Author: KarinsDad
Date: 07:24:58 01/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 1999 at 08:50:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 21, 1999 at 13:34:02, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On January 21, 1999 at 05:19:12, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>> >>>On January 20, 1999 at 17:16:05, KarinsDad wrote: >>> >>>>On January 20, 1999 at 16:28:14, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>> >>>>[snip] >>>> >>>>> >>>>>I think that a real name should be required, even though enforcement would be >>>>>difficult to the point where it may not be worth even trying to enforce it. >>>>> >>>>>I think that anonymity leads to poor posts >>>> >>>>Are you claiming my posts are poor? Or KK's posts? What is the real reason that >>>>anonymity bothers you? >>> >>>KK is Alan Tomalty. I am not saying your posts are poor. I'm saying that you >>>remove all possibility of being held accountable. >> >>How am I any less accountable than anyone else here? If I become abusive, I get >>a few warnings and then get kicked out. Just like everyone else. If I want to >>get back in "anonymously", I have to get a new Email account and use a new name. >>Just like everyone else. This accountability statement just does not seem to >>hold any water. >> > >I disagree. Getting another anonymous email account would take what, 30 >whole seconds or so? So it does remove the 'accountability' completely as >an anonymous person can be abusive, get banned, and return. Over and over. > >Can you spell "sean"? Can you count to 91+? That's how easy it was for >him. That's how easy it can be for anyone... > Did Sean have anonymous accounts when he came back with his 91+ accounts, or did he use real sounding names? >>> >>>>>, since accountability is nil, could >>>>>cause extremely serious problems, since we occasionally have real votes, and >>>>>leads to other distractions as well. >>>>> >>>>>I brought this issue up once before and it seemed likely that I was in the >>>>>minority, but I predict that we will have to deal with these issues for real >>>>>eventually. >>>> >>>>Why? If someone is not being abusive, who cares? >>> >>>A few reasons. >>> >>>Saying you who are is like taking out a bond on yourself. If you mess up, you >>>forfeit the bond. Anonymous people don't take out a bond, if they mess up they >>>simply leave and return again later, with a clean slate >> >>Real named people don't take out a bond, if they mess up they simply leave and >>return again later, with a clean slate and a new "real" name. > > >How do you get a new real name? That is harder. Doable, but harder. >IE for me nearly impossible because what reason would I have to want to change >'hyatt@cis.uab.edu' to something else? And how would I justify that? The point is not that someone changes their real name to another real name legally or somesuch. The point is that someone could still using a handle like John Thompson or Ruth Marrow or Joel Goldsmith. It sounds like a real name, but it isn't. Hence, there is no difference between it and a real name. As for you Robert, you have a vested interest in both your Email account at the university and as a known, responsible individual here. Hence, your reasoning is that I do not since my name is anonymous. That's a fair point, but not enough justification to eliminate anonymous users completely. It's an issue of your comfort level (piece of mind, security, whatever are your personal motivating factors for wanting to know everyone's names) versus my right to privacy. > > >> >>>, so they don't have to >>>worry about messing up, and they can do things that are borderline messing up >>>without having having to worry that the situation will get worse and it will >>>reflect badly upon them. If someone's identity is known, others can have a >>>little more confidence when dealing with that person. When someone's identity >>>is unknown, there is always the concern that they will explode and disappear. >> >>People have been sending Emails to me from this site. If I explode and >>disappear, they still have the option of sending me Emails and asking why. If I >>get rid of the Email address, then it's the same as if a "real named" person did >>the same thing. >> >>> >>>Identifying yourself are is simple politeness in any conversation. >> >>Now you are putting a social spin on this. It is a matter of personal social >>grace to you. If you are being fair, you will realize that this is based on your >>own thinking, your own cultural expectations, and hence is within your own mind. >>If I place an excellent post on a new search algorithm and you disregard that >>post due to your bias as to anonymity, then you are not being objective to the >>contents of the post, but rather to your own preconceived notions as to the >>authenticity of the poster. This is neither scientific nor reasonable, but I do >>understand the reasons for it. > >However, if you continue that thread of thought, you _can't_ do that. Because >a publication would normally be refereed, so it has to track back to a real >person that can be contacted. Yes you might manage to fake something once or >twice. But to publish you have to 'sign'. And if you publish something new, >complicated, and hard to understand, and do it 'anonymously' it will not get >the attention it deserves. The people working in a field know each other by >name and by reputation. That gives a work 'weight.' > A posting is not a paper to the IEEE. A posting is a sending of data from one individual to a group. If I put a posting out that was so complex that you could not understand it, you could post back asking questions or Email me with questions. You still have access to the source. The privacy issue is that if you sent me 5 Emails a day for a month about my algorithm and I got sick of it, I could change my Email account, log back into CCC with a different Email account and continue within the group. The difference is that you would not be able to look me up and send me snail mail even though I no longer showed up as KarinsDad here. That is where my privacy is protected. You could not drive to my house like you could to Bruce's house and ring my doorbell. If someday I decide to become non-anonomous, that would be my decision, not the arbitrary voting of this group which could be swayed by the best politics, the most respected individuals here within the group, or the person who writes the most eloquent messages. Just like I do not have the right to be abusive to this group, this group does not have the right to invade my privacy. As for knowing each other by name and by reputation giving a work 'weight, I do via my handle here have a reputation. To you, it is probably something along the lines of a newbie who hasn't yet gotten his feet wet in the programming area and hasn't posted any message on a topic which you haven't heard dozens of times before. Fair enough. But that is my reputation to you. Hence, I have one. If I start posting informative technical articles here, my reputation with you will change. I will be known by handle (a rose by any other name still smells as sweet) and reputation, I can be contacted here or via Email, so this line of reasoning does not work. > > > >> >>> If you call >>>someone on the telephone, in order to conduct honest business with them, you >>>identify yourself, so people can feel like the relationship their are developing >>>with you in has some permanence and seriousness (see previous paragraph). >>> >>>Real names lend more seriousness to a conversation, it is distracting to have to >>>refer to someone as something like "Captain Skippy" or "ThePickleFromMars". How >>>do you refer to such a person without the reference overshadowing what you have >>>to say? >> >>Well, I hoped that I picked a handle that wasn't quite so inherently nonsensical >>as to illicit the type of reactions that these examples may. I also I feel good >>about sharing my joy of my daughter Karin to a group of people I like and >>respect, and enjoy expressing my pride in being her father. I will even tell you >>the truth as to my reasonings for posting under a handle. When I joined this >>group a little over 4 weeks ago, I hadn't previously been using newsgroups or >>message boards and was unsure on how to approach them. Since I was using >>KarinsDad as my handle on fics, I thought this would be a nice way for people to >>associate me here with my playing and comments on fics. >> >>It's interesting that handles are the norm there and not the norm here. Is it >>because you wish to be viewed as a more serious group? Neither group has any >>financial or political motivations, hence, it would seem that the norm could go >>either way, or a combination of both. >> > >handles on servers are bad also, but they happen. A common problem is that >someone becomes abusive, you +censor them, they return as a new user and are >abusive again, you +censor them, and so forth. > >That's hardly 'acceptable'. IMHO... > >Or someone is abusive, you +censor them, they log off and return as a guest >and continue the abuse. You can't censor a specific guest because he just >logs off and comes back as a different guest. You can refuse tells from _all_ >guests, but that cuts you off from legit people that are 'visiting' to see if >they like what they see. > >Again, anonymous users cause problems. Not all of 'em, obviously. But enough >to make the concept unpopular. Once again Robert, you hit the nail on the head. Due to a few bad apples (mostly on ICC and fics with their different system of allowing guests, not here), it has become unpopular. Let me ask a question. Out of the x number of people banned here (maybe Steve can answer this one), how many had handles (i.e. were attempting to be anonymous and abusive) and how many had real or real sounding names? Let's support our suppositions with some facts and not base an opinion on what happens at rgcc, ICC, or fics, but rather what happens here in CCC. > > > >>> >>>If you register with your real name, then are banned, you are banned under that >>>name, not just the email address. Sure, someone doesn't have to give their real >>>name, but if they do it is easier to track them. >> >>Why would anyone want to track anyone else? This is confusing to me. If someone >>seriously messes up, they get banned. What's the point of tracking them? Sounds >>like the SS to me (way too serious). >> > > >because they will come _back_ again and again, if you don't have a way to track >them via something that doesn't change, like a valid email at a real ISP. >This isn't a 'free speech' issue because this isn't a public forum. It is >a 'members-only' forum, but with anonymous users it is practically impossible >to make this 'real'. Today I use Worldnet as my ISP, tomorrow I could use hotmail, the day after something else. Still sounds like the SS to me. Too much effort for the hassle. Just ban each abusive person as they show up and stop worrying it to death. It's easier to do it that way, you cannot stop them from signing up anyway, so ban each abuser and move on. > > > >>> >>>Little "guess who I am" games are less likely when people use real names. There >>>hasn't been much of this here, but there could be. There have been some of >>>these games on r.g.c.c. I know of a case over there where people were fishing >>>around for the identity of one anonymous guy, and were making all sorts of wrong >>>guesses. I know they were wrong because, while I don't know who the guy is, I >>>know for sure that he's not a few people. The guesses themselves were >>>destructive, I saw one cases where someone guessed that this guy was a certain >>>person, then another person wrote a post calling that person an asshole. If >>>this second post hadn't been written there still would have been people thinking >>>it. >>> >>>>Your entire reasoning appears flawed. Even with real sounding names, you cannot >>>>have accountability, you cannot enforce it, you cannot even guarantee that all >>>>of the names you currently have in the group are real, so what is the point? >>> >>>Actually CCC can, but hasn't yet. A friend of mine is involved in an investment >>>discussion group, where they had a real problem with people registering multiple >>>accounts in order to rave up certain stocks, so eventually they just said fine, >>>send in photocopy of your ID via mail. This wasn't perfect but it worked well >>>enough for them. >>> >>>I don't think we are at that point in CCC yet, although it's possible we could >>>get there if a few people get more malevolent and more effective. >>> >>>Meanwhile, some handles are surely not real names. >>> >>>>I have received an Email as well from a person who did not like anonymity, >>>>however, this is not a requirement for this group. My belief is that anonymity >>>>bothers some people cause "they don't know". That is the real crux of your >>>>message Bruce. It has nothing to do with accountability or voting or anything >>>>else except that it bothers you (and possibly a few select others). >>> >>>One of the reasons I don't like anonymity is that it is a distraction. Other >>>reasons I have expressed, and they are valid, I believe. >> >>But it is a distraction to you. Less serious individuals make a judgment on the >>contents of the postings, not on the identity of the poster unless the poster >>desires that people respond to him or her based on identity. In other words, you >>have a cultural bias that inhibits you from experiencing the diversity of others >>without making preconceived notions as to their motivations or their worth as >>contributors. >> >>There are many examples in literature where a wonderful quote or passage is >>attributed to an anonymous author. Does the anonymity of the work detract from >>it's quality? >> > >totally wrong comparison. Because that same anonymous author doesn't get the >'xyz is a total jackass' sort of quote published anywhere. _here_ anything that >gets written is 'published'... So yes, an anonymous poster can provide jewels. >He can also provide lots of turds. We saw plenty of this from one particular >idiot on r.g.c.c last year... We tracked him ISP by ISP, anonymous remailer to >anonymous remailer, slowly getting him banned everywhere, in an effort to shut >him down. If someone misbehaves, they should be held accountable, and it >shouldn't take 30 people a year to do it. Like "TheDoDo"... Ah, but you pointed out earlier that this was not a public forum, but a members only forum. Hence, you only have to ban him here. If he shows up again here, you don't have to care if it is the same person, if he is abusive again here, you ban him again here. What you do on rgcc in your spare time has no bearing here. It IS a public forum. Let the idiots show up there. Who cares? Well, yes, I realize that you care since you quickly respond to some of the tripe there from Sean and others. I still do not understand why you give them the time of day. You lower your reputation by sinking to their level. Ignore the garbage postings and posters there and concentrate only on the reasonable ones. If you respond to the garbage posters, it is a debate. If you ignore them, then they are just ranting. Most people understand that. > > > > >>The problem is yours my friend, although I can understand and sympathize with >>why you are uncomfortable with calling me friend back. It's a shame, but that's >>life. >> > > >I think it is not 'his'... it is 'ours'... Because for every 100 good >anonymous users we get one bad one. one of 100 is not terrible. But >10,000 out of one million is absolutely impossible to accept. That's where >the internet is today, unfortunately... Ok. Let's do the math. You have what, 20 anonymous users here, if that? You only have what, 400+ users here total? We are not talking about the rgcc here, but the CCC. Of course there are dozens of anonymous idiots on rgcc, ICC, and fics. Again, the data on whether anonymous or real sounding user names get banned more often here is important. Face it Bruce, Robert, and everyone else who thinks that anonymous users should not be allowed here. As a rule, anonymous users here are just as well and just as poorly behaved on average as "real" named users. KarinsDad :) > >>> >>>>Are you afraid that I am secretly Sean? Heaven forbid! >>> >>>I don't believe this and never suggested it. >> >>Humor! You gotta lighten up! >> >>When in doubt, push a pawn :) (this never works for me) >> >>KarinsDad >> >>> >>>>Have a nice day :) >>>> >>>>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.