SHOULD it be against the rules….

Status
Not open for further replies.
babydolla

babydolla

Gold Member
…against the rules to register / steal another user’s former username, after having changed it to something else???

hello friends, 🙋🏼‍♀️

dolla here with a brand new poll, a poll about principle, a poll about usernames on a chatroom community…

lots of controversy about the topic, so im bringing it to the floor to see what everyone else thinks about it; if u change your username, should it be against the rules for someone else to register, & use, or does it become fair grounds for being used after the fact it was changed???

i think once u change your name, it becomes open for anyone else to use; but what do i know??? im just an angel 🤷🏼‍♀️

vote & discuss

peace,
god-bless 🕊️🕊️

disclaimer; any similarities in this thread to any user’s situation presently active on chatavenue is purely coincidental, & is not a thread directed specifically towards any specific user 🍜
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Inkandtatts said:
And @Princessa wasn't rude or abusive to anyone and didn’t fight with anyone. I remember it well.

I’d have advocated for @Princessa to be banned if she’d been fighting or abusive but she wasn’t. She was last seen in February but banned in April
Click to expand...
https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/i-am-princessa-i-am-new.947868/page-4 this thread has some interesting reads.

The troll account#2 was given more than a few chances- your dm, and in that thread^ Ness suggested VIP


and of course this, (not to mention the CA awards thread )


View attachment 975945
 
babydolla said:
@H.R. PufnStuf,

you really, actually voted; yes, this is real life

its a internet forum, dude, we arent talking about starving artists here having their art work plagiarized 🙄
Click to expand...
I voted for the first part of your compound question.

I voted yes to this rule: Impersonating/accessing another user's account - You may not impersonate another board member or create an account specifically for the purpose of provoking other users.

(I added underline to help with comprehension)
 
IMG-8294.jpg

IMG-8295.jpg
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
I voted for the first part of the compound question.

I voted yes to this rule: Impersonating/accessing another user's account - You may not impersonate another board member or create an account specifically for the purpose of provoking other users.

(I added underline)
Click to expand...

but its not impersonating, 💀

& its especially not accessing anyone else’s account; nobody broke into anyones account, forced the name change, then logged out, & stole the name for themselves…

its simply using a username thats no longer being used, & claiming it now as their own; the intention cant be known until after the fact, so until * X * person makes it obvious their intention is to impersonate or dox the name’s original maker, then no rule is being violated & is therefore fair game 🤷🏼‍♀️
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/i-am-princessa-i-am-new.947868/page-4 this thread has some interesting reads.

The troll account#2 was given more than a few chances- your dm, and in that thread^ Ness suggested VIP


and of course this, (not to mention the CA awards thread )


View attachment 975945
Click to expand...
That thread doesn’t show anything that suggests that the user was impersonating anyone else and please remember that og Princessa was abusive to @Princessa before @Princessa said a thing for which og Princessa got a 7 day ban from Ness and which you reduced to 3 days.

Suggested is the key word. You’re making rules up or bending them as you go along.

H.R. PufnStuf said:
I voted for the first part of the compound question.

I voted yes to this rule: Impersonating/accessing another user's account - You may not impersonate another board member or create an account specifically for the purpose of provoking other users.

(I added underline)
Click to expand...
You can vote for a rule all you like but that wasn’t the question. This is off topic
 
Inkandtatts said:
Suggested is the key word. You’re making rules up or bending them as you go along.
Click to expand...
creating accounts to provoke others isn't allowed. It logically follows that taking a name for that purpose should be against the rules (if it isnt already and therefore is on point.

I understand the name(s) in question were technically available by system. But that's not the question either,
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
creating accounts to provoke others isn't allowed. It logically follows that taking a name for that purpose should be against the rules and therefore is on point.
Click to expand...
Where is the evidence that @Princessa did that? There is none.

If there had been any evidence of impersonation, she’d have been banned on day one.

I thought she was banned in February. It turns out she was banned 2 months after she was last active.

This just shows why it would be mad to have a rule saying that once a name is created then it should never be available to anyone else.

Even the @Luka name would have been caught up in such a rule and we know that one was just a pisstake and not an attempt to provoke @-Luka (the dash is annoying af)

Thanks for removing @Inkandcries btw
 
Inkandtatts said:
If there had been any evidence of impersonation, she’d have been banned on day one.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that^^ I said this: "creating accounts to provoke others isn't allowed. It logically follows that taking a name for that purpose should be against the rules and therefore is on point"

Inkandtatts said:
remember that og Princessa was abusive to @Princessa before @Princessa said a thing f
Click to expand...
you just proved the provocation or at very least the reaction to it.

Inkandtatts said:
we know that one was just a pisstake and not an attempt to provoke
Click to expand...

maybe it's a Brit thing, but you seem to argue "taking the piss" (which I think is parody, satire, mocking and such)- isn't provocative? Yet its clear there was quite a bit of negative reaction to obvious provocation.


It seems this thread has clarified a few things. 1) the system does allow for unused names to be used and nothing can be done about that and 2) doing so for the purposes of causing trouble has consequences, but we didn't need a poll to know that. It might be a worthwhile perk for forums VIP users to be able to "claim or keep their names" somehow.
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
maybe it's a Brit thing, but you seem to argue "taking the piss" (which I think is parody, satire, mocking and such)- isn't provocative? Yet its clear there was quite a bit of negative reaction to obvious provocation.
Click to expand...
If it contains the word “piss”, it is probably a Brit thing. ‘It’s pissing down’, ‘to go on the piss’, ‘piss-poor’, ‘I wouldn’t give him/her/them the steam of my piss’, ‘pisshead’.
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
you just proved the provocation or at very least the reaction to it.
Click to expand...
That has to be about one of the most ridiculous things you’ve ever said and is the equivalent of saying that Saddam was provoked by the Kurds and so the Kurds were in the wrong.

However, I’ll take you at your word and next time certain users come on here being homophobic or transphobic I’ll use language similar to that used by og Princessa and then provide that as evidence to you, to support a ban of those users, for provocation.

What makes this all the more crazy is that og Princessa never claimed provocation. She had a meltdown and was banned. You asserted provocation on her behalf.

H.R. PufnStuf said:
maybe it's a Brit thing, but you seem to argue "taking the piss" (which I think is parody, satire, mocking and such)- isn't provocative? Yet its clear there was quite a bit of negative reaction to obvious provocation.
Click to expand...
Was the person that took Luka’s name being malicious? No. -Luka posted asking for the name Luka to be used (or words to that effect) Someone used it. That’s “taking the piss” - making fun of the situation


There was no “obvious provocation”. The only provocateur at the time was og Princessa. You just have a soft spot for og Princessa and it’s fine for you to say that instead of being a mule and making yourself look more of an ass

Disclaimer: if anyone reports any of the above, I was provoked into the response. This post is evidence of the provocation.
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
2) doing so for the purposes of causing trouble has consequences.
Click to expand...
Unless there’s solid proof of this that no other UM has been made aware of, #2 is an assumption based off of a gut feeling.

“Gut feelings” aren’t proof enough for bans. I’m sure the words “do more research” will resonate here.

The only thing this thread has clarified is that people can be banned months after they haven’t logged in because of choosing to use a username that was voluntarily relinquished by its previous user.
 
TheLeigh said:
Unless there’s solid proof of this that no other UM has been made aware of, #2 is an assumption based off of a gut feeling.

“Gut feelings” aren’t proof enough for bans. I’m sure the words “do more research” will resonate here.

The only thing this thread has clarified is that people can be banned months after they haven’t logged in because of choosing to use a username that was voluntarily relinquished by its previous user.
Click to expand...
thats incorrect. But thank you.
 
Inkandtatts said:
That has to be about one of the most ridiculous things you’ve ever said and is the equivalent of saying that Saddam was provoked by the Kurds and so the Kurds were in the wrong.

However, I’ll take you at your word and next time certain users come on here being homophobic or transphobic I’ll use language similar to that used by og Princessa and then provide that as evidence to you, to support a ban of those users, for provocation.

What makes this all the more crazy is that og Princessa never claimed provocation. She had a meltdown and was banned. You asserted provocation on her behalf.


Was the person that took Luka’s name being malicious? No. -Luka posted asking for the name Luka to be used (or words to that effect) Someone used it. That’s “taking the piss” - making fun of the situation


There was no “obvious provocation”. The only provocateur at the time was og Princessa. You just have a soft spot for og Princessa and it’s fine for you to say that instead of being a mule and making yourself look more of an ass

Disclaimer: if anyone reports any of the above, I was provoked into the response. This post is evidence of the provocation.
Click to expand...
ok.

SHOULD it be against the rules….

…against the rules to register / steal another user’s former username, after having changed it to something else??? hello friends, 🙋🏼‍♀️ dolla here with a brand new poll, a poll about principle, a poll about usernames on a chatroom community… lots of controversy about the topic, so im...
forum.chat-avenue.com forum.chat-avenue.com
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
ok.

SHOULD it be against the rules….

…against the rules to register / steal another user’s former username, after having changed it to something else??? hello friends, 🙋🏼‍♀️ dolla here with a brand new poll, a poll about principle, a poll about usernames on a chatroom community… lots of controversy about the topic, so im...
forum.chat-avenue.com forum.chat-avenue.com
Click to expand...
Nice edit and use of the “clear last edit” feature there

Don't play dirty when having a discussion
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top