By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Website Topics - The Mod Team: Questions, Comments, Concerns? Ask Here!

Conegamer on 27 January 2015
RolStoppable said:
Conegamer said:

Because the ability to change names was recently made avaliable (yesterday, even) and the new forum rules were introduced which prohibited said names.

And the reason for this specific rule is what exactly? Badgering users nobody had an issue with before?

Seriously, who lobbied for this rule?

Well I don't know the specifics but there were complaints about names of certain users. We then subsequently decided to ban users with names such as "ilovegirls69" and similar. Then it was decided that to avoid this problem it would become a formal rule, so new users can see what the stance is. These users understandably then complained about existing users who had such usernames.

As for Jizz, when the option to change his name to something else, we decided to take it. If you wish for more specifics then you'll have to ask one of the head mods, but that's pretty much the long and short of it.



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Around the Network
gergroy on 27 January 2015
Einsam_Delphin said:
Again, the name was fine for over a year. Whatever happened to "it's always been that way so no need to change it?" You're going against your own logic here, which normally would be a good thing considering that logic is massively flawed, but not when it's detrimental to the community.


Read through this thread, the issue was argued at length, it was not a sudden decision...



Lonely_Dolphin on 27 January 2015
Conegamer said:
RolStoppable said:

And the reason for this specific rule is what exactly? Badgering users nobody had an issue with before?

Seriously, who lobbied for this rule?

Well I don't know the specifics but there were complaints about names of certain users. We then subsequently decided to ban users with names such as "ilovegirls69" and similar. Then it was decided that to avoid this problem it would become a formal rule, so new users can see what the stance is. These users understandably then complained about existing users who had such usernames.

As for Jizz, when the option to change his name to something else, we decided to take it. If you wish for more specifics then you'll have to ask one of the head mods, but that's pretty much the long and short of it.



So that only begs the question of how the mods cherrypick which complaints to listen to and which ones to pretend don't exist.

Lonely_Dolphin on 27 January 2015
gergroy said:
Einsam_Delphin said:
Again, the name was fine for over a year. Whatever happened to "it's always been that way so no need to change it?" You're going against your own logic here, which normally would be a good thing considering that logic is massively flawed, but not when it's detrimental to the community.


Read through this thread, the issue was argued at length, it was not a sudden decision...



I never said it was, and how the decision came to be has no bearing on whether the decision is good or not.

VGPolyglot on 27 January 2015

Well, according to dictionary.reference.com, jizz does have a safe for work defintion:
jizz
/dʒɪz/
noun
1.
a term for the total combination of characteristics that serve to identify a particular species of bird or plant



Around the Network
gergroy on 27 January 2015
Einsam_Delphin said:
gergroy said:


Read through this thread, the issue was argued at length, it was not a sudden decision...


I never said it was, and how the decision came to be has no bearing on whether the decision is good or not.


Ok, well it is a matter of keeping the site free of nsfw content as well as more welcoming to younger users.  It was always vaguely a rule through the nsfw rules, but since avatars were so out of control it was always ignored.  This site had become incredibly unwelcoming to all sorts of users, people at work, women, children, etc.  So smeags starting enforcing the rule.  It is a good rule, it makes sense, and only makes the site more credible.  Definitely a good decision.  



gergroy on 27 January 2015
RolStoppable said:
gergroy said:

Read through this thread, the issue was argued at length, it was not a sudden decision...

Give me the names of the culprits, i.e. the people who were in favor of this rule. What was their reasoning?


Me, for one, and you can look back at the posts in this thread around mid december for the relevant posts.



gergroy on 27 January 2015
VGPolyglot said:
Well, according to dictionary.reference.com, jizz does have a safe for work defintion:
jizz
/dʒɪz/
noun
1.
a term for the total combination of characteristics that serve to identify a particular species of bird or plant


Yeah, well if I google the word jizz, what do you think will come up?



Lonely_Dolphin on 27 January 2015
gergroy said:
Einsam_Delphin said:


I never said it was, and how the decision came to be has no bearing on whether the decision is good or not.


Ok, well it is a matter of keeping the site free of nsfw content as well as more welcoming to younger users.  It was always vaguely a rule through the nsfw rules, but since avatars were so out of control it was always ignored.  This site had become incredibly unwelcoming to all sorts of users, people at work, women, children, etc.  So smeags starting enforcing the rule.  It is a good rule, it makes sense, and only makes the site more credible.  Definitely a good decision.  



Avatars I can semi-understand, but name restricting beyond blatantly offensive ones is unnecessary. There's nothing harmful about Jizz Beard or even that lovesgirls example. Some evidence of names alone keeping people away from the site is definitely needed since we know enforcing this rule will have negative effects.

gooch_destroyer on 27 January 2015

in spaces too, trucks.