real name in signature

This section is specifically for serious non-footbag debate and discussion.
dyalander
Atomsmashasaurus Dex
Posts: 980
Joined: 05 Sep 2005 22:25
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by dyalander » 12 Jul 2007 18:31

Also of all the forums to have this discussion in, why did you choose "bags and equipment?" Isn't this a sticky topic in every forum? Doesn't really make sense.
That was my mistake - I've moved it to Discussion: http://www.modified.in/footbag/viewtopic.php?t=2965
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.

dyalander
Atomsmashasaurus Dex
Posts: 980
Joined: 05 Sep 2005 22:25
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by dyalander » 12 Jul 2007 18:53

That was certainly the argument I pushed when this policy was first implemented, and that policy appeared to work very well, but apparently it changed. I don't know why.
I don't know how much of a change this is from when you were admin but the current policy is simply that mods ask people to put their name in their signature if it is pointed out to them, or if they notice, that a user doesn't have it in there already and it isn't their username. We don't actually do anything more than ask and discuss it with the user. There have been a number of cases in which users have given us explanations we were willing to accept. There have also been some where users have not given explanations and just refused, and some where users have gotten pissed off and become rude. We think there might be a better way to put down an acceptable policy in the guidelines and want the communityto think about exactly what they want from this policy - that's why it may change.

The current policy works fine when people are either willing to put it in or willing to give us a reasonable reason. It doesn't work so well when users aren't so willing.

Also, up until now, to my knowledge, not wanting to people to find your posts here has not been a valid reason. Do people think that it should become one? Surely this would vastly undermine the effect of any rule we made meaning we'd have to go with 2 or 3?
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.

User avatar
Moxie
Taphophile
Posts: 3610
Joined: 13 Jul 2004 09:46
Location: USA

Post by Moxie » 12 Jul 2007 19:56

dyalander wrote:We don't actually do anything more than ask and discuss it with the user.
There have been a few instances where the mod staff put the person's real name in their signature or in place of their rank, or said that it's a requirement on the forum so either put their name in their sig or get locked from posting until they are willing to. The previous wave of mods were more direct in getting people do put and keep their name in their sig.
dyalander wrote:Also, up until now, to my knowledge, not wanting to people to find your posts here has not been a valid reason.
It doesn't seem like a valid reason to me since the only time someone will see their signature is if the person looking is signed into Modified, meaning that having your name in your sig doesn't make it any more likely for someone to find you using google.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Emily Kulczyk

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 12 Jul 2007 21:04

Sure, we're talking about people who pay us money so that they can keep track of what we're saying, and expose us if we say the wrong things. We're talking about people who are actively involved in the promotion of a political party they're opposed to so that they can find out what the party is doing. If you do search for my name, you do come up with modified. It's only a small step from there to register an account, and find my posts.

User avatar
Moxie
Taphophile
Posts: 3610
Joined: 13 Jul 2004 09:46
Location: USA

Post by Moxie » 16 Jul 2007 16:54

Look on google for Jeremy O'Wheel and you'll find only one Modified link on the first page- a thread with his name in the title. If you look in the other threads starting on the 2nd page of the google search, you'll see that his signature doesn't have anything to do with Jeremy coming up. It's because someone is talking to or about “Jeremy O'Wheel.â€
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Emily Kulczyk

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 16 Jul 2007 18:10

The PMs I got were demanding that I put my name in my signature, they were not asking why I wasn't.
Yo Jeremy can you please put your name in your signature.
Cheers.
Yo, Jeremy you need to put your name in your sig asap please.
Those aren't messages that generate conversation or suggest that there is any choice in the matter.


Also you should read over my last post again, which wasn't very long, maybe you can respond to what I was actually worried would happen, and not something different. It seems that every time I have any conflict with you Emily, you misread what I write. Why is that?

User avatar
sanuke okumatzu
Fearless
Posts: 672
Joined: 13 Nov 2005 11:05
Location: halfway sane
Contact:

Post by sanuke okumatzu » 17 Jul 2007 14:15

I think.... people should have the choice to put their real names in their sig...if not here's an idea for all the idiots scared to have their identity stolen....



suck it up and live with it
As the universe is curved, there cannot be a straight answer...

Image
-Robert Baker-

User avatar
dp
Egyptian Footgod
Posts: 1222
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 16:25
Location: ohio

Post by dp » 17 Jul 2007 15:50

Nobody said anything about having their identity stolen. Do you read before you post?
Danny P.

dyalander
Atomsmashasaurus Dex
Posts: 980
Joined: 05 Sep 2005 22:25
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by dyalander » 17 Jul 2007 20:24

It would have been just as easy for you to have responded with your actual reasons for not putting your name in your signature than to have made the response you actually sent me, so I don't buy the "you left me no room for reasonable discussion" thing for a second - especially given that I think I have always shown myself to be reasonable and approachable.

But thats getting away from the point which is what we should do about names in sigs.
Te reason we would have the rule is because a) it fosters community and b) it forces users to take responsibility for what they say.
The problems are that a) it can never be 100% enforceable and b) may mean users are not free to speak their mind on particular non-footbag related issues.

The question is how do we best manage this.

In my opinion if we have a rule and allow mods to make exceptions Jeremy's case should not be an exception because it should not be up to modified to offer users a sanctuary because that users workplace situation is such that their online comments have heightened consequences. To do so would undermine the point of the rule such that we might as well not have it, and leave it to users to either foster community by using their names or not.
If we have a rule exceptions would only be made where it would not hinder the two points at the heart of the rule. I.e. when users don't go by their real name in the community.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.

User avatar
PegLegHolly
Swashbuckler
Posts: 2475
Joined: 02 Aug 2006 17:43
Location: Cleveland, OH
Contact:

Post by PegLegHolly » 17 Jul 2007 21:01

i like how people are supposed to have their real names in their signature because this helps me put a real name to pictures and videos i see here on modified.

when i went to nyj someone came up to me and asked "hey, are you holly? nice to meet you finally," and im like "who are you?" he said "im danny petrick" i was like.... uuhh and he said "you know, pirate man". i didnt know his name cause i was a newb, not because he didnt have his name in his signature... but after that, ive been paying more attention to real names rather than the modified name.
Holly Mathews
peglegholly.com

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 18 Jul 2007 20:23

dyalander wrote: Te reason we would have the rule is because a) it fosters community and b) it forces users to take responsibility for what they say.
What's your evidence for those claims? The community does not appear to be any stronger, and people don't talk less shit than prior to the rule happening. I don't see how you can claim that as fact. Surely you are making baseless speculations.

User avatar
bob
Le Meurtre Faux
Posts: 518
Joined: 30 Apr 2002 12:55
Location: parkersburg, west virginia
Contact:

Post by bob » 19 Jul 2007 08:45

I agree with both points but if you are looking for evidence to back them up, thats gonna be a stretch.

but you can't see how knowing someones real name would foster a community? Maybe the online community isn't any stronger, but the footbag community is.

For instance: if i go to an event only knowing ken som. (using him because he is a friend of mine who i don't think will care) as Ceiling Fan, and everyone says "hey ken" i'm not gonna have any idea who they are talking about.

surely knowing peoples names builds a better footbag community.
Bob Glasser

dyalander
Atomsmashasaurus Dex
Posts: 980
Joined: 05 Sep 2005 22:25
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by dyalander » 19 Jul 2007 17:53

You're right Jeremy, those aren't solid facts at all - the way in which something fosters community is not something that can be easily measured - as for the responsibility aspect, again the responsibility an individual feels is not easily measured - but thats why we're discussing it, to get a sense of those things and to test those assumptions and formulate the best policy.

If you don't think having the rule would do those things that's fine - but a number of other users seem to disagree.

However I would say that at the very least the reason you have issues related to your workplace and political comments you make here speaks directly to the notion that having your real name in your signature makes you responsible as a individual for what you say to a greater degree than if you don't have to attach your real name. i.e if you make certain political comments attached to your name there may be a specific response which would not arise if you did not have your name attached so clearly in that respect you are more responsible as an individual.

As far as community the argument would be best personified by the people who say that they feel a greater sense of community being able to recognize posters by their names - of course there is a strong argument that making the jump from handle or nickname to real name is not exactly a difficult one, and indeed there are many strong communities built around the use of nicknames.

As I said its about balancing what you think it is possible to achieve against what you think it is impossible to achieve.

What I want to know is exactly how do you think we should manage the situation - should we have a rule with exceptions - if so on what basis should we make them OR would it just be better to have no rule and let the community monitor the situation for itself - if people like knowing real names they can easily pm each other about it.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.

dyalander
Atomsmashasaurus Dex
Posts: 980
Joined: 05 Sep 2005 22:25
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by dyalander » 29 Jul 2007 19:25

I intend to seek further views from some other users who haven't posted here yet, and discuss it further with the other mods. We will follow it all up after worlds.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.

dyalander
Atomsmashasaurus Dex
Posts: 980
Joined: 05 Sep 2005 22:25
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by dyalander » 02 Sep 2007 21:21

Ok Well its after worlds so I think its time to resolve this. The mods will discuss it further over the next couple fo weeks and make a decision so get any more feedback in now.
The choices we are considering will be to

1. remove the real name in signature rule and leave it simply as a courtesy.
So users will point it out to each other but will not be obliged to do it and there will be no penalties for not putting your name in your signature.

2. reword the rule such that it will be up to the discression of mods to enforce - and users who do not comply to the satisfaction of the mods will be unable to post.
This would of course requires a high level of trust in the mods.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.

Muffinman
the gimp
Posts: 10373
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 15:34
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Muffinman » 03 Sep 2007 00:06

Real names are good.
If you're so scared about being identified on the internet, then get off the internet. It's pretty simple.

User avatar
Moxie
Taphophile
Posts: 3610
Joined: 13 Jul 2004 09:46
Location: USA

Post by Moxie » 03 Sep 2007 12:02

dyalander wrote:2. reword the rule such that it will be up to the discression of mods to enforce - and users who do not comply to the satisfaction of the mods will be unable to post.
This would of course requires a high level of trust in the mods.
There's already a need to have a high level of trust in the mods, "new" rule or not. :?

Real name in sig is important. It was a rule before the rules were written down and posted, there's no good reason to change it now.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Emily Kulczyk

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 04 Sep 2007 04:51

Well it became a rule in mid 2003. There were already written rules before that.

The reason for the rule was because the mods at the time believed it would help make the community stronger.

I fail to see how excluding people because they don't want their real name attached to their posts would make the community stronger.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 04 Sep 2007 04:54

Sorry for the double post; no edit option.

I just wanted to add that all the changes in the way the forum was run in the past (while I was in charge) were made with clear goals for the change. Some of those changes failed (although they haven't been rolled back).

It would be good to know what the specific goal is, in further enforcing this rule (beyond the current level). Specifically what do the advocates think that it will achieve?

dyalander
Atomsmashasaurus Dex
Posts: 980
Joined: 05 Sep 2005 22:25
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Post by dyalander » 05 Sep 2007 18:40

Responsibility and community - as I mentioned above.
Again as I mentioned above - while the responsibility aspect is, I think fairly clear, the community aspect is contentious given that "stregnth of communiy" is not simply something measured by the size of the community but also the bonds between members, and the potential contribution the rule would make to any sense of strength is arguable.
Who wears short shorts?
Dylan Govender.

Post Reply