A Leaf out of East Dulwich Forum's book?

[alywin]

Re anonymous posters, I think this is easily solved. Anonymity is important to many people, but it could be seen as a privilege. If people want to make personal comments and aggressive grudge matches, then the moderator could ask them to use their real name, or be barred.

I hadn't been following this thread closely, but on the forum I moderate on we have a rule that anonymous usernames are not to be used as a cover to post very critical postings, but that those have to be signed with the poster's full name. Admittedly, the situation's a bit different there, but I think it does generally keep the tone a bit more moderate, and that it's not a bad policy to have.

[mikej]

So a moderator would have to delete a post where their name was not displayed in the case you describe, alywin?

That sounds like a lot of work!

Is that a practical suggestion? Just wondering!

[JRW]

We could have a rule, and when problems arise, the mod could private message the culprit. It is such a small group of aggro merchants, it would be extremely quick to identify them and ask them to use their full names. No response would mean the account is first suspended, then deleted. It would be there as a threat, to be used when necessary, not needing constant monitoring.

[alywin]

So a moderator would have to delete a post where their name was not displayed in the case you describe, alywin?

More a case of: if you're not prepared to put your full name to it, then don't post it!

[alywin]

It does on ours It's to make sure that people don't abuse their anonymity by hiding behind it and making highly critical or even potentially libellous comments about other people and institutions. I understand the professional reputation side of things because I have to maintain the same - but then I'm not making the potentially libellous comments anyway!

I guess it's horses for courses, depending on context. What works there would no doubt not work here.

[Rachael]

I post under my real name here and elsewhere. I too rely on my social media profile professionally. This means I don’t say anything online that could compromise that. For me, using a false name is simply a way of making it easier to do something I shouldn’t do. If I want to have conversations that I want to be sure remain separate from my online profile, I do it offline. Sure, that means there are some conversations I don’t get to enjoy, but really, is that such a great loss?

The real-life equivalent, for me, of using a pseudonym is a doctor or a lawyer putting on a false moustache and shouting out confidential information. It’s a poor professional choice.

[Rachael]

All of that is true, Rod. For me, I just don’t feel the need uninhibitedly express myself online. It doesn’t feel like either a right or something that brings a huge positive to my life. Weighing everything up, if I never posted on a forum again, I wouldn’t feel any loss. The NEED to express oneself online and the NEED therefore to anonymise oneself is, I think, something it is good to take a step back from and examine every now and then. You say 20 years ago it was possible to keep personal and private separate. It still is - take it offline. The need for a pseudonym is created by your choice to post online.

I realise I am only posting here under my first name, but there are plenty of clues for those who care to follow them to find my full name in other forums.

[Pally]

The only reason I remain anonymous is because of a bad experience a few years ago online, where the fact that my identity was public meant that one idiot felt it was ok to a) abuse me very personally online b) make outrageous claims about my behaviour which were completely untrue c) I suspect stand opposite my house at regular intervals......All because I questioned the abusive and aggressive posts being made about another poster! I have never posted rudely, aggressively or libellously and don't propose to start, despite my anonymity!!

[JGD]

.... the fact that my identity was public meant that one idiot felt it was ok to a) abuse me very personally online b) make outrageous claims about my behaviour which were completely untrue c) I suspect stand opposite my house at regular intervals.

I do not not make my id a secret and have used it on many forums. I have experienced the types of behaviour, excluding the personal presence, from one "weil kent eejit" who laboriously and repetitively posts his meaningless calumnies. A personal confrontation would serve no purpose.

My point is that apart from the personal confrontation, I suspect whether you use a nomme de plume or your real name is irrelevant and makes no difference to the degrees and frequencies of mis-behaviour. However if you feel more secure, I feel you should be entitled to that.

More surprisingly over the last 18 months or so, I have encountered occasions when I have found a friend behind such a nomme de plume when I was not previously aware of their presence.

IMHO, real and/or substantive threats issued in any form and particularly if witnessed when made personally should be made a matter for the police.

[Tim Lund]

I can't be at tomorrow's meet up, but I'll add here my tupporth on Forum aliases. In the main, I'm with everyone else in accepting that it should be the choice of the poster. If you use your real name, in full or not, or just initials, I think it gives some extra credibility, but no more than can be built up by an alias user who makes enough sensible posts. There are trade offs, and ultimately the quality of the Forum results from people, and in particular Admin, exercising their judgement.

Could some further explicit Forum rules help? Really not sure. I started going into some of those suggested, but it got too wordy, so you're all spared.

[Robin Orton]

I wish that in selecting pseudonyms people would avoid using three capital letters beginning with 'J. There seem to be hordes of them; I always get them confused and can't remember which of them are goodies and which baddies, or which gender they are. (There seems to be a new one called 'JRM' ?)

[JGD]

Sorry its confusing Robin.

Too late for me to change though.

JRM is not a member, it is one of the more polite abbreviations for Jacob Rees-Mogg. He is a parliamentarian of questionable repute.

John

[alywin]

For me, using a false name is simply a way of making it easier to do something I shouldn’t do. If I want to have conversations that I want to be sure remain separate from my online profile, I do it offline. Sure, that means there are some conversations I don’t get to enjoy, but really, is that such a great loss?

Well, you see, it would be for me. Apart from anything else, I am active on a few health-related forums because of family health problems, and I need to get help and advice. There's no way I would identify myself on those because in so doing I'd identify the family members and their problems, and that information is of course sensitive. It was bad enough when I first signed up for one of them and the software forced me to be aly_xxx until it was changed a few months later. I guess it's horses for courses, really, but choosing anonymity doesn't automatically mean I'm going to misbehave