As has been discussed in some recent threads, once a username is registered, it cannot be re-used even if the previous member is deleted.

This is the currently designed behavior that UBB provides dues to the mindset that 'stealing' names is bad.

But is it really dangerous to provide admin with the option of removing this feature? Could even a conditional release of a deleted username be harmful?

Let's say someone registers a username, posts for a while, and then gets deleted. Let's say I don't delete those posts. Now some legitimate user come and wants to use the same username. They would have a different member number. No problem.

The only issue might be that previous posts might get associated with the new person. When a member is deleted, the posts now show as by Unregistered Member, right? So even a search on that username wouldn't bring up the old posts if that member was actually deleted.

So what is the big deal? Stealing usernames from deleted members doesn't seem to bring any problems.

However, not allowing re-use of deleted usernames means that people can register like crazy on a board and steal all the good names on a themed board. These accounts will sit unused, and even if they have 0 posts and I delete them, the names are forever taken. What about those who register on every message board in a community for the sole purpose of locking up their own username? They may never post on mine, so why should I allow them the courtesy of holding their name for them?

Anyway, shouldn't admin at least be offered a choice in this matter? If there are any downsides to re-using usernames, shouldn't an admin be able to weigh the risks and make a decision based on their own situation?

Or is there such a danger that a mod for this would be an irresponsible act?

Probly not, but its a measure infopop took.

I have responded that he could post the code in the beta forum... why are you belaboring this point?

Methinks "White Gold Wielder" will one of the good names gone before long

Why is there a curtness almost to the point of hostility in all responses on this subject? I think the previous threads that touched on this subject were closed a little harshly, but this thread is just an attempt to answer the main question. This is not meant to be a topic for flaming or bad-mouthing anyone. It's just talk about perhaps changing behavior of software. Would this mod be useful and should it be made? No biggie.

Why are some Infopop decisions OK to voice opinion against and others are seemingly discouraged from discussion?

It's not like we're talking about ways to hack a UBB here. This is just discussion about a potential mod, like any other.

If there was some reason why this topic is subversive, I hope I'll get a better answer than "Because Infopop says so." and a locked folder as to why.

There is no curtness... why do you pick a topic and not let it rest?

You did the same thing at the infopop forums... please read before you post as well... I posted last night that he could post the code in the beta forums. This subjext has been covered ad nauseum now.... look for the new thread in the beta forums.

Look, the only point I'm trying to get across here is that no answers have been given about the root of this topic.

quote:

---

There is no curtness...

---

Sure. Only 1 line responses and a veiled threat of being deleted. See, the wink makes it OK.

quote:

---

why do you pick a topic and not let it rest?

---

There has been no discussion. No real resolution. Just attempts to start a thread and posts shutting it down. This thread was an attempt to get at a valid question at the heart of this matter.

quote:

---

You did the same thing at the infopop forums...

---

I didn't even posts comments about this on Infopop's forums. I posted it in a thread listing little-known facts for admin, but I didn't criticize it. Here\'s the thread.

quote:

---

please read before you post as well... I posted last night that he could post the code in the beta forums. This subjext has been covered ad nauseum now.... look for the new thread in the beta forums.

---

Where is your post? Can't seem to find it now. In fact, you don't seem have a post in any of the threads on this subject.

Look, I don't want to cause continued trouble for anyone here. If you read an attitude in my posts, then I can only say that it was not intended. I only want to know the answer to something and I keep getting stone-walled. Can't you see that all the previous threads don't really answer the whole question?

Mr. Capps closed the first thread on this subject and it was suggested that he had a very good reason for doing so. If that is true, then I want to know why. If there is some deep underlying problem that is prevented by this designed behavior, then I want to know what it is. I want to learn everything I can about UBB. I don't want to start a war. However, if all the thread-closing and lack of information on this topic was a coincidence and there is really no good reason why this behavior was 'designed', then at least that will be an answer.

If I still have a question, then I'll ask it again. If you don't want to answer it, then just don't reply. Is that too much to ask without seeming rude?

If there was more talk on the actual topic and less about talking about the topic, this would have all been history by now.

Peace and UBB Love,