rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:25 pm

The subject has been raised with me about the use of pseudonyms by some contributors to the forum.
The use of various other names and words as user names is quite acceptable.
There is though, a question of the fairness of having anonymity when making various points on the forum.
Not to know who is facing you is a little unfair when the others in discussion are known.

Some members are known, despite not revealing their real names.
It's a little discourteous to enter discussions without revealing an identity.
You may remember that we had dealings with Elizabeth Hogan
who was not real although some of us know his real identity.

I would appreciate it if those in this category would consider others and think about putting
their names to their points.
I hope that in any event the forum doesn't lose those I'm referring to or those who resent
the absence of a true identity.

Please consider the matter. Input from members would be appreciated.
If there is an overriding reason please let me know so that I can say that
a pseudonym is warranted,

Alan

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:38 pm

Alan,

Do I understand you to mean that you will now retrospectively be auditing whether people may use pseudonyms or not?

If it is discourtesy that you would wish to discourage or weed out then it would be very supportable to impose greater censure - or even a barring period - in overt cases of it.

I think no more nor less of inputs by virtue of knowing or not knowing who it is that posted them.

A 'no pseudonyms' policy would only have teeth if people were required to re-register, and withoutr them. A number might not, though I sense that you (or others) might not mind that very much.

G

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:57 pm

Taking account of more than 400 on a memberlist of 564 being obvious pseudonyms or at least improbable real names.

So, more than 70%

G

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:49 pm

Touigh I did relish the two possible peers of the realm and the possible Irish Chief of his Name.

G

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:42 pm

Pseudonym refers to the signing of a contribution. There is no need to change usernames.
What I'm really trying to avoid is total anonymity. I don't think anonymous pieces are
quite fair on other parties, especially if it is a contentious issue.

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:18 pm

I must confess that I and several other regular contributors have had great fun in trying to figure out who G really is.

I, personally, can't see why anyone would want to stay anonymous. It's been great to meet other contributors at the NAM and Brecon and engage in live discussion.

However, I have to say that I respect any contributors wish to remain anonymous and at the end of the day I would rather have them on the forum than not at all. No one can deny the valuable input G has put in.
I'm wondering if the moaners can match it.

Yours sincerley,

Edward Bear

Wink

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:26 pm

I would prefer people to use their forenames when signing posts. No reason other than I consider it a more friendly approach.

Each to their own though.

Peter (real name)

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:51 pm

I must confess that I think it a matter of courtesy to append one's name to a contribution, particularly when the debate is contentious. I cannot think of a valid reason for hiding behind a pseudonym but am happy to hear arguments in favour. The value of a contribution is not a justification, in my opinion.

KIS

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:02 pm

Keith
I agree, but if someone wishes to remain anonymous then they must have a reason and, I fear, all we are going to achieve here is to drive away yet another major contributor. I wish people would read between the lines here.

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:38 pm

Alan wrote:

You may remember that we had dealings with Elizabeth Hogan
who was not real although some of us know his real identity.

Care to share who this was?

thanks

Guy Incognito

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:42 am

Unless its essential I'd rather be who I am and be proud of it rather than hide behind a pseudo. I have nothing to hide, not like some who have changed their names....on a regular basis.

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:39 am

I was thinking of using the pseudonym "Neil Aspinshaw" - but somebody had already started using that name !!!

Bill

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:47 am

Elizabeth Hogan was the person who gave pseudonyms a bad name. Rolling Eyes

Peter

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:28 pm

A large proportion of the membership and even a fair chunk of the regular and active "contributorship" have always appeared under a pseudonym. This is clearly also the case with many other forums and message boards, including serious historical ones.

As far as I can recall, we have never had a single case (apart from dear Liz Hogan!) in which a problem has occurred in a debate as a result of a contributor posting under a pseudonym. There have been plenty of moments when things have "hotted up" unnecessarily in the past, but never for this reason. All in all, I have no problem at all entering into debates with pseudonyms - in fact, I almost think of these as their real names eventually!

I can understand the occasional wish or temptation to prefer to know the identity of the poster, however, especially if a particularly knowledgeable contributor consistently makes strong points in some of the more important, long running or fascinating debates. It is only natural to wonder "Who is this? Perhaps an expert or a published authority?" As in all forums of this kind, one usually stumbles upon their identity almost naturally. The very specific expertise of someone like Galloglas couldn't have been concealed forever but I'm perfectly happy with his continuing to post incognito.

The Liz Hogan example was completely different, involving a crassly provocative attempt to wind up forum members and a poorly concealed and amateurishly conceived scam intended to produce "doctored" reviews for certain publications. The cravenly stupid idea merely served to prove that real identities can rarely be concealed by the internet.

Peter

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:59 pm

Alan,

Staying within the spirit of your very reasonable viewpoints (and not forgetting, as none of us should, that you provide us all with this much appreciated online opportunity):

"What I'm really trying to avoid is total anonymity. I don't think anonymous pieces are quite fair on other parties, especially if it is a contentious issue."

It should be entirely possible to exchange views on 'contentious' issues, no matter who it is who has the views. A 'known name' is not a privileged one and nor should anonymous contributors be allowed to contribute without staying within your very inclusive and reasonable rules of engagement.

Due account also needs to be taken off the imperfect nature of short posts as a communications medium. There are several obvious instances in the archaeology of the sites, this one and its predecessor, where what was probably a coolly and dispassionately entered post nevertheless and unintentionally set the fur flying in the perceptions of others.

It is the quality of the information, rationale and argument that matters, and it behoves us all to have tolerance and forebearance where we might not agree. In most respects it does not matter whether people agree wiyth each other or not since so very many aspects of the Zulu campaign cannot be assessed and described with certainty, even with the highest quality of objective hindsight.

However, though an occasional and sometimes unpardonable defaulter myself, I would fully support you in your efforts to maintain the discipline and integrity of the site. So, if in your opinion, people have "transgressed the unwritten law" (good old Monty Python) then I would readily support your judgement in declaring it, and malefactors might need to be "given a smack" (Arthur Daley). Quite how it is to be done is something that is best left to your own good judgement.

Apart from the named published authors, and those obviously holding appointments in the museum and history world (like Bill Cainan and Martin Everett before him) I have no idea whatsoever who anybody else is. Therefore, be they Dukes or Dustmen, they might as well be using pseudonyms also as far as I am concerned.
Quite a few people on this site have perfectly valid personal and professional reasons to maintain their anonymity, whichj appesared to be offered by your entry procedures, and is pretty much the terms on which at least 70% of the Memberlist subscribed. The online community of Zulu War enthusiasts is much broader than just a score or so of people who all know each other and like to meet from time to time in a pub for a curry.
I don't and don't, and I'm not the only one.

G