[stedaniels]

Anecdotally, having worked on identity management systems, and merged a number of them, this hasn’t ever seemed like an edge case for me. It’s pretty high up on the list. I’d imagine the folks they’ve got working on these systems are paid an order of magnitude more than myself.

[RussianCow]

> I’d imagine the folks they’ve got working on these systems are paid an order of magnitude more than myself.

I wouldn't assume that. Game companies are notorious for pinching pennies. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if these systems were outsourced completely.

[BoorishBears]

You seem to be confusing when two systems don't mutually support certain names due to technical limitations, with what happened here.

It's not a bug that a filter caught names that the merged companies now collectively do not allow in their collectively owned games.

-

The only miss here is more of a UX issue: they handled username bans the same way they handled all bans, with a shadowban.

Shadowbans are great for most infractions since you burn some time of the offender before they start again and give them little information to find loopholes with... but for something rectifiable there should be a way to nudge and explain why they're banned.

[chefandy]

I think it's really easy to say that without knowing anything about what they actually did.