This is probably a one off occurrence but it is something I think should be considered incase it isn't and can be applied to more than one case.

Situation: A friend of mine had been stalking a pet name and on the day it cleared she was not able to snag it. Being the curious bunny she is she went to see who had snagged it. She felt something wasn't right when she saw the account was less than 24 hours and no activity on their account so how would they know about name clearings. She filed a ticket, the admin had a snoop around and the account was frozen.

Sadly this means the name is frozen with the account for the next year. In situations like this (like I said this might be a one off) might a shorter frozen period be applied so the name/s can be put back in to circulation sooner so people who have been waiting for those names aren't penalised for some other persons wrong doing?

[Quote]She felt something wasn't right when she saw the account was less than 24 hours and no activity on their account so how would they know about name clearings[/quote]

In this particular situation (since the user was frozen) it was obvious something wasn't right, but I definitely don't think it is that difficult to find out that a name will clear.

Maybe a user who joins checks to see if a name they want is available. Seeing the X will clear in 0 days or whatever might tell them to keep checking (or they could google when do pet names clear)

I feel bad for the person who now can't have the name, but I don't know if throwing it back wuicker will solve that issue.

I don't agree with this, personally.

It sucks, but that's kind of how it goes, you know? The fact that this particular user was breaking an unrelated rule is irrelevant. You're not always going to snag the name you want, it belongs to the person who does get it.

I'm not sure if its even possible to less with a frozen user and I agree with

It makes sense to me, since if the name was taken unfairly, i.e. multi-accounting, then it ought to be re-released fairly, since it never should have been stuck where it is to begin with.

I agree with the OP, it's a terrible situation to be waiting for so long only to have to wait for so long all over again just because someone broke the rules. Perhaps a 48 hour waiting period can be implemented before the name clears again? These situations probably won't happen often, and it seems fair for those who tried to fairly snag a name.

It's not about losing the name, it's about someone using unfair methods.

Yes for this, but no to 48 hours.

6 months MINIMUM. To give time to appeal their freezing. Because mistakes happen.

Eh, I'd rather not see this happen. I've seen a TON of names go to freshly created accounts and it could be a multi or it could be a case of "my boyfriend/girlfriend/bff/whatever doesn't play and has a fast PC and I don't have room so I'ma get him to sign up". It could also be unrelated to pet names entirely, or they might be unfrozen. Maybe they self-froze?

I mean it sucks, trust me, but I dunno I don't think the rules/system needs change I like it being black and white. Clauses to things is when loopholes and goarounds and gray areas start cropping up and making a mess of things. Plus, what if someone who had a 10 year account got busted for multis and the multis were frozen-- would that count? If not, there's a can of worms already because it should rightfully be any account frozen on grounds of pet names should be cleared at 6 months.

.. but why just pet names? It should be usernames, too, because boy I see a TON of 1 year accounts going inactive after 1 year with a cool word username and 0 pets/0achieves/0 anythings. And then we go into the whole privacy thing-- like if someone's timer is only 6 months instead of a year we automatically know what someone is or isn't frozen for "Welp, it's 9 1/2 months so clearly it's not just name related" and visa versa.

Too complicated. it sucks, it does, but I think it needs to stay the way it is.