1. put to bed . If that's how we're running it no serious issue here ,
2. the forced name change occurred on the first instance of utilization of Madcast resources (voice client) and didn't have a chance to permeate to further levels where variant names could be an issue. I do appreciate the clarification here but as I agree carrying multiple name for the same person would be problematic one name was used and rejected , the other was deemed questionable as well so the solution was to be listed as a "guest of" so if there was an issue with why is this person here it could be cleared up more easily. this edict prohibits that solution so I am more asking for better alternative to stripping someones identity by resigning them to a handle with no meaning or history for them. In my friend's instance this was do to someone finding the name offensive . I agree we are not talking about weather or not it's offensive but I meant it as an illustration of a previous instance of a forced name change though the lens of denying someone their identity within our community at an associate level. It was also raised as the solution to this specific instance is no longer going to be acceptable moving forward. I can understand baring problematic speech as prohibited by the code of conduct. However here we are talking about a not previously barred form of speech surrounding how someone self identifies online and how they are permitted to interacts with our community regardless of membership. The majority of the problems I could see this addressing seem already covered under already extant terms . if someone trying to come in using another users name in jest or in an insulting manner it would already be in violation or not stopping a line of jest when asked. if done for the sake of ganging such as munsa2, munsa'shand , chiefcultistofmunsa I could see being included under the no peacocking displays regardless of sexual charge (this may be a point for CoC revisions as upon closer inspection it specifies specifically for as a result of the presence of a woman and is limited to enforcement to the men present). in this way this edict seems redundant unless this is the reasoning behind it. in the instance of something like naru'sfather for a person not attempting to join the community directly but possibly passing through ,assuming I didn't take umbrage with said someone using my name in theirs this seems to be a more harm then good scenario as this kind of restriction. It doesn't do much to paint us in a positive or accepting light either. We don't discriminate based on age , sex, sexual orientation , religion, gender, game choice , skill level, background , but we are going to start to discriminate based on naming scheme? (this may simply be a we agree to disagree situation but I do appreciate your insight on this regardless ).
I also wants to thank you for taking the time to have this discussion.