Author: KarinsDad
Date: 10:34:02 01/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
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. > >>>, 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. >, 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. > 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. > >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). > >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? 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. > >>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.