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.