Removing monikers

Rev Hellfire

Sparks wrote: »

In fact, forget that hypothetical, focus on the current state of play: What if we had forums which dealt with nightmare personal issues;

...

How would mandatory disclosure of identity affect those forums? How would that impact the people who currently use those forums as an outlet, as a source of information, as a support group, as a touchstone to remind them that they're not utterly abnormal/useless/worthless/idiotic/etc?

Your proposal could do real harm to these people Rev, so what's the benefit of what you're talking about? What's the pro to those cons?

The personal issues forum is exactly the sort of forum where I think this has merit, here we are dealing with people in fragile states asking strangers for advice. I personally believe that if someone is talking about things like depression, family breakups, etc anything which ties you firmly to your response is only a good thing. The same is true of the medical forum, legal, etc.

The point here is and I may not have expressed it succinctly, is that I would expect only those who are verified in some manner and identifiable would be allowed post as they wish all others would be subject to having their posts approved. This would mean that those who have taken up the role of advisers would be incentivized to be truly tied to their advice, but it would not restrict others from offering their advice merely delay it. The net result I believe would be better advice offered to these individuals.

At no point (other than for the admins) did I ask for people to be 'forced' to provide their real identity. But if you offer yourself as a forums regular 'expert' on a given subject matter there are cases where you should be required to disclose yourself imho.

oscarBravo

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I personally believe that if someone is talking about things like depression, family breakups, etc anything which ties you firmly to your response is only a good thing.

"I went through something similar myself a while back..." - do we really want people to have to publicly identify themselves while offering support in cases like this?

Sparks

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I personally believe that if someone is talking about things like depression... anything which ties you firmly to your response is only a good thing.

In this country? Where we have a near-medieval social stigma attached to any and all forms of mental illness? And where anything you post on the internet, ever, lives on forever in search engines? And where you get googled routinely when applying for a new job?

Can't say that strikes me as a good idea Rev, for a multitude of reasons.

The net result I believe would be better advice offered to these individuals.

Don't we have site-wide rules prohibiting posters giving or soliciting medical or legal advice on boards.ie?

But if you offer yourself as a forums regular 'expert' on a given subject matter there are cases where you should be required to disclose yourself imho.

The whole 'wisdom of crowds' philosophy does point to that being unnecessary. With enough people looking in, bad advice gets spotted fast and pointed out faster.

As to trusting posters because they give their real name, I don't think that's a safe idea for anyone to do, regardless of the rules on boards. I've personally encountered qualified professionals who have made mistakes I consider unforgivable, the serious consequences of which I then had to live with permanently. Those encounters were in "the real world", with people I met face to face, who were professionally qualified and who were professionally practicing at the time in the relevant fields. If under those conditions of disclosure I can still get burnt, I don't see how just knowing your real name is going to be any protection or guarantee.

Rev Hellfire

Sparks wrote: »

In this country? Where we have a near-medieval social stigma attached to any and all forms of mental illness? And where anything you post on the internet, ever, lives on forever in search engines? And where you get googled routinely when applying for a new job?

Exactly, and if you are replying to large numbers of these sorts of posts you should be identifiable.

Sparks wrote: »

Don't we have site-wide rules prohibiting posters giving or soliciting medical or legal advice on boards.ie?

That may be so, but it clearly doesn't stop people from offering advice on such topics. For better or worse people have presented themselves as experts in particular areas. Just as your GP can't go by the name D34thM4st3r-5000 offering this professional opinion while remaining unidentifiable neither should they if that is the role they wish to adopt.

Sparks wrote: »

The whole 'wisdom of crowds' philosophy does point to that being unnecessary. With enough people looking in, bad advice gets spotted fast and pointed out faster.

Or alternatively the bad advise gets reinforced.

Sparks wrote: »

As to trusting posters because they give their real name, I don't think that's a safe idea for anyone to do, regardless of the rules on boards. I've personally encountered qualified professionals who have made mistakes I consider unforgivable, the serious consequences of which I then had to live with permanently. Those encounters were in "the real world", with people I met face to face, who were professionally qualified and who were professionally practicing at the time in the relevant fields. If under those conditions of disclosure I can still get burnt, I don't see how just knowing your real name is going to be any protection or guarantee.

What you say is very correct, the difference is people will stop and think more before offering advise knowing that they can be identified easily and associated with it.

Darragh

From the perspective of (a) an employee, (b) someone who is known beyond Boards.ie, and (c) someone more acquainted than most with the Data Protection Act, Privacy Legislation and human rights, my thoughts on this are simple:

Want to use your own name on Boards.ie? Please do.

Want to use a nickname? Please do.

Don't want people to know who you are from your posts? Don't post personally identifiable information.

Want people to see what you write and have the power of the authority of who you are behind it? Use your real name, but - and this has been proved by Boards.ie itself - most often it's the quality of your posts that people will respect, not your username.

Unless you're representing a company officially - or yourself for that matter - it really doesn't matter what your name is. From our perspective, we like to know who is behind the username - that's why we have Official representatives on the site - but you're under no obligation to use your real name on Boards.ie or to divulge who you are etc.

I think part of Boards.ie's success is allowing people to ask for advice, get feedback, contribute and participate without being worried that others will see what they type - for whatever reason. Sure, that has a price, and we get rid of the shillers, the spammers and the muppets, but overall I see no reason to change it.

The Hill Billy

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The personal issues forum is exactly the sort of forum where I think this has merit, here we are dealing with people in fragile states asking strangers for advice.

The same could be said of all internet discussion forums. People who ask for advice on the net - whether it be for a personal issue, a recommendation for a nice brand of coffee or the time of a bus - need to be aware that those who respond may not be truthful or honest in their replies. That's life.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I personally believe that if someone is talking about things like depression, family breakups, etc anything which ties you firmly to your response is only a good thing.

I couldn't disagree more. I've happily offered advice based on personal experiences on some of the above topics in PI, but only because of the semi-anonymity that my moniker provides. I'd be damned if I wanted to make it plain as day to every Tom, Dick or Harry that may know me in real life that I had gone through some of that shít. That's my business & nobody else's.

stovelid

I value my (relative) anonymity far more than my very real enjoyment of the site.

Overheal

Im not even sure how you think RealID would be analagous to boards.ie anyway. Blizzard is in a fine position where they have a hold of your billing information. Aside from subscribers, which are about ? 1% of users? Boards doeesn't have anything remotely of the sort.

They've already had it kinda blow up in their face,

Easygainer wrote: »

Did you see the wowriot blog and ensuing drama on US forums?

It was poetic justice. Blue poster decided to show how easy it would be by posting his real name.

Within minutes his address, phone number, photos from his facebook.... everything were posted.

Blizzard's response, of course, far from taking pause to consider the problems decided to ban those who exposed the flaws...

consumerist.com on RealID wrote:

On one blog (which we won't link to) fans made their point by taking the real name of a Blizzard employee, revealed on the forums, and uncovering every bit of information they could about him, including his age, relatives' names and ages, phone number, home address, and that he apparently lives with his mom.

So not even taking into account employers, theres also the wonderful world of stalking and the potential for identity theft.

I'd be out of here in a hurry.

Rev Hellfire

Oddly enough the example you give as a 'bad' example is actually a good example from my perspective. If someone wishes to offer large amounts of legal/medical/physiological advice they should be identifiable just as any expert would be in those areas. A casual passerby would not have such a requirement, but would be subject to having their posts approved.

Naturally it would be nice if those doing the approval also where ideally professionals in the area (though that would not be realistic) but at least also identifiable.

Now I recognize the weight of opinion is against me, but I still believe its a valid viewpoint.

Cabaal

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Oddly enough the example you give as a 'bad' example is actually a good example from my perspective. If someone wishes to offer large amounts of legal/medical/physiological advice they should be identifiable just as any expert would be in those areas. A casual passerby would not have such a requirement, but would be subject to having their posts approved.
.

I can see where your coming from but boards doesn't exist to give legal/medial/physiological advice, if you want this info go to a GP or a solicitor.

If somebody is relying on some random persons view for legal advice then frankly they are idiots,

vodafoneproblem

I think it would be boardsicide for all the reasons mentioned. It would give anyone wanting to start a rival general Irish forum a great selling point!

Rev Hellfire

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

I think it would be boardsicide for all the reasons mentioned. It would give anyone wanting to start a rival general Irish forum a great selling point!

I don't believe so, perhaps it would offer it to those who wish for a free for all on dangerous topics.
But I'd rather put boards welfare behind that of the 'clients' who come looking for advice on the aforementioned topics and too hold those who have placed themselves as experts in said fields under increased scrutiny.

Overheal

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I don't believe so, perhaps it would offer it to those who wish for a free for all on dangerous topics.
But I'd rather put boards welfare behind that of the 'clients' who come looking for advice on the aforementioned topics and too hold those who have placed themselves as experts in said fields under increased scrutiny.

Clients being boards members that value their privacy, evidenced wholly by their desire to post unregistered?

Nevyn

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

What you say is very correct, the difference is people will stop and think more before offering advise knowing that they can be identified easily and associated with it.

There have been two irish sites set up in the last year which mirror pi, on of which has what looked a lot like the charter at the time used on it.

These have this policy, you can pick a username but the admins want your real name and your real email address both with your ip means you can be traced back. You have to log in with your real name every time you use the site.

The notion is to make you think before you post.
While it may work on sites like those it is an impossible thing to implement here where the Support forums in Soc are part of a wider site.

Having 'verified' account only allowed to post in those forum and pre modding all the rest would be far far too much work and you woudl end up with an elite cabal posting all the time and would be far to dangerous and skewed.

Which so call self appointed experts would these be?
I never claim to be a professional or an expert, I know I can be wrong and if someone has better or more up to date info then I do I am thankfull for it as I means I learn more.

flahavaj

The day that this happen is the day boards might as well cease existing altogether. I'd be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of users value their anonymity and privacy far more than they enjoy posting on here. It'd be tumbleweed central in no time.

Rev Hellfire

Thaedydal wrote: »

There have been two irish sites set up in the last year which mirror pi, on of which has what looked a lot like the charter at the time used on it.

These have this policy, you can pick a username but the admins want your real name and your real email address both with your ip means you can be traced back. You have to log in with your real name every time you use the site.

The notion is to make you think before you post.
While it may work on sites like those it is an impossible thing to implement here where the Support forums in Soc are part of a wider site.

I don't believe there is any technical impediment to doing so.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Having 'verified' account only allowed to post in those forum and pre modding all the rest would be far far too much work and you woudl end up with an elite cabal posting all the time and would be far to dangerous and skewed.

Perhaps, maybe there are alternative means to accomplish the same goal.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Which so call self appointed experts would these be?
I never claim to be a professional or an expert, I know I can be wrong and if someone has better or more up to date info then I do I am thankfull for it as I means I learn more.

I'd include any highly active participant in a forum readily offering advice. Since there is no barrier to entry beyond providing your identity; cabals are less likely to form since participation or not is solely at the discretion of the poster not some third party.

Nevyn

Why do you think this is currently needed?

Overheal

Thaedydal wrote: »

Why do you think this is currently needed?

And also bearing in mind the reason Blizzard went the way it did was, apparently, to combat trolls. Not anything to do with people offering legal or medical advice which, afaik, is still not allowed here.

Rev Hellfire

Thaedydal wrote: »

Why do you think this is currently needed?

Because I think anyone offering potentially life changing advice should not do so anonymously, no matter their good intentions.

oscarBravo

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Because I think anyone offering potentially life changing advice should not do so anonymously, no matter their good intentions.

Do you have any examples of how this has been a bad idea? Things that have gone wrong, that wouldn't have with real names?

Nevyn

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Because I think anyone offering potentially life changing advice should not do so anonymously, no matter their good intentions.

Was there anything in particular which brought about this line of thinking or was it one you had all along and only are expressing now?

Sparks

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I don't believe there is any technical impediment to doing so.

I don't think it's the technical side of things that anyone here has been referring to as a reason to not do this. Technically, it's completely doable (with the standard caveat that it'd take time to get the technical work done, time that is a fairly precious commodity).

Sparks

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Because I think anyone offering potentially life changing advice should not do so anonymously, no matter their good intentions.

And again, I think you're glossing over the point that a lack of anonymity carries precious little protection with it. The kind of person who will offer poor or ill-informed legal, medical or other professional advice as professional advice like that will not baulk at merely being asked to divulge their name. Their psychology doesn't work that way. They just believe they are right. And it's not arrogance (at least not all the time) - it's a well known and well studied facet of human psychology. There have been a few very good presentations on TED of late on this point if you're interested in reviewing them.

I see your motive for this now, and it's laudable - people should take more care about the advice they give out, both in here and out there; but I don't think your approach will work. I think the existing boards.ie rules against proferring medical or legal advice (which are enforced with infractions, bans and deleted posts) is more effective, and probably represents a reasonable limit to how far we can or should go in pursuit of that goal.

Rev Hellfire

Sparks wrote: »

I think the existing boards.ie rules against proferring medical or legal advice (which are enforced with infractions, bans and deleted posts) is more effective, and probably represents a reasonable limit to how far we can or should go in pursuit of that goal.

Perhaps it is, there's certainly nothing to be lost in considering these things.
Anyway I think its gone as far it will, so I'll bow out now.

DeVore

Actually, I would LOVE to allow people to have this option. But it would have to be that, an option. If people chose to expose their personal name (say after a small CC charge to ensure its really them) then they should have that option and I would certainly give more weight to what accounts such as that said.

On the flip side, forcing this on people would be madness and a Bad Thing... We can always reach out and touch the trolls (in a very bad place) so we can achieve the end that way whereas we lose all the people who post nicely but enjoy a sense of detachment from their "private lives" if we did things the other way.


Personally, more people know me as DeVore then as Tom Murphy so it kinda works like that for me anyway. Anything I say is something I have to personally stand behind but thats fine, I dont mind and I like it that way. I'm aware that it wouldnt be cool for others.

However, the option to do so (ie: to Put your money where your mouth is, in a sense) would be cool. In fact we are already being approached by Lawyers and Architects to be verified in order that people will take their points more seriously and be sure that they come from a qualified professional who is willing to stand over them.


Interesting times...
.
DeV.

28064212

DeVore wrote: »

However, the option to do so (ie: to Put your money where your mouth is, in a sense) would be cool. In fact we are already being approached by Lawyers and Architects to be verified in order that people will take their points more seriously and be sure that they come from a qualified professional who is willing to stand over them.

Problem: Boards verifies someone as a Lawyer. Lawyer posts an opinion (and every post on Boards is an opinion, regardless of the poster's qualifications). Other user acts on that advice. Lawyer turns out to be wrong (maybe they specialise in a different area of law, maybe they were just wrong). Both Boards and the lawyer are now culpable, because Boards have verified the lawyer.

Also, a credit card doesn't verify qualifications, just names. I can prove my name is what I say it is, and I can build a business website saying I'm a qualified lawyer, but that doesn't mean I am. Is Boards going to set up relationships with the Bar Council, the ACCA, the universities, the HSE/IMO to verify that a person has done what they claim to have done?

Sparks

28064212 wrote: »

Both Boards and the lawyer are now culpable, because Boards have verified the lawyer.

Technically, the Bar verified the barrister. Boards.ie just verified his or her identity.

And given that there are several practicing barristers and lawyers who regularly post to their own blogs with opinions and general advice, I think we wouldn't be breaking much ground on the legal theory of disclaimers and such.

Is Boards going to set up relationships with the Bar Council, the ACCA, the universities, the HSE/IMO to verify that a person has done what they claim to have done?

It's hardly a new thing to verify a person's credentials like that. Employers do it all the time when checking a person's resume.


None of which invalidates your other point, btw, in that of course a professional can make mistakes. People need to learn that a qualification does not confer infallibility.

AckwelFoley

My name is Brian Geraghty. *waves*

I hide nothing. Allot of members, some i never heard of know im from Athlone

My face is pretty well known to many members - i get at least 2 pm's a month with the "did i see you sitting across from me on a train to cairo last week"

I go as Snyper as its cooler, not however likely i will be changing it by deed poll, as i doubt i will be able to renew my rifle licence with a name like snyper.

I can understand that some / most people prefer to use a handle, however, i dont really care.. if some loon comes to my house stalking me, i'll just eat them.. nom, nom

Overheal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Geraghty


..... lies!

Darragh

Fascinating (and timely) reading regarding the Blizzard community (not the band) and their plans to remove names.

http://hellmode.com/2010/07/06/why-real-id-is-a-really-bad-idea/