| |
How about people just use whatever they have been called in the past? As for
new members and garbage names, you could have a submit area that sends chosen
names to a special LUGNET email, where they then could be manually read, and
the garbage names could be denied memberships until they change their name to
an acceptable one. A little redundant, I know, but I am just throwing in my two
cents..
Greg (or maybe Mmaje? [RTL name])
citrusx__@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/1888/
In lugnet.admin.general, Patricia Schempp writes:
> Univeristies do the username made from name thing all the time. Maybe you could
> look at some of those systems. Of course they all do it differently, but I'm so
> dang used to pschemp, I would want to use that. It beats the schempppat I got at
> another one.
>
> Patricia Schempp
>
> Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.admin.general, "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> writes:
> > > In lugnet.admin.general, Ben Roller writes:
> > > > [...] That way we could all be given any old number and the
> > > > part that we would see would be a username of some sort. I'm sure
> > > > that systems like ebay have numbers, but heck if I know what my number
> > > > is because I just use my username. [...]
> > >
> > > I've yet to see a username-system that (a) handles collisions in a
> > > reasonable way if the usernames are system-assigned, or (b) doesn't lead
> > > quickly to garbage if the usernames are user-chosen.
> >
> > 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, but maybe together we
> > can devise something that won't be too restrictive but also won't be too
> > abuse-prone. Like I said, I've never seen a username-system that handles
> > collisions reasonably or doesn't lead to garbage if users have full control
> > over their username/member-ID. But I guess that's no reason to give up.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > The ID's need to be unique and permanent because they form the basis of,
> > among other things, URLs which represent a person's homepage within the
> > community, and tacit cognitive connections which build over time as people
> > get to know one another. For example, someone who sees the letters "cjc"
> > somewhere today is likely to think of Mike Stanley if they exchange email
> > with him often. Or someone who sees the letters "moz" somewhere today is
> > likely to think of Chris Moseley if they know him by that nickname.
> >
> > So the unique ID is a necessity from an internal mechanism point of view,
> > but it's not something that can ever be totally hidden from view, because
> > whatever form the ID's take (numeric or alphanumeric or whatever) the ID's
> > must inevitably appear in URLs.
> >
> > Let's take a look at both ends of the spectrum and then a closer look at a
> > few things in the middle of the spectrum. Perhaps something in the middle
> > represents a reasonable compromise between the two extremes.
> >
> > At one end of the spectrum, there is a system which assigns simple counting
> > numbers -- like 7, or 55, or 1234 -- on a first-come first-serve basis,
> > starting at 1 and counting upward. I think this is the way ICQ works, and
> > it's simple and effective.
> >
> > At the other end of the spectrum, there is a system which allows people to
> > choose whatever "screen name" or "handle" or "username" they please,
> > provided that no one else has yet obtained that name. This is the way AOL
> > works, and it's also simple and effective.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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...
> >
> > acidburn, phyrefox, defcon5, neozero, immortal, genepool, pubert, etc.
> >
> > to the disgorgingly trite...
> >
> > k00l1, in10siv, l8ralg8r, 2cool4u, sk8rd00d, me2me2me, win95sux, faqewe,
> > bumsnifr, ob1ken, ds9rulez, etc.
> >
> > 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.)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > One partial solution might be to disallow numbers altogether, or to disallow
> > the use of numbers as letter-substitutes ("l8r", "k00l", "in10se", etc.),
> > but still to allow things like "whg3" (that's one way to write William H.
> > Gates III -- eek! :-). But I don't think that's a full solution.
> >
> > In the interests of diplomacy, certain character sequences such as "lego",
> > for example, must be prevented, unless someone's actual real-life name
> > actually contains those letters. (According to www.switchboard.com, there
> > are more than 300 people in the U.S. with the last name Lego. There's even
> > someone in California and someone in Oregon with the last name Lugnet. :-)
> >
> > So far so good? No...
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > So what's the next best thing? Say, maybe something that involves someone's
> > real-life name but still allows a modicum of flexibility and creativity?
> >
> > One thing might be to allow any sequence of letters taken in order from
> > someone's full real-life name. For example, (let's use LarryP, because I
> > don't think he'll mind), Larry could go for any of:
> >
> > lp, lar, larry, larryp, lpien, lpieniazek, etc.
> >
> > or he could simply use his initials (although I don't know what his middle
> > initial is, so I can't put that one in the list). Let's see, what would I
> > do? I'd probably go for something like one of:
> >
> > tsl, todd, toddl, tlehman, toddlehman, etc.
> >
> > and perhaps Suzanne would go for something like one of:
> >
> > suz, srich, suzanne, etc.
> >
> > So that actually seems like a modus vivendi to me. Sandra Linkletter of RTL
> > could even keep her cool handle "slink".
> >
> > (What would YOU pick for your name?)
> >
> > Now, are there any loopholes or problems in this scheme?
> >
> > One potential problem is, ironically, three-letter nicknames (for example,
> > "lar" as shown above). I believe there is actually a Larry A. Rosler in the
> > computing community -- so not only might his familiar nickname also be
> > "lar", but his initials are "lar". Once a username is chosen or assigned,
> > it is permanent for lifetime, so LarryP wouldn't ever be able to sell his
> > member-ID of "lar" to someone such as LarryR. That's one potential problem.
> >
> > Another potential problem is due to the permanence of the member ID's: if
> > someone marries or divorces and changes their last name, and if they used
> > their old last name in their member-ID and wanted to change it to use their
> > new last name, then they're S.O.L.
> >
> > A third potential problem is much more complex and socio-psychological.
> > Under the scheme described above, Larry Pieniazek could have "lar" and Paul
> > Gyugyi could have "gyug", but Chris Moseley could not have "moz" and Joseph
> > Gonzalez could not have "gonzo" (because of s=>z and a=>o). This would be
> > unfortunate because all four of those nicknames are something those four
> > people have used publicly, and all four of them are sense-making nicknames.
> >
> > OK, so if the rules were bent slightly so that Chris Moseley could have
> > "moz" and Joseph Gonzalez could have "gonzo", then is that bending enough?
> > What other near-border cases are there?
> >
> > Of course it makes sense that Roberts could always be Robs or Bobs;
> > Jennifers could always be Jennys or Jens; Michaels could be Mikes; Anthonys
> > could be Tonys or Ants; Fredriks could be Freds or Riks; and Williams could
> > be Wills or Bills, etc.
> >
> > Ahem -- say again on that last one? What about someone named William
> > Williamson? Could he go by "billbill"? (I saw a "billbill" on the net
> > once.) If so, could John Williams go by "johnbill" or would he have to use
> > "johnwill" or some other thing?
> >
> > More food for thought:
> >
> > Should Asrun Kristmundsdottir be permitted the member-ID of "kristmas"?
> > Should Nick Holdbrooks be permitted the member-ID of "ickna" (I assume
> > that's Piglatin for "Nick")? Should Richard Mussler-Wright (more famously
> > known as "Weird Richard") be permitted the member-ID of "weirdrichard"?
> > Should Ed Jones (famously known as Ed Boxer) be permitted the member-ID of
> > "edboxer"? Should David K.Z. Harris be permitted the member-ID of "zonker"?
> > The list of borderline cases goes on and on...
> >
> > (I have opinions on all of the above, but I'll keep them to myself for the
> > time being...)
> >
> > Some interesting three-letter-initial combintations, BTW: Alan B. Clegg
> > could be "abc"; Allan R. Martin could be "arm"; and Sean O'Brien could be
> > "sob". Those are all kind of interesting. :)
> >
> > Anyway, I think something like this (above) -- a scheme which is still
> > highly objective, and fair, and only a very tiny bit subjective -- would
> > give a large amount of flexibility, and a lot of understandability and
> > memorability, and yet still avoid the garbage types of names that can crop
> > up in an unregulated system -- all without doing anything that could be
> > construed as censorship. It's true that some people would definitely not
> > get the member-ID that they would most favorably desire, but in any system
> > -- even an unregulated one such as AOL's -- there's never such a guarantee
> > because someone could have taken your favorite name before you.
> >
> > Well, that's probably enough brain-dumping for now...
> >
> > [followups to lugnet.admin.general]
> >
> > --Todd
> >
> > 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! :-)
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
