02-09-2011, 02:07 PM
Hugh Brechin Wrote:You have to use your passport to get through airport security because there are serious security implications potentially affecting enormous numbers of people. This noticeboard is a place where a few dozen people read about a board game. It's not exactly comparable.
JR isn't Jonathan Rowson, as you now know, anybody who's ever really seen him post before knows, and anyone who reads the sticky at the top of the forum also knows. The no-need-for-anonymity argument is one you can make (I personally reckon that it doesn't do any harm as long as you or Andy knows their real identity and it's not worth stopping people who might feel more comfortable staying anonymous, but I agree that you can contend that people don't need it), but saying that everybody needs to follow the accepted format for names is just taking things far, far too seriously. You've already admitted that PNums are a better way of mapping the grading data. At the moment you're threatening to drive off at least a couple of good posters for basically no reason at all.
If you do decide that democracy should be the judge of this situation - and I still think there are serious sampling bias issues on the new board - then I'd ask you to at least make that dependent on a new poll, asking whether initials/nicknames/whatever are acceptable as long as the identities of the posters are fully disclosed, as they currently are in the 'Forum Usernames' thread.
A fair few points Hugh.
The passport scenario is not entirely comparable, but there are similarities. The main point was that you are happy to disclose your identity at passport security, whether you are carrying a bomb/knife/gun or not, and you don't really care about doing so because you appreciate that everyone needs to be treated equally, for the greater good. Something similar applies here: if you disclose your name then you have nothing to lose by it, but everyone is clear that it's you who is posting. Anonymity does tend to favour those who would post in a troll-like fashion; because they know (or think) that nobody will find out who they really are. There is no requirement on a board like this for anonymity, we aren't talking about sensitive personal matters. If anyone really wants to post anonymously then they are perfectly welcome to email an admin to post on their behalf, but I suspect hardly anyone will ever feel the need to do so.
I'd be willing to accept any username that made it quite clear of the user's identity. I think if JR made his username JRedpath, then that would be better than JR. You're correct that I now know who he is, but when I initially read his posts when I first took an interest in Chess Scotland; I had no idea. I think the point is that if someone is replying to you, then they deserve to know who you are. It's a bit ridiculous that we should have to play a game of guess-who.
The other argument for identifying people is security (back to the passport comparison). I'm not about to argue that the security implications are as serious, but if the admins/mods of the board can't establish quickly (and without much investigation), which names are spam and which are not, then it becomes difficult to pre-empt their posting tons of adverts for Viagra, many of which lead to sites that will infect your computer with malicious spyware and whatnot. Controlling this would be much easier, if names were recognised.
The initial reason for requesting usernames in a particular format was technical, but quite quickly I realised that the requirement was obsolete. I don't, therefore, intend to follow up on a particular format, as long as the identity is quite clear. As a result I don't think another vote is required.