Author: KarinsDad
Date: 08:52:21 01/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 1999 at 08:33:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 22, 1999 at 02:15:59, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>On January 21, 1999 at 15:16:37, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>Since it is unenforceable, I see no purpose in requiring a real name. I do >>>think that a fake email address should cause immediate dismissal, however. >>> >>>Anonymous postings don't bother me a bit unless they are abusive. If abusive, >>>then they should be dealt with just like any other abusive posting. >>> >>>I like to know who I am talking to, but I can certainly live without that. >> >>Fake email address in what sense? You can't get a password without having a >>real email address, since the password is sent to the email address. >> >>As for these secondary email thingies, first of all, does anyone have an idea >>what they are really called, and does anyone have any reason why accounts should >>be accepted from them? >> >>bruce > > >Not only don't I have a reason for that, I have strong reasons why the >anonymous remailers ought to be put out of business. And as the internet >protocol evolves (IPV6) this is going to eventually happen when we can reverse >authenticate _anything_ and choose to trashcan anything that can't be traced >back to the legitimate originator. I agree. The net is getting hit too hard with junk re-mailers. > >All this allows is massive abuse (can anyone spell 'TheDoDo' for r.g.c.c last >year, as well as Rolf's/Sean's multiple personalities that like to have group >conversations like there is a crowd talking, but in reality there is _one_ >person presenting a view and then offering comments from 'alter egos'?) I'd >think that if you are afraid to be known, maybe you ought to think about what >you are doing/saying that causes that fear, and do something about the problem, >rather than trying to hide. Yes, that is a problem when it happens. If it happens on rgcc, that should not matter here. If it happens here, then yes, corrective measures should be taken when it is detected. > >I don't mind handles, particularly, as some are 'known' like KK's, but I >wouldn't let a stranger into my house without a name of some sort and some >sort of identification. Because _those_ are the folks that tend to run amok >(not all of 'em of course, but count the anonymous amokers vs the legit >amokers and you get the drift)... Gosh Robert, I was hoping to see your collection of Japanese porcelain tea cups. What if I take my sunglasses off, just in your house? But seriously, I agree, you should count the anonymouse amokers here vs the legit amokers here. Base the data off of who was banned in the past. Somebody should know the answer to this. 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.