Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:31:14 01/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 1999 at 18:13:22, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 22, 1999 at 17:27:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >[snip] > >> >>here is the main problem: Anonymous folks _can_ and _do_ cause problems. Sean >>is one, Rolf's alter-egos on r.g.c.c are another example. Note that CCC is a >>'privately run' deal with volunteers. If anonymous jerks are going to cause >>problems, the 'volunteers' either have to deal with it or fix it. It is better >>to eliminate the problem than to have the 'project' fold and go under. That is >>what worries me... a couple of anonymous folks is _all_ it takes to wreck havoc >>for months, because they keep coming back over and over. And the 'volunteers' >>pretty soon get tired of volunteering, and we fall apart... >> >[snip] >> >>of course not, but the group does have the right to say "no more anonymous >>posters, even one causes too many problems to make it worth all the other >>'good' anonymous members." >> >[snip] >> >>you are on the wrong tack here. The _problem_ is the ones that come here, >>erupt, get kicked off, return as another user, and so forth. _not_ the ones >>that act responsible like you. But 1 anonymous hell-raiser can leave such a >>bad taste... from experience... >> >[snip] > >Now I think I understand the real concern here. It is an issue of responsible >individuals vs irresponsible ones. The handles or names are irrelevant. If >someone uses a real sounding name (or sets of names) and causes problems, the >natural reaction (once that person's identity on multiple accounts is brought to >light) is to say, well this person was not using his/her real name, hence, >he/she was anonymous. It doesn't matter if real sounding names or handle >sounding names were used. They were still anonymous. > >Hence, when someone like myself joins the group, the instant gut reaction is >(for some people) "Oh no, another anonymous person, it could be another trouble >maker." as opposed to "Oh, here is someone new. I wonder what s/he has to say?". > >Anonymous becomes associated with potential trouble maker and although part of >this occurred on CCC, a lot more of it occurs on rgcc, ICC, fics, and other >places. However, the people who frequent a lot of public sites as well as this >private one, bring their wariness from those sites with them here. > >Therefore, the obvious solution for these multi-site individuals is to eliminate >anonymous users completely in an attempt to minimize any problems here. > >Since there is currently no mechanism to differentiate between responsible >individuals and irresponsible individuals from joining the group, it would seem >that the current moderator system is what we have to rely on. The group could >vote as you suggest to prevent future people from entering anonymously, but what >would that accomplish? So they sign on as Joseph Krammer. So they sign on with >30 real sounding name accounts. They're in and there is no way to prevent them >from causing havoc. Now a system that authenticated the real user with their >name in the group (whatever that may be) would minimize problems, but we do not >have it yet (and I doubt one will ever be in place). > >Thanks for clearing that up for me Robert. > >KarinsDad You got it... I have _nothing_ against someone remaining anonymous. IE I log on to ICC as a 'guest' from time to time, because I generally am greeted with 5-10 questions the instant I log in, and if I only have a minute just to check on crafty, I simply can't respond. Rather than sounding evasive, I'd rather just not let anyone know I am on 'peeking in'. But ICC can pretty well tell it is 'me' because they track me back to 'crafty.cis.uab.edu' as the machine I generally come in from, otherwise they find me (as now) on scrappy.cis.uab.edu, my notebook. And should I raise a lot of havoc there, it would not be impossible to find me. In the day of dynamic IP addresses, this is not so easy, of course, for those using dial-up connections with PPP... but it is distinctly a serious problem that needs a solution. Because it is only going to get _worse_.
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.