Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 10:45:28 06/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
I would agree with what KarinsDad wrote below. Upon further thought, I feel that it is quite valid for the operators of CCC to request full *and verifiable* information (perhaps something along the lines on FICS...no 'free' emails like hotmail or yahoo), but allow people to 'opt out' of having that information posted in their routine posts. Of course it would be fully within the rights of CCC to require that everybody post using all their information, but that doesn't seem to further the goal of making people responsible for their postings. Anonymous postings, but no anonymous *accounts*. After all, there should be no *reason* to remain anonymous if you just wish to read postings (your name would never come up in either case), and if you wish to *write* postings, then I think that CCC has a compelling interest to know who is doing so, both to protect themselves legally, and to maintain the integrity of the board. If you wish to participate, then I think that this should be one of the rules of membership here. Not too intrusive; very logical; and accomplishing the stated goals. Chris On June 30, 2000 at 11:41:04, KarinsDad wrote: >On June 30, 2000 at 09:32:12, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: > >>This policy of requiring real names in no way infringes upon the right to free >>speech. You want to post something using an anonymous alias? Great! Do it >>somewhere else. That flaky Canadian kid a couple years back (I forget his name) >>started his own little computer chess board after getting booted from here. That >>was his right, as it would be the right of anyone who refuses to abide by a >>legitimate policy of this private organization. But this *is* a private forum, >>not a government sanctioned podium for discussion. >> >>There *are* compelling reasons for both sides of the argument, though. The >>operators of this site certainly have the right to require that users here use >>their real names, But even I use pseudonyms on some sites (Linux Today, for >>example, where you can get 100 flame mails for posting an unpopular article). I >>think in this context, where registration is required, it is reasonable to have >>users provide a *verifiable* real name, with *verifiable* contact information. >>Anonymous users could be allowed to read postings, but if you wish to post, you >>must demonstrated your bona fides. >> >>Just my two cents. >> >>Christopher > > >I have no problem with ICD knowing my real name. I use their service, they get a >little insurance in return. > >I have a problem with 5000 unknown people knowing my real name. To me, that is >an invasion of my privacy. > >I agree with another poster that it would be fine for ICD to know everyone's >real names, but that people decide themselves what handle to post under. > >I think a rule that "Everyone new has to post under their real name" is bogus. > >I think a better rule is that "Everyone old and new has to identify themselves >to ICD in order to post, but that they can pick any handle they want. People who >just want to read will not show up in the threads, so they can call themselves >any handle which is not already in use. One caveat to this is that ICD can >request that anyone change their handle to minimize problems with handles such >as XYZZY or somesuch.". > >And the way to enforce this is to change everyone's current "names" to be read >only accounts. You want to post, you have to contact ICD with identification. > >JMO. > >KarinsDad :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.