Author |
Username hijacking; tres chic or no bueno? |
|
|
13-Feb-2012 1:28:39 PM
|
On 13/02/2012 ajfclark wrote:
>Still ok with everything Shortman?
Whatever. Imitation is a apparently a form of flattery?
If someone else wants to be shortman then so be it.
I'll be like prince.
The poster formerly known as shortman.
;)
|
13-Feb-2012 1:48:37 PM
|
I wonder if I can set my username to �...
|
13-Feb-2012 1:52:33 PM
|
More to the point, can u change my username to that thing?
|
13-Feb-2012 2:39:19 PM
|
On 12/02/2012 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>On 12/02/2012 Miguel75 wrote:
>>2, previous posts may not make much sense
>
>I have changed my user-id along the way over the years.
>I started as A5iswhereitsat, then changed to M8iswhereitsat (Aussie equivalent
>of A5), then changed to Idratherbeclimbing, then changed to IdratherbeclimbingM9.
>
>In all cases, every one of my previous posts automatically changed to
>my current user-id at the time I changed ID.
I realize changing your own username will update your previous posts, what I'm talking about is someone else hijacking your username and posting random posts which may conflict with the 'real' user. For example if someone hijacked my username and started posting normal, logical and understandable responses people may be confused...
>~> The only context in which those old posts may not make as much 'sense'
>is in quoted replies to any posts I made.
>To help negate confusion I updated my user-profile accordingly.
>
>I am also aware that most would respond to the whole issue with "Who cares?"
>Heh, heh, heh.
Some people may not care, some may; apparently most like turtles...
|
13-Feb-2012 3:02:55 PM
|
On 12/02/2012 bomber pro wrote:
>Miguel - don't lose sleep over it. Swapping chocky usernames is not much
>different to swapping sleeping partners in Nati - everyone does it as us
>atheists would rather swap when bored rather than accumulate another.
When you put it that way it makes more sense;) Sharing really is caring...
>In cany case if anyone really really has hurt feelings they should let the
>person involved know.
>
>You OK with that shorty?
Not really but it's something I can live with... Not sure how I feel about the moniker shorty though. It sounds small and makes me feel sad:(
|
13-Feb-2012 4:01:50 PM
|
I think the issue is if the words tre bueno or no chic (which sounds totally sexist to me) are allowed when f--- and c--t are banned which are perfectly good activities/things?
|
13-Feb-2012 5:00:18 PM
|
On 13/02/2012 Miguel75 wrote:
>I realize changing your own username will update your previous posts,
>what I'm talking about is someone else hijacking your username and posting
>random posts which may conflict with the 'real' user. For example if someone
>hijacked my username and started posting normal, logical and understandable
>responses people may be confused...
>
Fair enough.
~> You shall just have to keep posting unusual, illogical, unintelligible posts, to avoid this dire peril!
;-)
On 12/02/2012 Eduardo Slabofvic. wrote:
>(snip)and there lies the conundrum.
Indeed!
|
13-Feb-2012 6:45:30 PM
|
Guess who's back?
|
13-Feb-2012 7:06:24 PM
|
On 13/02/2012 shortman wrote:
>Guess who's back?
>
Is it really you shortman? How can we be sure?
|
13-Feb-2012 8:13:24 PM
|
On 13/02/2012 Miguel75 wrote:
>On 13/02/2012 shortman wrote:
>>Guess who's back?
>>
>Is it really you shortman? How can we be sure?
Remember that time I got really scared on top rope and cried?
|
13-Feb-2012 8:51:32 PM
|
I don't get it. What do you mean? A person who newly registers doesn't usually read up on all the usernames, in some cases, it can be coincidence I think. But otherwise it's lame! Be original, or try to at least.
|
14-Feb-2012 7:29:40 AM
|
On 13/02/2012 taylormec wrote:
>...A person who newly registers doesn't usually read up on all the usernames, in some >cases, it can be coincidence I think.
I'm talking about when scallywags hijack other peoples usernames for a good giggle
|
14-Feb-2012 8:29:10 PM
|
On 12/02/2012 shortman wrote:
>On 12/02/2012 Shortman wrote:
>>On 12/02/2012 Miguel76 wrote:
>>>It's not that bad Miguel75. Sometimes it has been bloody funny.
>>
>>What?
>
>It's not that bad Miguel75. Sometimes it has been bloody funny.
Are you dyslexic, or just a split personality?
|
14-Feb-2012 8:44:18 PM
|
Scalywaging is the green and gold way
|
14-Feb-2012 9:27:23 PM
|
On 14/02/2012 Eduardo Slabofvic wrote:
>On 12/02/2012 shortman wrote:
>>On 12/02/2012 Shortman wrote:
>>>On 12/02/2012 Miguel76 wrote:
>>>>It's not that bad Miguel75. Sometimes it has been bloody funny.
>>>
>>>What?
>>
>>It's not that bad Miguel75. Sometimes it has been bloody funny.
>
>Are you dyslexic, or just a split personality?
I am actually mildly dyslexic, and it's a five way split at the moment. Down from 7 a few years ago. It's hard sometimes because people don't understand the difficulties. I never know who I am.
|
15-Feb-2012 10:27:30 PM
|
Surprised no one has mentioned it yet BUT allegedly (according to a friend experienced in these matters)
You can't hijack a name unless the incumbent has vacated it previously. So there is no need for mormon snails who are happy to remain so for the rest of their lives to lose any sleep.
Why would someone vacate a name? I offer you two suggestions:
1. They are playing the game - in which case they are up for it and is why I am who I am
2. They are complete fossil librarian types like M9 - and the thought of hijacking one of his old names is a bit yukky. Kind of like thinking of your parents having sex - eeeewwwwhhhhhh
|
15-Feb-2012 11:22:41 PM
|
On 15/02/2012 bomber pro wrote:
>Surprised no one has mentioned it yet BUT allegedly (according to a friend
>experienced in these matters)
>
>You can't hijack a name unless the incumbent has vacated it previously.
>So there is no need for mormon snails who are happy to remain so for the
>rest of their lives to lose any sleep.
>
>Why would someone vacate a name? I offer you two suggestions:
>
>1. They are playing the game - in which case they are up for it and is
>why I am who I am
You raise a very salient point about how a username can be liberated, and ask a great question; Are all snails Mormon?
|
16-Feb-2012 11:21:00 AM
|
I vote that hijacking a vacated name is kosher because the hijackee is knowingly opening themself up to this possibility and choosing to represent themself as a different user.
On the other hand, creating a profile with the same icon and a tiny change to the username (like the addition of a punctuation mark for example), in order to mimic an active one, is not cool. It could be interpreted as deformation of ones painstakingly constructed chocky identity and the more sensitive among us could get our sensitive little feelings hurt.
... he says as he opens himself up as a target for profile imitation.
|
16-Feb-2012 2:58:06 PM
|
On 13/02/2012 Miguel75 wrote:
>On 12/02/2012 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>>On 12/02/2012 Miguel75 wrote:
>>>2, previous posts may not make much sense
>>
>>I have changed my user-id along the way over the years.
>>I started as A5iswhereitsat, then changed to M8iswhereitsat (Aussie equivalent
>>of A5), then changed to Idratherbeclimbing, then changed to IdratherbeclimbingM9.
>>
>>In all cases, every one of my previous posts automatically changed to
>>my current user-id at the time I changed ID.
>
For example if someone
>hijacked my username and started posting normal, logical and understandable
>responses people may be confused...
Actually I think they would understand it wasn't you.
|
16-Feb-2012 10:20:17 PM
|
On 15/02/2012 bomber pro wrote:
>Surprised no one has mentioned it yet BUT allegedly (according to a friend
>experienced in these matters)
>
>You can't hijack a name unless the incumbent has vacated it previously.
>So there is no need for mormon snails who are happy to remain so for the
>rest of their lives to lose any sleep.
>
>Why would someone vacate a name? I offer you two suggestions:
>
>1. They are playing the game - in which case they are up for it and is
>why I am who I am
>
>2. They are complete fossil librarian types like M9 - and the thought
>of hijacking one of his old names is a bit yukky. Kind of like thinking
>of your parents having sex - eeeewwwwhhhhhh
+1
|