Poll: Do you think posters should be identifiable by their username?
This poll is closed.
Yes
65.52%
19 65.52%
No
34.48%
10 34.48%
Total 29 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forum Username - Discussion
#21
J*R Wrote:I can understand if it was necessary for logins, however a much better solution is to use PNUM's as I am sure I read somewhere earlier. On most forums the username that you register with is not always the same as the displayed username when you post a message.

If I change my name by law to JR can I keep my username as it is? ;P

Well initially I thought you were Jonathan Rowson... so ;P
Reply
#22
Andrew McHarg Wrote:Sorry Andy, I think I just screwed up your post! Sad

You did!
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
Reply
#23
During the last incarnation of this board it was decided at the AGM that a 'real name' policy be enforced. This was against the wishes of Andy Howie, the admin. At that time I argued against this policy, and was disappointed when it was voted through.

I was even more disappointed when the policy was only partially enforced. Sorry Andy, but your assertion that JR, AWIC and DMB etc. were known to you and therefore acceptable, was a biased decision. Again I argued that if a rule was made it should apply to all, but the rule was not enforced. (never managed to figure out who arf was)

A subsequent justification for this implementation was the position that this put Juniors in. It was suggested that a 'real name' policy would make them vulnerable to online predators. This I found particularly specious when I see what my four offspring, despite warnings, are willing to post on sites such as Facebook.

Basically I would argue that either everybody has to use their real name, a la Andrew McHarg's position, or pseudonyms are allowed.

By the way the 'Save Draft' option should eliminate the problem of posts going missing. When was that functionality added? How about a spell checker? (Andy we have already seen the poem about the worthlessness of such)
Reply
#24
Andy McCulloch Wrote:During the last incarnation of this board it was decided at the AGM that a 'real name' policy be enforced. This was against the wishes of Andy Howie, the admin. At that time I argued against this policy, and was disappointed when it was voted through.

Surely that makes any discussion irrelevant and the policy voted for at the AGM should be enforced?
Reply
#25
Andy McCulloch Wrote:During the last incarnation of this board it was decided at the AGM that a 'real name' policy be enforced. This was against the wishes of Andy Howie, the admin. At that time I argued against this policy, and was disappointed when it was voted through.

I was even more disappointed when the policy was only partially enforced. Sorry Andy, but your assertion that JR, AWIC and DMB etc. were known to you and therefore acceptable, was a biased decision. Again I argued that if a rule was made it should apply to all, but the rule was not enforced. (never managed to figure out who arf was)

A subsequent justification for this implementation was the position that this put Juniors in. It was suggested that a 'real name' policy would make them vulnerable to online predators. This I found particularly specious when I see what my four offspring, despite warnings, are willing to post on sites such as Facebook.

Basically I would argue that either everybody has to use their real name, a la Andrew McHarg's position, or pseudonyms

Em, no. I was the one who brought the matter to the agm. I am neutral on this and not bothered one way or the other.

The junior thing was in response to parents, note the plural, contacting me.

As for using initials, we agreed to allow as a person can be identified.

As for never being enforced. There was 1 person whom I did not change and she signed her posts with her real name. The 100s of members on the old board with weird names never could post but were being added at a rate that I could not keep up deleting
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
Reply
#26
George Thomson Wrote:I do not like the way that Various people including myself were FORCED to use full names whilst AWIC JR and Various others were not. Whatever is decided should be uniform and that will be and end to it.If people decide not to post as a result then they are being petty. However if people refuse to post as a result of this unfair situation then I agree. Although they would do better by fighting for fairness for all.

Good - more views to debate, although I'm not sure I appreciate the distinction between it being petty for some people not to post, yet apparently OK for others not to post.

There should be no compulsion - if people don't want to post then they shouldn't have to. And most members don't. We might want to ask ourselves why that is.

I agree that people should never have been forced to use full names. But then, hardly anyone ever used what I would call their "full name". That demonstrated the farce of the original debate - most people were not using their full names according to their birth certificate or their passport, but an abbreviated version of their full name.

This debate is slightly different as it is variously about "real name" or "indentifiable name". That is progress.

And I agree about fighting for fairness for all. We should be tolerant of those who wish to be different, or have different opinions, not chase them away or force them to conform.
Reply
#27
J*R Wrote:IIf I change my name by law to JR can I keep my username as it is? ;P

If the proposal to allow usernames that identify the poster is accepted, then I think you're OK. Well, you're not OK, you're JR. But you know what I mean.

Andrew McHarg Wrote:Well initially I thought you were Jonathan Rowson... so ;P

Jonathan can spell ;P
Reply
#28
Big Grin I don't get why people don't want to use their name. It's their name. You wouldn't get a passport or driving license and have "Pikachu" written on it, so why do it on a discussion forum. Anyone can randomly post anonymous comments, but what's the point? Why is there such a fear of people knowing your opinion. I don't think people have some kind of right to post anonymously as has been implied by some, any more than you have the right to pass through passport security anonymously.

Democracy will decide this one I think. If it goes the way of identifiable names then I expect it to be more than just a few letters, for instance JR could mean anything (for example I initially thought it could be Jonathan Rowson). If, as some have argued, it's easy to establish who's who anyway, then why not just put it beyond doubt - and save everyone else the requirement to investigate.

If some still decide to leave the forum and not post because the outcome of the debate/vote didn't go their way, then that's just being petty. It's not like we're asking you to put your credit card details in your signature (although there's a fund raising idea). It would be similar to disliking the result of an election and removing yourself from society.

Food for thought. Big Grin
Reply
#29
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.
Reply
#30
Quote:I don't get why people don't want to use their name. It's their name
I think you need to accept that some people are happier not using their own names. Perhaps they don't want their boss (or future boss) being able to spot they have been posting during work hours, perhaps they just feel it adds a certain colour/interest to the posts. Who cares?

Is the name of a player required before you understand or appreciate the moves they make in a game of chess? Clearly not: so why do you need to know the name of the poster before you take their post seriously or not (which is is an argument some have put forward in the past)?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)