Forum Username - Discussion

[AWIC - Please Change]

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.

Let me try to address those (and one or two subsequent) points.

People have a right to call themselves what they like.
People have a right to privacy.

This is what I would call normal. I am suggesting that we tend to maintain “normality” on this forum, rather than seek to impose extra restrictions. It is more common than not in my experience for internet fora to allow pseudonymity (including Facebook, by the way). Any security and legal implications appear to be able to be accommodated by such organisations.

The passport analogy is an interesting one. True, people submit to a private identity check when boarding an aircraft, for example, but it is entirely possible to travel incognito thereafter. When I travel, I don’t particularly want the general public to know who I am. I would argue this is akin to “proving” your identity to the Admin team, but not the readership.

There are reasons whilst people want to maintain some degree of anonymity. Expressing unpopular views can lead to intimidation. Mike Scott has spoken of this.

People may wish to retain some degree of privacy, rather than give away details of their personal lives.

There will be other reasons too.

You mention democracy. What does this mean in this context? Contributors to this forum? This is a stacked deck – you have sought to exclude people who may be expected to vote “no” by the initial conditions you have set. I think to describe this as “slightly biased” is a gross understatement. Also, as is common in many polls, the question is capable of misinterpretation, as are the results.

As regards JR – I disagree that this could mean anything. I think we know who this particular individual is. And there is no “requirement” to investigate. You can get along just fine not knowing who someone is – just read what they say.

If anyone wishes to refrain from posting, then that is their right, and I would not denigrate their motives.

As I said elsewhere we should question why so few people feel able to post here.

There are how many names in the grading database? 18,000?
About 2,400 active?
About 1,600 graded?
About 570 members?
And 53 registered users, to date.

I think 16 have voted for “identifiability” so far. Andrew, you suggested that those who haven’t voted would lean more towards voting “no”. That seems like a healthy majority against to me...