Forum improvements?

[Miriam_M]

I'm not bearing false witness, Acolyte.  I'm discussing two things, the second much more important than the first.

1.  The first contradiction is a technicality that you keep focusing on exclusively.  That is not what users like Greg and me are interested in because the technicality that allows for multiple usernames affects the functionality of discussions, including quoting people's past posts in order to verify or clarify their current positions, and more.  It is not possible to quote a username that no longer exists, but existed 20 minutes ago or 20 days ago.

2.  The vast majority of users on any discussion forum have lives beyond social media, blogs, forums, and other optional participation.  If employed people with families and many purposeful interests had additional disposable time, it would be possible to create private "moving tables" that catalogued all of a user's account names and the dates of the changes, so as to retrieve previous information that vanishes once a user changes his or her name.  But I don't know anyone on the forum with both the time and the interest in doing so. So when a user repeatedly changes names (for whatever reason), it affects the efficiency and participation level of the entire forum.  This is the issue, not any invented charge of "bearing false witness."

In a subsequent post, I will suggest something constructive.

[Miriam_M]

As a Forum Improvement, I suggest the following possibilities:

1.  Only one username change per lifetime account on SD, assuming it's the user who wants to change it.  (Moderators obviously can insist on a change to accord with Catholic standards and forum parameters, such as names of living people.)  For anything generated by the user, it doesn't matter the reason for the change, and the user need not make public his or her reason, but may if he or she wishes to announce it.

a. If the user chooses to keep the reason private, however, the moderator(s) will nevertheless make the changed username itself public in a permanently viewable location.

b. The previous username(s) must be posted permanently on the user's profile page so that all forum members can refer to previous postings if need be for conversational efficiency. A deleted name because of profanity/vulgarity or other infractions will be referred to with an abbreviation, omitted letters, etc., so that the previous undeleted posts might still be locatable.

ALTERNATE:
Instead of #1, no more than one username generated per year by the user.  The other contingencies (a and b) nevertheless would apply to this alternate suggestion as well.

[Miriam_M]

Adding that of course it does not solve the problem of the user's new name(s) no longer being associated with previous posts.  However, at least a search is possible if other forum members have referred to the user's previous names in their own posts.

A second alternate to all of the above is to associate only one username with one account.  Therefore, multiple accounts would be necessary (to live and die) when a new username is created.  That would also allow for tracking posts (and PM's) as long as the requirement is met of a viewable record of all of those past usernames.

[Baylee]

I prefer just not allowing users to change their names.  There can't be so many requests/need to change names that a moderator can't make the change for the member.  This is just silly already.  Only one member can't seem to control himself and only a couple of others seem to have the need to defend him.

PS. When does Kaesekopf respond to the suggestions here?

[Acolyte]

I'm not bearing false witness, Acolyte. ...

..... The first contradiction is a technicality that you keep focusing on exclusively. 

I'm not pointing fingers at any specific members.

And I'm focusing on the fact that an option offered on our account settings page doesn't have anything to do with multiple accounts and the rule that covers it.

I'm focusing on it exclusively because that's all that matters to me. I understand why people think something could be wrong with letting us change our username but the fact is I don't care.

Unless the feature is disabled or there is a printed rule in the rules section regarding its use, a member that takes advantage of the feature has done nothing wrong. That's all I'm saying and have been saying.

And no one is going to convince me to change my mind in regards to viewing it in that light.

[Miriam_M]

And no one is going to convince me to change my mind in regards to viewing it in that light.

And I already acknowledged, earlier, that we will have to disagree on this topic, so I doubt that your restatement surprises anyone else, either. But the issue has not been whether technical "rules" were broken or followed; it was the effect of rapidly shifting identities upon the entire forum -- whether or not the shifts are allowed. Clearly, however, if those shifts are prohibited, the problem goes away. 

In many settings in life, rules are made not for the majority who wish to cooperate but for those who struggle to comply (for whatever reason) with the nature of the activity in question, and thus need boundaries.

[Acolyte]

And no one is going to convince me to change my mind in regards to viewing it in that light.

And I already acknowledged, earlier, that we will have to disagree on this topic, so I doubt that your restatement surprises anyone else, either. But the issue has not been whether technical "rules" were broken or followed; it was the effect of rapidly shifting identities upon the entire forum -- whether or not the shifts are allowed. Clearly, however, if those shifts are prohibited, the problem goes away. 

In many settings in life, rules are made not for the majority who wish to cooperate but for those who struggle to comply (for whatever reason) with the nature of the activity in question, and thus need boundaries.

We're just looking at the topic differently. As I acknowledged, the issue you and others have with switching usernames more than once is understandable and valid.

But the initial drama started with Joseph being accused of breaking a forum rule regarding multiple accounts. Then the pile on claiming the same.

He didn't break the rule. He doesn't have multiple accounts.

And I'm sorry to say that I still don't care whether the username feature is disabled, left enabled, having a rule posted about its use, or leaving it as it stands, free to use anytime and as many times as a member likes.

Some members think it's a big deal and I think it's small potatoes.

Perhaps I should change my username to The Stubborn One

[andy]

The rule states clearly "2) We permit users to have only one account.".

I am not sure why the owner of this site permitted Joseph to have like 3 or 4 different accounts already.

They're not different accounts, at least not now.

That's not true. I am aware of https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=91 https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2436 https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2823 and there was 4th if my memory might does not fail me. All in a relatively short amount of time since I joined this place. Miriam who has been here since ever said there are way more than that.

His last account name was changed about 5 times in last week as far as I noticed. This is pathetic.

By the way, there are many "sleeper" accounts with no posts with user labels seemingly matching Joseph's typical naming convention. Just a theory that he owns them, but given his behavioral patterns not unlikely that those will wake up when needed.

[Bonaventure]

I will edit my signature later about the typos, but the font will remain. There is a reason for highlighting the Word of God in a special way. It's because the Word of God is more important than any of the words of man. As a non-believer, I would not expect you to understand. Focus on saving your soul.

I thought the point of evangelization was to strive to reach non-believers.  Shouldn't you try to give the Word of God an appearance of solemnity and sobriety, rather than a font color that suggests exuberance, effeminacy, and garishness?  Even the red-letter Protestant bibles you are aping do not use red font all the way throughout.  Their red font is reserved for the words of Christ, whereas you are giving yours to King David and Ss. James and Paul.  And the Protestant bibles use a crimson font, not bright red.

I used to thank you for your concern for my soul, but I've come to realize you don't actually care.  You routinely bring up my apostasy every time you reply to me, just like you routinely bring up Fatima in your replies to awkward customer.  It's just a rhetorical trick you like to use: it's an ad hominem and a diversion off the topic.

He also wrote a very shitty defense of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration on 1P5

[Bonaventure]

The rule states clearly "2) We permit users to have only one account.".

I am not sure why the owner of this site permitted Joseph to have like 3 or 4 different accounts already.

They're not different accounts, at least not now.

That's not true. I am aware of https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=91 https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2436 https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2823 and there was 4th if my memory might does not fail me. All in a relatively short amount of time since I joined this place. Miriam who has been here since ever said there are way more than that.

His last account name was changed about 5 times in last week as far as I noticed. This is pathetic.

By the way, there are many "sleeper" accounts with no posts with user labels seemingly matching Joseph's typical naming convention. Just a theory that he owns them, but given his behavioral patterns not unlikely that those will wake up when needed.

He is gone.

Your buddies AwkwardCustomer and Baylee/Petrie/2Vermont also broke this rule.

[Bonaventure]

Keep straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel, while your Soul is in eternal jeopardy. I am done replying on fonts.

What about your soul?

[Bonaventure]

I prefer just not allowing users to change their names.  There can't be so many requests/need to change names that a moderator can't make the change for the member.  This is just silly already.  Only one member can't seem to control himself and only a couple of others seem to have the need to defend him.

PS. When does Kaesekopf respond to the suggestions here?

What about asking for a ban in 2014, then creating another account in 2021?

As you yourself stated on another forum:

"Why did you create a second account in the first place?  You know that has always been against the rules..."

[Bonaventure]

Sheesh. Changed it to James now. I just didn't look closely enough earlier. Happy now, Pon? Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

And no, Kaese, I cannot do that as I have family obligations which require me to earn money.

Yet you spent more time on the forum than I have. And I helped create the place.

[Bonaventure]

OK. 

I'm done with this.  It's like talking to a wall.

Indeed.

ETA:  Because I feel an obligation to explain myself for a somewhat rash-looking permanent ban...  I have made many posts exhorting Xavier to change his posting style to fit the discussion board.  Numerous other posters have asked him to do the same, and made coherent, reasonable arguments for why and how he should change his posting approach, particularly to gain more (positive) attention and reception.  But, when he is asked, challenged, exhorted to do something, he just buckles down and remains obstinate.  He can spampost anywhere on the Internet, but the discussion forum is not an appropriate place to do so. 

I also take issue with whether or not spamposting arguments is "what the Lord calls" anyone to do, but that's neither here nor there...

He claims to be making over $100,000 in Chennai, India, which would put him on par with a multimillionaire here in the United States. @Greg better watch out. Nishant is raking in so much dough he makes Greg look like our friend Chris in Tulsa.

All while getting banned multiple times here, CI, probably FE, and tweeting over 105,900 times...

If this is not a sign of mental illness, or a bizarre obsession and waste of time at best, not sure what is.

[Bonaventure]

Forum Rules, #2 under Conduct.

This rule is:

Vulgarities are forbidden on this forum.  You are not "in person" here, so you have time to compose and edit your thoughts. Please exercise that ability.

This already represents a stricter rule against profanity than the way it was originally phrased.  At first, the rule was to avoid profanity.  Enough posters showed a lack of prudence in this area that the rule was changed. 

As we can see, a stricter rule has not stopped vulgarity on the forum.  Certain people will write this way unless they are forced to stop.

Oh fuck off.

What a disgrace. I have tougher friends than you that never curse. But somehow its a badge of honour to swear on this forum.

For a forum where something like 75% of ya claim to be Irish, to one degree or another, there sure is a lot of pushback on the language.

And swearing rarely has to do with being 'tough'

Exactly.

Swearing has nothing to do with toughness and everything to do with a darkened heart.

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, lust, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is the service of idols. For which things the wrath of God cometh upon the children of unbelief, in which you also walked some time, when you lived in them. But now put you also all away: anger, indignation, malice, blasphemy, filthy speech out of your mouth. (Col. 3:5-8)

Speaking of a darkened heart, what about cohabitation with a previously married woman, who had kids?

Does that have anything to do with a darkened heart?