| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm. Awright, maybe it's worth taking a major 180 here and
> taking a closer look at non-numeric member-id's (i.e., usernames).
>
> Personally, I think usernames are nothing but a major source of headaches
> once a user population grows above a certain point...
I totally agree.
>
> Anyway, the basic idea behind member-ID's is this: For the foundations of
> unique member identities, each person needs a unique ID of some sort. That
> could be a simple number, or a sequence of letters, or a combination of
> letters and numbers, or whatever. The challenge is to choose a system which
> allows a certain amount of personal expression, but doesn't encourage (or
> hopefully even permit) crap. We don't want LUGNET to turn into another AOL
> (for example) in terms of usernames.
Hey watch the AOL bashing :')
But since you brought up AOL usernames - AOL allows the cability of 5 different
screen names for the same account. This allows familys to have a name for each
memebr of a family. Not to throw too big of a monkey wrench but someone like
William Swan and his son - would they have to get two memberships or could they
get two names registered under one membership?
>
[snip]
>
> However, both extremes have deep fundamental problems.
>
> At the purely numeric extreme (i.e., ICQ), there is no hint of who someone
> is just by their number. And even if you know someone by their number,
> numbers are typically relatively easy to forget -- especially when trying to
> keep a few dozen or hundred of them straight.
Especially those of us that have never memorized set numbers. Good lord, who
is number 753?
> At the ad-hoc alpha-numeric extreme (i.e., AOL), there is sometimes a decent
> hint at who someone is by their username/handle, but really only if they
> have chosen to use their real name, or if they have used a reasonable
> nickname that makes any sense. AOL-style names are surely more difficult to
> forget than numbers, but they are hideously prone to garbaging-up.
But AOL umpteen kabillion members. I don't think there would be much conflict
for msot names. Of course there will be some.
> Here are some examples of problems with the AOL approach. I don't know what
> the character-length-limit is for AOL screen names, but I think it's more
> than eight. However, even eight characters is plenty to represent anything
> from the childishly cutesy...
> to the disgorgingly trite...
> to the potentially sexually, racially, or religiously offensive...
>
> hot4u, 6of9, mastrb8r, 13incher, gotohell, satan666, nigrhatr, killfags,
> etc.
>
> (The above names are purely fictitious. Any resemblance to actual screen
> names or handles is a coincidence.)
Well, this one is for real - Joe Libido (and he's a great guy).
> Now, if people can specify whatever name they please, how can this type of
> garbage be prevented in a completely automated way? I'm not sure that
> it can. People are still infinitely more creative than machines. That
> means there has to be at least -some- set of restrictions, whether imposed
> via machine (automatic) or via human intervention (manual), in order to pass
> or fail each username request. Human intervention is not really a serious
> time issue, but it may potentially border on some form of censorship.
If you are going to go with usernames, I think you would have to have a 24-48
hour turnaround for username approval. That is the only way you are going to
be able to guarantee that the garbage/filth doesn't slip through. I use to
work for the Jockey Club - the thoroughbred horse registry for North America.
We had a piece of software that was supposed to eliminate garbage/filth.
Unfortunately, it allowed several to slip through: Fa Q; Mort Its; None Hung
Low (it was gelding).
If you go with usernames, you are really need to decide if you really want to
take the time and effort to police those name.
>
[snip]
> What if someone other than Tim Courtney or Brandon Grifford attempted to
> acquire the username of "zacktron"? How would something like that be
> detected and dealt with? Or what about someone other than Tom McDonald
> attempting to acquire the username of "radiotitan"? Or what about someone
> other than Simon Denscombe attempting to acquire the username of "carbon60"?
>
> Conclusion: It just isn't mechanically feasable to allow anywhich arbitrary
> username to be chosen.
It cannot be mechanical, it'll have to be manual.
[snip]
> (I have opinions on all of the above, but I'll keep them to myself for the
> time being...)
Well, the name issue is already controlled by registering for LUGNET
News/Discussion Groups set-up - you have to use your real name. I can't post
as Ed Boxer here now, although I certainly wish I could. Allowing people to
use their RTL aliases would create a whole other dilemna - registering aliases
for News/Discussion groups.
[snip]
> p.s. To anyone who reads this post and feels I've really gone out to the
> looney farm this time, well, all I can say is that I actually find this
> topic endlessly fascinating! :-)
Not the looney farm. I just think you've spent too much time in your garage
sniffing ABS. :')
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
112 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
