09-09-2011, 08:37 PM
Andrew McHarg Wrote:The first poll which was carried out: "Do you think posters should be identifiable by their username?" 64% answered Yes, 36% answered no.
The second poll which was carried out "Should non-anonymous posters be allowed usernames which are not their full names?" 48% answered Yes, 52% answered No.
64% and 52% represent a clear majority. The second question was also referring to full names, which the final decision doesn't even demand; and so it's feasible to imagine that many of the 48% who voted "No" would actually be in favour of non-full names (i.e. JBloggs).
I've made these comments before but I fear I can't let the above remarks go unchallenged. Such polls must be considered of dubious validity, in particular because the sample polled exhibits such self-selection (and is relatively small) but also because the results are capable of "spin" or misinterpretation.
The first poll appears to be in favour of identifiablility (which we already have, in my view). Whilst not strictly comparable, the second (with a current majority of 1) reminds me of the "Guns and Butter" episode in the West Wing which I've referenced elsewhere.
Like J*R I enjoyed the delicious irony of anonymous correspondents being used to justify the new policy. Perhaps they were afraid of people knowing their opinions in the public domain? I don't have a problem with that - as far as I am concerned, they have every right to remain anonymous and for their reasons to remain a secret. It is however difficult to debate or counter an argument when that argument is unknown (unlike the case when it is only the proponent who is unknown).
I am pleased that we appear to have won a number of arguments, and that the revised proposals mean fewer people will be enslaved by conformity, to coin a phrase. I am still sad
that the likes of Lulu or Cher may be discouraged from posting (I suppose the former could, but presumably she'd have to post as Marie McDonald McLaughlin Lawrie Kennedy-Cairns (or somesuch) to satisfy the "clear majority").Finally, what happens if someone's account is deactivated? Do their posts remain, or do they disappear? Am I (or anyone else) going to look like I'm having a conversation with myself? Which is what it feels like, sometimes... ;P