As seen in this post, the poster isn’t a **Guest **or a **Member **or a Charter Member, but a Registered User. Is that something new?
The answer lies in this thread. Basically, they have signed up, but haven’t gone to the email account and clicked on the linky there to activate it totally.
However, they are NOT supposed to be able to post as such! :eek:
Nope. It’s what someone is when their registration is in the security confirmation holding queue . . . when you change your email address or password the system puts the registration there pending the receiving of the confirmation email . . . like when you first signed up.
This new guest is pending a name change. I’m sure you can see why.
What is wrong with that name? If the software accepts it, it doesn’t trip any hamsters, and is not offensive to anyone, why can’t it be had?
It’s annoying.
I’d guess that they posted as a guest or member, and then the status change happened and the titles updated on the existing posts.
Although I am not personally annoyed by it, I can easily see why other people would. Still, is that enough of a standard? I think I am more annoyed by long compound usernames with no spaces between the words. Who do I lobby to get those changed?
We are in expectation that this newly registered guest will return with some suitable names. I’ll change it and we’ll move on.
Quoting from the rules:
Would you have rather I banned them?
Your local congressional Representative, Senator, or the Secretary-General of the UN. 
Seriously, though, I think a general standard of readability is reasonable; a username consisting only of one repeated unpronounceable symbol would get on people’s nerves.
We realize the rules allow you to ask for another name “because you say so” and not have to answer any questions. Still, I would like to hear the reasoning behind it, if applicable. Is it just that it is unreadable? Can he be known as “The Artist formerly known as _____”?
So, you understand the rules, but nevertheless request an exception? Why? Should all rules be subject to such inquiry?
If one agrees to abide by the rules as a condition of membership, what is the point of questioning the rules?
We find symbols and lines and dashes and dots and ASCII art to be confusing and annoying. And while we’ve let some of it go in the past it tends to open the door to all sorts of wildass stuff that sometimes makes moderating difficult.
We prefer people have real names. It’s not unreasonable to ask that.
No, it is not unreasonable. Thanks for the answer.
I am not requesting an exception. Just asking about the rationale behind the ruling. There is no rule, just a blanket “we call them as they pop”. TPTB make a decision and I am curious about how they got to it. Nothing terrible.
And of course rules should be subject to inquiry! Always, on everything. This is what keeps us on course.
I rather like it. Oh well.
We’re not out to stifle creativity but the line between really great user name and something that just annoys the heck out of people is sometimes razor thin and difficult to see until it’s been stepped over. So we tend to act swiftly in these cases.
Thanks for the answers.
So, you understand that the rule says that they can act without question, and yet you question it, and that’s not asking for an exception?
Let me be more clear. Why question a rule that you have agreed to abide by? The time for question is before you make such an agreement.
I’m not sure why you are having such a problem with this. He clearly stated that he wasn’t questioning the ability or the decision to ask the user to change their username. The question was what reasoning was used in this case. No one seems to have a problem with this but you. 
No one is questioning the rule; but people were genuinely interested in why “_____” wasn’t a good choice for a username.
So you are stating affirmatively that I am the only member/guest of the SDMB to “have a problem?” How did you determine this? Do you speak for everyone but me?