Forum Username - Discussion

[AWIC - Please Change]

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”.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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??

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.