+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Forum Username - Discussion (/thread-17.html)
Re: Forum Username - Discussion - Jim Webster - 02-09-2011
How about a simple compromise?
Add a column to the Members List where anyone can list an alias they wish to use on the board.
I presume it is a relatively straight forward modification to the members list table.
Isn't the members list only viewable by registered logged in members?
In which case only they can see the real name of the poster if they feel inclined to do so, but any casual readers/guests will only see the alias.
I can then go back to being a "FlyFifer" again
Maybe J*R would feel like posting again then, and by the way :- if
Quote:I can't help feeling that if J*R had not shared his initials with a former British Champion, and had instead been born "Gerald Nossiter", for example, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I wonder what George Neave would do then having his initials "pinched"?
Re: Forum Username - Discussion - Andrew McHarg - 02-09-2011
Well doesn't that just demonstrate the problem with initials? When are they ever likely to be unique? =|
I feel many people are just making a stance for the sake of being stubborn, than over any real concern they have. :\
Every regular poster now knows who J*R is, he doesn't seem to care that everyone knows that J*R is him. There was even a suggestion of having a post which shows the name of everyone who has a username which isn't in itself conclusive; and the point is what? With this method you have neither anonymity nor absolute clarity. So is this intentional confusion, or some kind of political stance because some guys seem to think they should have the right to post anonymously?
I think I have suggested a very fair compromise, that JR be changed to something like JRedpath. The vote seems to imply that the vast majority agree with this approach.
So are these guys seriously going to stop posting because a rule has been introduced (in a democratic manner), which they don't agree with. Well that's fine, they have that right; but don't you think it's a bit childish and pointless, not to mention pretty sad? ;|
I don't want to see anyone leave the board over this issue, but I don't see any fair way of concluding this debate other than to let the vote decide, and so far it seems pretty decisive.
Re: Forum Username - Discussion - AWIC - Please Change - 03-09-2011
Andrew McHarg Wrote:Well doesn't that just demonstrate the problem with initials? When are they ever likely to be unique?
Good point. However (and this is one reason I liked my original username allocated by David Gillespie) was that it was relatively uncommon. Unlike some “real names”, for example “David Gillespie”.
Andrew McHarg Wrote:I feel many people are just making a stance for the sake of being stubborn, than over any real concern they have. :\
Another good point, although, I’m not sure if that is directed at me, someone else, or yourself?
Andrew McHarg Wrote:There was even a suggestion of having a post which shows the name of everyone who has a username
There’s already a version of this post. Posted by you, as it happens.
Andrew McHarg Wrote:some guys seem to think they should have the right to post anonymously
In my last post I try to draw the distinction between anonymity and pseudonymity by giving an example of the former. There is also the concept of “identifiability”. Is anyone saying they have the right to post anonymously?
Andrew McHarg Wrote:I think I have suggested a very fair compromise, that JR be changed to something like JRedpath. The vote seems to imply that the vast majority agree with this approach.
I’m not sure that the vote implies anything of the sort, let alone that there is a “vast” majority.
Andrew McHarg Wrote:So are these guys seriously going to stop posting because a rule has been introduced (in a democratic manner), which they don't agree with. Well that's fine, they have that right; but don't you think it's a bit childish and pointless, not to mention pretty sad? ;|
Was the rule introduced “democratically”? Surely it was imposed, then amended under challenge with a post hoc attempt at justification with some unreliable polling? Oh, and is that some name-calling there??
Andrew McHarg Wrote:I don't want to see anyone leave the board over this issue, but I don't see any fair way of concluding this debate other than to let the vote decide, and so far it seems pretty decisive.
Here’s a suggestion – allow “identifiabilty” including initials. Problem sorted.
To address an earlier point – yes, I do have real concerns. There is an undercurrent of intolerance here that does Scottish Chess no favours. The initial (initial – geddit?? Oh, please yourselves...) attempts to round up and “out” all rebels who dared to be a little bit different set an unfortunate precedent.
Individuality appears to be discouraged, dissent to be crushed. That cannot be healthy and I believe it is no coincidence (and I know I am not alone in this opinion) that the standard of debate is regrettably poor and many ex-regulars are noticeable by their absence.
Re: Forum Username - Discussion - George Thomson - 03-09-2011
Will someone please deal with this as I would like to take out Chess Scotland Membership as the new grading system looks pretty cool. However I'm still protesting about the unfair situation regarding usernames on this noticeboard. I will not renew my membership until this is resolved as I feel that this is my only means of protesting.
P.S. Repeated complaints in the past have not been acted upon.
P.P.S. I do not care whether we use our names or not, but I do care about "SOME" being favoured.
Re: Forum Username - Discussion - Andy Howie - 03-09-2011
George Thomson Wrote:Will someone please deal with this as I would like to take out Chess Scotland Membership as the new grading system looks pretty cool. However I'm still protesting about the unfair situation regarding usernames on this noticeboard. I will not renew my membership until this is resolved as I feel that this is my only means of protesting.
P.S. Repeated complaints in the past have not been acted upon.
P.P.S. I do not care whether we use our names or not, but I do care about "SOME" being favoured.
George,
Who on this noticeboard is being favoured?
Re: Forum Username - Discussion - George Thomson - 03-09-2011
95% of the board users were persuaded, coaxed, forced call it what you will to alter Back to full names whilst "SOME" others were not.
I do not get why this basic fact seems to be eluding some people.
Re: Forum Username - Discussion - SRB - 03-09-2011
George's comments are well made.
I can imagine there are a few people fed up with the way this issue has been "dealt" with.
Re: Forum Username - Discussion - Hugh Brechin - 03-09-2011
I've set up a new poll on this, since I believe that the current poll is essentially talking about another issue entirely.
Re: Forum Username - Discussion - Andy Howie - 03-09-2011
George,
Lets clear this up. 95% of the posters, we have 52 members here at the moment, that would mean we are talking about 2 people. Who are the two you are talking about? Are you talking about using initials or are you talking about something else?
Re: Forum Username - Discussion - J*R - 03-09-2011
I think he is referring to the situation on the old noticeboard where some of us were allowed to keep our initials are others were apparantely "forced" to change to full names. His words, not mine!