that option and decided not to do that, and I respect your decision entirely.
Full discolsure here: I took Randy up on an offer a while ago to change my handle. I am very grateful for this, because I did not have a particularly valid reason to do so. In my case, I'd just chosen a handle that wasn't very good, not realising the prominence that it had at the time. I was considering just dropping the old one and registering a new account, but I'm very grateful to Randy for allowing me the option to keep my history.
I absolutely agree that there should be a bold message to new users when they sign up saying that it's generally not possible to change your handle in future, and you should just get it right first time. Mea culpa
As I said before, I'm not trying to be difficult or cause trouble. I'm not even trying to get you to change the text, as it's not something I'm likely to lose sleep over. I just thought I'd comment on what I feel to be a slightly flawed TB motion.
Very good point - to borrow from Oscar Wilde, to stuff up one FT account might be regarded as misfortune, to stuff up many looks like carelessness at best.
I think we all may say or write things that we might regret sometimes (and I'm hoping that my original post on this topic won't be one of those
), and I feel that someone might geniunely want to start again with a clean slate. One of the advantages of a pseudonymous forum such as this is that it is possible for someone to start anew, if they really want to put an embarrassing past behind them.As for trollers stirring the pot with handle after handle, I would have thought that the existing TOS condition on multiple handles should catch that.
Respectfully, I disagree with you on that. The text appears to confuse the concepts of changing a handle and re-registering a new account. If you change your handle, for any of the very good reasons that you outlined in your earlier post, I would expect your posting history to remain. In this case, you are changing your name but not your actual persona. Presumably someone who is changing their handle in this way wants to still be associated with all their past postings. In this case, the user ID would be the same (for example, yours would still be 2922) but the handle would change. All your posts would appear to be from the same person. This was the very "nice offer" I was referring to - there is no requirement for FT to do this, it is a favour being done for members who did not really select their handle carefully enough in the first place.
However, the text of the motion does not indicate that this is what is taking place. Instead, it points to an officially sanctioned deactivation and replacement of an account. The user ID would presumably be different, and there would be no association of posting history. Again, I think it is a nice gesture to make, but it does strike me as odd, at least as it has been worded. The option to throw away an account and just start with a new one has always been there for people, just not with an official deactiviation of the old account. If someones intentions are not malicious (i.e. they are not doing it just to allow them to stir up more trouble, or to try and get away with hit and run postings), then I don't see why this would be a problem for anyone. If it is being done with malicious intent, then the existing rule on multiple handles can be applied to discipline them.
I guess in short, what I am trying to say is that the "one time only" bit makes sense if used in conjunction with a handle change that preserves all other aspects of the account, but does not make so much sense if you are talking about just getting a new account instead, which is what the text of motion appears to be saying. In practice, anyone can just register a new account at any point, without any intervention required from the administrators, and if they are doing it for honourable reasons, then there's no reason (IMHO) that it should bother anyone.
I'm not complaining that an offer to change a handle while preserving history is not being made, because the TB has looked at that option and decided not to do that, and I respect your decision entirely.
Full discolsure here: I took Randy up on an offer a while ago to change my handle. I am very grateful for this, because I did not have a particularly valid reason to do so. In my case, I'd just chosen a handle that wasn't very good, not realising the prominence that it had at the time. I was considering just dropping the old one and registering a new account, but I'm very grateful to Randy for allowing me the option to keep my history.
I absolutely agree that there should be a bold message to new users when they sign up saying that it's generally not possible to change your handle in future, and you should just get it right first time. Mea culpa
As I said before, I'm not trying to be difficult or cause trouble. I'm not even trying to get you to change the text, as it's not something I'm likely to lose sleep over. I just thought I'd comment on what I feel to be a slightly flawed TB motion.
Many of us chose geographically-oriented usernames -- I am on my second username myself as my original username was my first and last name and I became uncomfortable having my name out there so prominently. When I changed my username (I went through the proper channels), I lost my original start date (sometime in 1999-2000, I believe) and also lost my posting history.
But now I wonder if this was a great choice as there's a chance I'll need to relocate in the next year. Currently I subscribe to 4 fora -- this one (I like to see the direction of FT), ORP (I like to see what's on Randy's mind from time to time), NW (it's who I fly), and OMNI.
It seems to me that part of this change was put in place to punish those who want to change their handles and post in places like CC or OMNI. I can understand the need to minimize the administrative tasks involved, but sometimes there is a good reason to change handles and when someone changes a handle, I would like to be able to view that poster's history. While posters may change their usernames, they shouldn't be able to change their history as easily. Actually, at all, without violating the TOS.
You folks do a good job and although I decided not to run this year, maybe I will in the future. FT is my favorite place on the web.
Regards,
Rich (in MSN).