Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hiding behind pseudonyms  (Read 8907 times)
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #20 on: May 11, 2013, 01:36:06 PM »
ReplyReply

That's effectively here already. I've always found that stripping away anonymity reduces that kind of behaviour.

Absolutely.

-- John Doe
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5773


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2013, 01:38:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I in generally in favor of more freedom and less restrictions or forced rules. Thus if someone prefers to hide their identity, so be it. The consequence for them, however, is the high likelihood of diminished credibility.

As for the tone, much of it comes from us posting under real names (myself included).
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2013, 01:45:52 PM »
ReplyReply

The other side of this coin is that there are rather a nasty set of individuals on the internet, and while I like to contribute to conversations, I really don't want some of these characters stalking me across the internet. Certainly, knowing someone's identity does not stop people from slamming them. Pick any established photographer and I am sure you will find someone to dis them. The fact we would even link credibility to personality is odd.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2757



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2013, 01:46:50 PM »
ReplyReply

The consequence for them, however, is the high likelihood of diminished credibility.

As for the tone, much of it comes from us posting under real names (myself included).
I agree on both counts (about my tone, not yours).
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5773


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2013, 01:49:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Then how about a rule that forbids ad hominem comments? That you could police quite effectively

Why? As long as there are no obscenities involved, ad hominem work more against the user than the intended target. And again, it all depends on the definition, what constitutes ad hominem, and who is to say. The best response to it is not banning it, but exposing it as such.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2757



WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 11, 2013, 01:54:30 PM »
ReplyReply

The other side of this coin is that there are rather a nasty set of individuals on the internet, and while I like to contribute to conversations, I really don't want some of these characters stalking me across the internet. Certainly, knowing someone's identity does not stop people from slamming them. Pick any established photographer and I am sure you will find someone to dis them. The fact we would even link credibility to personality is odd.
I don't deny that. There may also be an issue with women wanting more privacy. I don't contend it's a simple yes/no, but I do think that on balance it would be beneficial.
Logged

theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #26 on: May 11, 2013, 01:59:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree on both counts (about my tone, not yours).

And speaking of ad hominem comments, you are using the credibility red-herring to try to force people to take your position by suggesting they will be marginalized. I judge people by what they do and say, not there nomenclature. In fact, this entire post is about you to trying to force a change you want to LuLa. This site is not about you. I would saying knowing your name has nothing to do with my opinion of you--your thread speaks volumes.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2013, 02:02:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't deny that. There may also be an issue with women wanting more privacy. I don't contend it's a simple yes/no, but I do think that on balance it would be beneficial.

Huh So you want people to use their name or not use their name if they choose. We have that system now. In fact, in some forums, I will identify myself if I think the forum is a positive and safe place to be. In others, I prefer to keep my anonymity.
Logged
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1496


« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2013, 02:32:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Why? As long as there are no obscenities involved, ad hominem work more against the user than the intended target. And again, it all depends on the definition, what constitutes ad hominem, and who is to say. The best response to it is not banning it, but exposing it as such.

A post that said "Chairman Bill, your photos are a pile of stinking effluent, not fit to be seen by decent folk", it would at least be a critique of my photos. "Chairman Bill, you are a pile of stinking effluent, not fit to be seen by decent folk" wouldn't, it would be an ad hom. Simples.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5773


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 11, 2013, 02:41:23 PM »
ReplyReply

... a pile of stinking effluent...

I said "no obscenities"... simple.

Besides, people on this site have been banned for less.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2757



WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 11, 2013, 02:58:10 PM »
ReplyReply

And speaking of ad hominem comments, you are using the credibility red-herring to try to force people to take your position by suggesting they will be marginalized. I judge people by what they do and say, not there nomenclature. In fact, this entire post is about you to trying to force a change you want to LuLa. This site is not about you. I would saying knowing your name has nothing to do with my opinion of you--your thread speaks volumes.
That's drivel. I am not trying to force anything, and did I ever say the site was about me? Er, no. I've simply made a suggestion which I think would be a good idea. What's more, I've not questioned your motives in the way you've just questioned mine.

Re credibility, I am not suggesting anonymous people will be marginalised. I am saying I find them less credible, especially if I've already doubt about what they're saying or their tone.
Logged

Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 762


WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 11, 2013, 03:19:42 PM »
ReplyReply

That's drivel. I am not trying to force anything, and did I ever say the site was about me? Er, no. I've simply made a suggestion which I think would be a good idea. What's more, I've not questioned your motives in the way you've just questioned mine.

Re credibility, I am not suggesting anonymous people will be marginalised. I am saying I find them less credible, especially if I've already doubt about what they're saying or their tone.

I tend to agree with you John.  I believe people should be genuine and own their comments, and that does not always happen here.  Being out in the open makes one consider what one says before pressing the send key.  It is still possible to have strong opinions but they are less likely to descend into personal attacks if the poster is up front.  Not sure how it would be policed, or even if it worth trying to enforce - I think it should be a free choice.  But mostly I'm suspicious of anybody conversing while hiding behind a screen.

Jim
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5773


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 11, 2013, 03:27:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Do not worry, thesmartguywitha645d, your credibility couldn't possibly go any further, even if you would reveal your identity. Wink
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #33 on: May 11, 2013, 04:16:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Personally, I don't mind people using a nom de plume if they want so to do - why should I? It's what they decide to communicate that counts, and since we probably don't really know one another in reality, a normal name is just as much a veil as anything else.

There isn't much rudeness in LuLa, and I honestly don't see a problem with the status quo.

Watching some programme about Startrek this evening, I was stunned to realise that one of the world's best-known phrases contains the line "to boldly go..." how offensive is that to some of us?

;-)

Rob C
Logged

jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 735


« Reply #34 on: May 11, 2013, 04:24:42 PM »
ReplyReply

A post that said "Chairman Bill, your photos are a pile of stinking effluent, not fit to be seen by decent folk", it would at least be a critique of my photos. "Chairman Bill, you are a pile of stinking effluent, not fit to be seen by decent folk" wouldn't, it would be an ad hom. Simples.

Quite frankly, I do not think either of these is acceptable.  Both are attacking the person, just in different ways.  There are better ways to say it.

I know that I have gotten caught up in the emotion of some recent debates/dialogs.  It can get quite frustrating when any point you are trying to make is ignored and the apologists or promoters of the company line attack you as being stupid for having your position.  Where I have come across too strong, I apologize...and will try to be calmer in the future....however, I should be able to have my opinion and state it as well as any other here.

I find it interesting that some of those proposing "connections" and the right to ban people are often the biggest attackers and users of the four letter 'S'-word and calling people dumb for not agreeing with their position.

While I do not think it necessary or that it changes anything, I have added my full name to my signature.  More info you do not need, though I have nothing to hide and will respond if asked.
Logged

John
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2757



WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 11, 2013, 04:56:52 PM »
ReplyReply

"to boldly go..." how offensive is that to some of us?
Not me. I blame Dryden. Now if folk get their "it's" and "its" wrong.....
Logged

David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 881


WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 11, 2013, 05:11:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I remember we had this conversation a while back, and so many of us dropped our noms de plume that it quite stressed the LuLa team. Instead of working at the members' list they were wanting to go off and do silly things like photograph.
Logged

johnvr
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #37 on: May 11, 2013, 05:12:01 PM »
ReplyReply

No, I don't agree people shouldn't be able to use pseudonyms. Years ago, I reacted to something Michael wrote using my full name. Now, that one reaction regularly pops up when I google my name. I don't like it. Not because I didn't mean what I said or regret saying it. No, mainly because that comment and some others on other photography sites show up amid or above google hits that pertain to my profession, journalism. When people google my full name, I want them to find me as the journalist first, photographer second.

This goes further than that, since I also do model photography and used to travel in the Middle East, where that wouldn't go over well. Even more reason to use an alias.
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2097


« Reply #38 on: May 11, 2013, 05:34:36 PM »
ReplyReply

No, I don't agree people shouldn't be able to use pseudonyms. Years ago, I reacted to something Michael wrote using my full name. Now, that one reaction regularly pops up when I google my name. I don't like it. Not because I didn't mean what I said or regret saying it. No, mainly because that comment and some others on other photography sites show up amid or above google hits that pertain to my profession, journalism. When people google my full name, I want them to find me as the journalist first, photographer second.

This goes further than that, since I also do model photography and used to travel in the Middle East, where that wouldn't go over well. Even more reason to use an alias.

Interesting take John, however it is possible to allow your name and other information to be displayed in the footer of every post even if you do use a pseudonym - just look at David Sutton's posts as an easy example.
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3948



« Reply #39 on: May 11, 2013, 05:34:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't post under my real name (nor, surprising as it may seem, under a portrait of myself) because I'm not a professional or well-known amateur, none of you will ever have heard of me and knowledge of my identity won't, or shouldn't, have any impact on your perception of the rationality of my views or the veracity of what I write.

That said, I'm perfectly content to reveal myself, in all my glory, to anyone who's sufficiently interested to ask; and there's ample information about me in my posts to make finding my name a trivial task for anyone who has access to Google.

Michael knows who we all are with as much accuracy as is possible in the circumstances and can act accordingly if necessary.

I don't understand what problem the suggestion is attempting to address.

Jeremy
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad