Do you try to just sound intelligent so you might look cool it takes you so long to reply, I don't see why you're flaming me when there is many others who voted no? Stop whinning about me voting no and cry else where.

This post was edited by GanJa_crew on Nov 12 2010 12:59am

Yep, you caught me.
I'm going out of my way to properly express rational thoughts in order to look cool on an internet forum.

Also, if you read my first reply to you can find the answer to your question:



Clearly I'm not "whining" because you voted no, I'm merely point out that the REASON you voted no makes no sense.
Also note that my first point isn't a flame at all. I even apologized in the post, lol.

This post was edited by MidnightRider on Nov 12 2010 01:06am

26 hour bump

39 hour bump

32 hour bump

Seriously hope this doesnt happen. voted no. aswell as njag saying it will never happen

i hope your only reasoning is not that "it will never happen"

why do you hope it will never happen? Are you afraid?

It's a great idea, and there's even more depth in the suggestion than Russia presents.

The issue about these users coming back to login, and their usernames being taken so they're kind of lost at sea. An easy way to solve this is to allow for simultaneous login of either 1) your username ( ie; macfinn for me ) or 2) your registered email. So if one of the desginated usernames has been taken since the user made it, when they try to logon they simply use their email address and come up with a new alias pending verification.

This suggestion is great from my perspective ( and I would hope it would be from Paul's as well ) because it can help ensure a lot of users stay tenured on this site. People can lose interest quickly, and without the ability to change their name to desired alias, they can feel alienated or unpriveleged ( considering we have to pay for the name anyway, and nobody paid for those names in 2003-2004 ish anyway. )

I particularly like the guidelines laid out for the suggestion, however I think they could be tweaked a bit. If Paul opted for the email login / new alias identity I described above, than it should not be only allowed for the 2003 year that Russia 1st alluded to. I'm not saying that every account should be eligible for this because that's ludicrous, but I definitely think 2003-2004 should be eligible, even with a few hundred posts over 4-5 years ago.

Yep. lots invested

that's an interesting idea....probably would work very well too.