Your Real Name (and Date of Birth reminder)

[Tom Westbrook]

Nitish: Just for deterrent value. People sometimes act better if their name is attached to their activities in some fashion.

Bob: Thanks for the kudos. We don't mind some push-back on decisions--we can make stupid decisions just like anyone else, but the moderators think this is a reasonable thing to ask the members.

[Nitish Kanabar]

Thanks Ralph and Tom -

While I understand your reasons, I don't quite agree with them. There isn't anything that prevents one from entering a false "real name" and there isn't a way for you to verify this. I could call myself "Thomas Jefferson" in the forums and enter that as my "real name" and no one the wiser. Doing so totally defeats any deterrent purpose that you think will be served by asking members to fill up an additional field. At best, it gives a false sense of courtesy and security.

You guys do a great job running and maintaining this forum and this post does not in any way attempt to state otherwise. My point is that having members fill in an additional field called *real name* does not fulfill the stated purpose of said requirement.

[hermit]

Nitish: Just for deterrent value. People sometimes act better if their name is attached to their activities in some fashion.

How is it a deterrent if you have absolutely NO way of verifying the name? Mr. Gittings has called me "chicken s..." (very thinly veiled). Mr. Baker, a moderator, suggested that I could be considered "suspect" for using a handle. And there is more. So, giving a name doesn't seem to stop the name calling. Please show me in any of my posts where I have 'crossed the line'.

Yes, it would be easier to simply log in and put down Jane Doe, age 14, but that is not the point. Feel free to call me Hermit in any personal correspondence. I obviously don't care. If hat is the only name I give, why should I?

It is becoming quite clear that we need to establish a pecking order here based on name recognition. I think this is the REAL issue here. At this point I am not inclined to change my mind about just wiping my existence from the list. Looks like it would make lots of folks, moderators included, happy anyhow.

[Tom Westbrook]

I think we already know you aren't Thomas Jefferson, or you'd be in court defending yourself in a number of paternity lawsuits

Whether it's false or not, courtesy is courtesy. Beats the alternative.

[Ralph Barker]

FWIW, I took Kirk's comment as being aimed at the action, not the person, and thus within guidelines. And, my comment was aimed at no one in particular - just a general observation of how others see people who choose to use a handle, rather than their real name. For those of us who occasionally work with models as a result of Web contacts, being "real" on the 'Net is almost essential.

Certainly, there's no convenient way to verify what is entered in one's profile. We like to think, however, that people here will be honest - even if they choose to limit what is made public.

[Marko]

In general, I think security is quite good here.

Generally speaking, that's exactly what all those whose data has been stollen in the past thought. The problem with security is that one can have neither too much nor too little of it, depending on one's perspective.

Data theft is a very big concern these days, and it will only get bigger. Identity is the most valuable data one can have because one can neither change it nor replace it.

You should have the right to remain publically anonymous, though I personally find that kind of odd and a bit chicken s...

As far as people not wanting to use their real name publicly, I wouldn't be too quick to ridicule them. If you haven't had a negative experience (yet), consider yourself lucky, but also do consider that some of us have and it only takes one to make an epiphany. I have both been robbed electronically (through my bank) and had some unpleasant exchanges related to my last name, so I am not making this up.

I do, however, understand the reasons behind this requirement but I don't fully agree with the reasoning offered. Year of birth should basically be quite enough to verify the age requirement, you don't really need the full date, except when a member is less than 15 years old and could easily be programmed in as a special case.

Just my $0.02

Oh, and yes, this is my real name. Trust me on it...

[hermit]

FWIW, I took Kirk's comment as being aimed at the action, not the person, and thus within guidelines. And, my comment was aimed at no one in particular - just a general observation of how others see people who choose to use a handle, rather than their real name. For those of us who occasionally work with models as a result of Web contacts, being "real" on the 'Net is almost essential.

Certainly, there's no convenient way to verify what is entered in one's profile. We like to think, however, that people here will be honest - even if they choose to limit what is made public.

OK. You can call my actions 'chicken s....' but I shouldn't take that personally? And doing it that way makes it "within guidelines"?

At this point I just want to know if my account is closed will my posts be wiped. I think that would be the only fair way to do it since I won't be around to defend any of them.

[Nitish Kanabar]

I think we already know you aren't Thomas Jefferson, or you'd be in court defending yourself in a number of paternity lawsuits

Whether it's false or not, courtesy is courtesy. Beats the alternative.

I think paternity suits are covered by statute of limitations.

But you don't know for sure that I am indeed "Nitish Kanabar", do you? Nor for that matter do I really know that you are "Tom Westbrook". We believe these handles to be real names because we don't see any reason why the other party would lie (atleast on this particular forum). At the same time we each provide only as much information about ourselves as we are comfortable with providing on this forum.

Isn't it courteous to respect a person's wish to remain anonymous, especially online? If that person follows the rules of the forum, then why does it matter if they fill in a field called "real-name" or not? Why force them to fill-in a fake name just so that they can participate on this forum?

[Ralph Barker]

. . . At this point I just want to know if my account is closed will my posts be wiped. . . .

If you send us an e-mail requesting that your account be deleted, we'll do our best to also delete any posts that we think are yours, if that is your wish. Obviously, we can't make any guarantees about posts from other potential hermits.

[Nitish Kanabar]

FWIW, I took Kirk's comment as being aimed at the action, not the person, and thus within guidelines. And, my comment was aimed at no one in particular - just a general observation of how others see people who choose to use a handle, rather than their real name. For those of us who occasionally work with models as a result of Web contacts, being "real" on the 'Net is almost essential.

Ralph, in fact most security experts will view giving out your personal information on the internet (unless you absolutely HAVE to as you stated for business reasons) as unadvisable. Using a net-moniker or handle does not automatically make someone suspect, atleast in my eyes.

Certainly, there's no convenient way to verify what is entered in one's profile. We like to think, however, that people here will be honest - even if they choose to limit what is made public.

Exactly! Most people here ARE honest and we should respect the fact that they choose NOT to lie on the real-name field. They choose to limit what is made available to the public, including the moderators. Why force them?