Author: KarinsDad
Date: 12:25:17 06/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 1999 at 13:48:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 07, 1999 at 11:26:58, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On June 07, 1999 at 09:12:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 07, 1999 at 00:24:45, Harald Faber wrote: >>> >>>>I will make big efforts to no longer allow anonymous e-mail accounts here for a >>>>new period. Also for existing accounts via hotmail etc. >>>> >>>>Only exception: if someone with this account wants to stay, he has to prove his >>>>identity. >>> >>> >>>An unpopular decision, but I think it is correct. I see _no_ reason for these >>>anonymous accounts, even though many of them are quite normal people that post >>>things that are perfectly acceptable. >>> >>>however, I wouldn't let you into my house with a sack over your head, and I >>>think that the abuse here is more than enough justification to simply say >>>"enough". If someone is afraid of revealing their true ID, then perhaps that >>>alone is enough reason to be wary of them? >> >>By your phrase "revealing their true ID", are you referring to revealing it to >>Steve, or are you referring to revealing it to everyone? >> >>KarinsDad :) > > >_EVERYONE_. I believe that if you want to post, you have to 'stand in the >light' to do so. Otherwise we continue to have the anonymous crap go on and >without any way of stopping it. _I_ post under my real name. I put up with a >lot of crap by doing so (IE Rolf and his band of renegades). But everyone knows >who I am, where I live/work, and how to contact me. > >Lurkers are 'ok', but they should only be allowed to lurk, and _not_ write, >without losing the cloak in the process... Robert, I asked the question since I wanted to determine whether you were responding to the issue of identification (which does not necessarily mean identification to everyone) versus the issue of anonymity. A system of verifying identity (for Steve) would also allow him to minimize anonomous users from getting banned, getting a new account, and re-entering (at least it would make it more difficult, nothing along these lines is yet impossible). However, people coming out into the light is a desire of yours (and others), not necessarily a requirement of Steve's. I would imagine that there are quite a few people here who believe in: 1) No anonymity from the group (such as yourself) or 2) No anonymity from Steve but anonymity from the group is acceptable (so that it is easier to keep out the riff raff once they create a major problem) or 3) Anonymity (even from Steve) is acceptable as long as it is not abused. However, I doubt you would find many people who want: 4) A real sounding name for everyone so that they can pretend to know who they am talking to (even if they really do not know who they are talking to). And without some form of identification process, #1 and #2 are not viable. #3 is the current situation (all you need is an Email address) and #4 is a joke. I am quite happy with either #2 or #3. You would be happier with #1. However, there are probably some posters right now who are doing #4 and you do not necessarily know who they are. Do they bother you less (since it is not obvious who they are) than I do since it is obvious that I am not standing out in the light with you? Or do you accept them at face value (like you might a repairman who comes to your door)? 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.