Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:58:54 07/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 1999 at 19:15:06, John Wentworth wrote: >On July 19, 1999 at 00:46:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >>I realize that there is no way to prevent anonymous accounts at the present >>time, but I can't believe it is unreasonable to at least have _some_ sort of >>"name". IE "K1" is rediculous. I'll talk with an anonymous bob or sam or >>Karensdad, but this goes a bit too far. >> >>IMHO of course. >> >>Or should we all re-register and start with a1-z1, then a2-z2, and see >>where that leads? >> >>Opinions? > >What difference does it make??? This is a discussion group about computer chess >not a social club. For me, I could careless if the person name is Sam, Clyde, >K1, or djjdhdghkjdh3993. We still converse through text form and not in person, >so I don't see what difference it makes at all. Just my opinion. It makes a difference in discussion. When I talk with Bruce Moreland, I have an idea of his background, what he knows, and how to best communicate with him. When I talk to Ernst I have the same idea. When I talk to a k1 or a h4, I have _no_ idea who they are, what they know, and what they might have experience with. The human mind is associative... and I can associate "bruce" with something easily. I can't associate "y3" with anything at all, as it is an unnatural name. _that_ is the difference, IMHO... We are used to remembering people by names. Not by numbers. IE we could use other ids, like SSAN #'s... that would be a _true_ ID. But it would have the same problem.
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.