Poll: Should non-anonymous posters be allowed usernames which are not their full names?
This poll is closed.
Yes
44.00%
11 44.00%
No
56.00%
14 56.00%
Total 25 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Username Discussion
#1
I simply don't feel that the existing poll reflects or even implies this question (it rather serves to put another nail in the coffin of anonymous posting), so I'm setting up a new one.As long as posters' real identities are published and freely available to other noticeboard users, should initials and shortened names be allowed?
I am here suggesting a system whereby, as long as Andrew and Andy are aware of who the user is upon their registration (including a PNum, both to verify identity and facilitate correspondence with grading data), and as long as a 'key' of usernames to identities is located somewhere on the forum to enable other users to identify them (the 'Forum Usernames' announcement thread could be easily adapted for this purpose), the likes of AWIC, JR, AWT and SRB can continue posting under their current handles.
If you think that this is an acceptable compromise, please vote 'Yes'. If you disagree with this idea, please vote 'No'.
Reply
#2
Hugh,
Close the vote as we now have a vast majority in its favor! Big Grin
Reply
#3
lol
Reply
#4
Okay so what it would seem is that the only argument/confusion (for most people), is what is actually defined by "identifiable"?

=)
Reply
#5
Well, at the moment you've already got a thread above where a lot of these guys are 'unmasked'. We could potentially formalise that, rename it as some sort of 'user key'. Add in a note on the user profile if anyone ever clicks on that, maybe.
Apart from that, the only restriction I'd see as sensible would be 'your handle must be in some way derived from your name'. So, for instance, Graeme Kafka could register as GK, but Andrew Green couldn't.
Reply
#6
When I properly map the PNUMs to the users, the naming could be done automatically. I wouldn't be keen on doing that all manually though, because that sounds like it could be a lot of work for not a great deal in return (realistically).

More ideas:

- We could have a "Welcome" forum, where new users can make a topic to tell everyone who they are.
- We could ask users who use initials to have a signature with their name in it.
- We could ask users to put their name in their profile somewhere.

- Or any combination of the above, or none of the above?

Thoughts?
Reply
#7
Ive been thinking of any possible reason anyone could give for voting "NO" and I still can't think of any!
Reply
#8
Re: Forum Username - Discussion

by J*R » Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:30 pm

This could be my last post if forced username changes are applied tomorrow.

Some people might see this as a reason for voting NO Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin

I have to say that abusive or argumentative posters should be 'named and shamed' but other than that I don't have a huge problem.

This may be my first post agreeing with Joe!!!
Reply
#9
Just read through the previous thread on this subject and found no reason given for requiring poster's names to be public knowledge. Several references were made to an AGM motion but that was shown to be incorrect as it only required that the posters be know to the admin. Some expressed the view that they could not understand why anyone would not want to use their own name but that is hardly an irrefutable argument for enforcing the policy - in fact it is no arguement at all.

Can anyone who has voted for the use of full names put forward a reasoned argument for it?
Reply
#10
Maybe people just like to know who they are talking to Mike? Is it really so hard to believe that people consider it important to know who they are saying things to? I think that's a perfectly reasonable argument, whether you agree with it or not. Big Grin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)