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
#31
Must say it is a tad disappointing that those in favor of posters using only real (and full) names have been unable to put forward a single justification, beyond a personal preference for knowing the name of other posters, for their desire to impose their view on the whole of the community. I can find no argument here why this view trumps others wish not to be identifiable to the world as a whole.

Well?
Reply
#32
Because there isn't one!

Lets just hope that common sense prevails and the right decision is reached.
Reply
#33
Mike S
Should I justify my choice with a reason other than my personal preference? It is my preference and opinion, that is enough in my view. I like to know who I am talking to, looking up another thread to discover who a set of initials are is somewhat inefficient (yes, showing my teutonic beliefs there I know!). I simply see no logic in being anonymous in a community such as CS. Are folk just emotionally attached to their old usernames? ;P

Tbh my initial feeling when the issue was raised was that some folk might prefer anonymity as a means of submitting controversial or contentious posts, but I can clearly see that is not the case. Bear in mind I have only been a CS member for just over a year and was never able to post on the old board, so I am new to the scene, although I was able to read the old board (and did so frequently - made for interesting reading!). While there was some vehement disagreement on some threads, and clear difference of opinion, it never got out of hand.

You've your own opinion, to which you are perfectly entitled, and I have no argument with that. I do not intend to impose my view on anybody, it is my belief and I stick to it. To juxtapose, I see no real arguments for or against which trump each other, so personal preference it is!

Amusingly we seem to be the opposite of the ECF forum, where they happily identify themselves and throw in the controversial posts more as a matter of course than otherwise!!! Big Grin
Reply
#34
What I continue to find bizarre is the "majority" in favour of "full names". This could mean scaring off any Tom, Dick or Harry from posting, and presumably Alex, Andy, Jim, Mike and Phil (not to mention Geoff) would have to change their names as well. Is that what people really want?
Reply
#35
At the risk of being tagged a wishy-washy liberal, can I suggest a compromise?

We could allow Chess Scotland members to post under initials or pseudonyms, but require non-members to post under a usual form of their name.

The right to post initially or pseudonymically then becomes a benefit of membership. It may not be enough to persuade many non-members to join CS, but it's a small safeguard against misuse of the noticeboard.
Reply
#36
Like the idea Donald.

A similar idea would be to ask people to donate say £5 to use initials or pseudonyms and this could go towards the purchase of the sensory boards. I would be quite happy to do that.
Reply
#37
Andrew,
Don't understand why there should be any confusion for the admin knowing who is who provided a real name/PNUM is required when signing up. All I and others suggest is that there is an option for users to use something else in the public domain. Obviously if ADMIN says that it does increase his work load then fair enough.

BTW why was the last discussion locked?
Reply
#38
Last topic was locked [edit: this topic - now unlocked] so that the conclusion of the debate could be the last thing that everyone reads. I don't see why there is any point in debating further; as the same points are now being repeated. There are clearly differences of opinion, and everyone made their points quite clearly; so there isn't much point in going on further about it.

The discussions can continue in there if people still feel the need. When I posted that we would make a decision this weekend, that was the first post for a while in the topic. It reignited it somewhat, but the topic was more or less dying prior to that.

EDIT: I hadn't read Donald and Joe's most recent posts, when posting the above.
Reply
#39
Please Read

Conclusion: http://www.chessscotland.com/forum/viewt...p?f=4&t=18
Reply
#40
Hi Mike M.,
My point about one view trumping another was based on the observation that if initials or some other alias is allowed, it is not forced on anyone who wants to use their real name (like me!). Also I note that this board allows you to define 'foes' thus allowing you to apply a personal block on anyone you do not wish to debate with. So if you do not want to see JR's posts then define him as a foe.

If it becomes a requirement that real names are to be used then those that do not wish to do so have no options other than complying or not posting. This worries me as the more people involved the more interesting the discussions.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)