real name in signature

King Monkey · Post by **King Monkey** » 05 Sep 2007 19:28

What about a 3rd option of listing it as a 'Strong Recommendation' in the Rules? So there is no penalty for not observing it, but explain that it is a considered a common courtesy on Modified to include your full, real name in your sig in the interests of perhaps more 'worthwhile' discussion and familiarity within the community.

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 06 Sep 2007 01:25

I think it would be alot easier for people not to, because its so much harder to bother.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 06 Sep 2007 03:19

dyalander wrote:Responsibility and community - as I mentioned above.
Again as I mentioned above - while the responsibility aspect is, I think fairly clear, the community aspect is contentious given that "stregnth of communiy" is not simply something measured by the size of the community but also the bonds between members, and the potential contribution the rule would make to any sense of strength is arguable.

Well argue it.

Tell me you are convinced that stopping members from posting who do not have their name in their signature will create better bonds between members and make the community stronger.

Put forward your argument of what improvements we can expect to see from such a rule change. Put forward some tangible way we can judge if the decision is a success or not.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 06 Sep 2007 18:15

In regards to Ian's suggestion - If its just a suggestion it shouldn't be in the rules. If you want we can make another list of "suggested" behaviours but that seems pretty pointless to me.

In regards to Jeremy's post - firstly, most users are operating under the impression that it is currently a rule that they have to keep their real name in their signatures - so if anything there would be little change to the current situation if we were to add a specific penalty for not putting your real name in your signature to the satisfaction of the mods - in the short term a small number of users including yourself would be given time to comply or will have whatever penalty is decided upon enforced, probably removal of your ability to post pending compliance with the rule.

As I have said repeatedly I don't think the community aspect can be tangibly measured.

However, I have also explained clearly why I think the rule makes users more responsible for what they post. What tangible difference does this make? - I think if we were to remove the rule and make it full slather (we would need to announce that it has been removed because as I said most users are still under the impression they must have their name in their signatures) I think there would be a negative effect on the forum manifesting itself in higher levels of conflict, as well as higher numbers of aggressive and derogatory posts. However - we do not keep records of any of these things so such a thing would be impossible to measure with any accuracy. Furthermore, this would not occur immedietly as most of us already know one another, but as new users filter onto the forums having always been anonymous if we were to remove the rule, you'd eventually see this effect occur. I'm sure you can find plenty of studies that show how anonymity reduces inhibition particulalrly in terms of behaviour on the internet. These studies speak to the kinds of negative effects we will see on these forums if we remove the rule.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 06 Sep 2007 19:33

So you honestly believe that removing people's posting rights from the forum if they do not have their name in their signature will improve the forum?

A yes or no answer will be fine.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 07 Sep 2007 23:53

You asked me to explain why I think it would be a good idea in terms of tangible benifits. I did so - why don't you speak to the claims I've made about anonymity and responsibility? Do you think that if you just keep the discussion going we'll never make a decision? If so you are mistaken.

- A one word yes or no may be fine for you but to me the question is misleading because currently the vast majority of users already comply with the proposed rule and out of the few that do not, even less are regularly acting in a disruptive manner. Moreover the reasons behind the answer are just as important.
If you don't care about the reasons and justwant the word then it would be "Yes".
But I think you're also interested in the reasons -
- the 'rule' as it stands is not being exploited to the worst possible degree so, to change the rule now probably wouldn't have that muchof affect on the current levels of disruptive behaviour
so in this respect the answer is seemingly no
*However*
- consider why - currently the vast majority of users have their real name in their signatures and have done so over a fairly long period - certainly long enough such that even to remove their names now does not make them anonomous. I believe we will encounter more disruptive behaviour *in the future* if we make no effort to reduce anonymity. Changing the rule is not so simply about making an improvement in terms of changing the current behaviour on the forums its about safeguarding and maintainting the status quo, it is a preventative measure.
In this respect the answer is yes - it will improve the forum by making it less prone to anonomous trolls.
Think of it like a bike lock - it doesn't mean your bike's not going to get stolen - if someone really wants to steal it they will. But it raises the bar slightly - and in many cases enough to mean that there will be softer targets making your bike less likely to be stolen than the one next to it with a shittier lock.

King Monkey · Post by **King Monkey** » 08 Sep 2007 10:31

Are they officially 'Moderation Rules' or 'Moderation Guidelines'? Because if they are 'guidelines' then there is space to include suggested behaviours.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 09 Sep 2007 00:23

dyalander wrote:You asked me to explain why I think it would be a good idea in terms of tangible benifits. I did so - why don't you speak to the claims I've made about anonymity and responsibility? Do you think that if you just keep the discussion going we'll never make a decision? If so you are mistaken.

- A one word yes or no may be fine for you but to me the question is misleading because currently the vast majority of users already comply with the proposed rule and out of the few that do not, even less are regularly acting in a disruptive manner. Moreover the reasons behind the answer are just as important.
If you don't care about the reasons and justwant the word then it would be "Yes".
But I think you're also interested in the reasons -
- the 'rule' as it stands is not being exploited to the worst possible degree so, to change the rule now probably wouldn't have that muchof affect on the current levels of disruptive behaviour
so in this respect the answer is seemingly no
*However*
- consider why - currently the vast majority of users have their real name in their signatures and have done so over a fairly long period - certainly long enough such that even to remove their names now does not make them anonomous. I believe we will encounter more disruptive behaviour *in the future* if we make no effort to reduce anonymity. Changing the rule is not so simply about making an improvement in terms of changing the current behaviour on the forums its about safeguarding and maintainting the status quo, it is a preventative measure.
In this respect the answer is yes - it will improve the forum by making it less prone to anonomous trolls.
Think of it like a bike lock - it doesn't mean your bike's not going to get stolen - if someone really wants to steal it they will. But it raises the bar slightly - and in many cases enough to mean that there will be softer targets making your bike less likely to be stolen than the one next to it with a shittier lock.

Well when we made the rule (I don't know if the discussion is still in the forum, or if it was deleted), we explicitly made the decision that we would never ban people over not having their name in their sig. I'm fairly sure that was a unanimous decision too.

When you look at the other people on this forum (apart from myself) who do not have their names in their sigs, I think removing those people from the forum would have a much more negative effect than the supposed problem of anonymous trolls. How many anonymous trolls are there? What's to stop the anonymous trolls from simply putting a fake name in their sig? How will you possibly be able to enforce the rule that it's actually their real name.

If I go and sign up a new account right now, and just make up a name, and don't tell people who I am, won't that be even worse than me posting without my name in my sig? Won't this encourage more people to actually post under fake names, rather than not having a sig at all?

Are you making this decision based on any actual evidence at all?

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 09 Sep 2007 03:02

If you're so concerned about forum policies then why did you step down as a moderator, or administrator, or whatever you were?
You seem to be the only one who is concerned with this

Jeremy O'Wheel wrote:When you look at the other people on this forum (apart from myself) who do not have their names in their sigs, I think removing those people from the forum would have a much more negative effect than the supposed problem of anonymous trolls

I completely disagree.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 09 Sep 2007 03:48

Erik Chan wrote:If you're so concerned about forum policies then why did you step down as a moderator, or administrator, or whatever you were?
You seem to be the only one who is concerned with this

I resigned because I had completely disagreed with the direction the forum was taking and saw no way of resolving the issue. The only way I could see progress being made was if either Emily or myself resigned, since we had completely different views of the purpose of this forum, the role of moderators and appropriate usage of the forum. Since I would never suggest that somebody else should resign, my options were either to be part of the problem, or not part of the problem.

How did you feel about all the secret forums that were part of modified Erik? How many of them still exist?

If you completely disagree with me Erik, which anonymous trolls are, or ever have been a problem? How would forcing people to put their real names in their signatures reduce the problem of anonymous trolls?

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 09 Sep 2007 14:23

Jeremy wrote:How did you feel about all the secret forums that were part of modified Erik? How many of them still exist?

I was against it and refused to participate, so I have no idea if there even are any anymore... I suppose that elitist one is probably there somewhere. I don't see what that has to do with the issue at hand, however.

Jeremy wrote:If you completely disagree with me Erik, which anonymous trolls are, or ever have been a problem? How would forcing people to put their real names in their signatures reduce the problem of anonymous trolls?

Well... they wouldn't be anonymous... because their names would be right there... So that's the problem solved right there.

Wu_ · Post by **Wu_** » 09 Sep 2007 17:27

Erik wrote:
Jeremy wrote:If you completely disagree with me Erik, which anonymous trolls are, or ever have been a problem? How would forcing people to put their real names in their signatures reduce the problem of anonymous trolls?
Well... they wouldn't be anonymous... because their names would be right there... So that's the problem solved right there.

Can't u just make some bogus accounts by using different emails and bullshit names put in the signatures??

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 09 Sep 2007 18:07

Erik Chan wrote:
Jeremy wrote:How did you feel about all the secret forums that were part of modified Erik? How many of them still exist?
I was against it and refused to participate, so I have no idea if there even are any anymore... I suppose that elitist one is probably there somewhere. I don't see what that has to do with the issue at hand, however.

You were asking why I resigned, and I was telling you. When I left as admin I think there were 4 secret forums, I had just written up a long argument of why they should be deleted, and saying that we should have a public vote on the issue, and Emily responded calling me a hypocrite, asking what authority I had to delete those forums and saying that if I really mean what I was saying, I'd be advocating a public vote on the issue (which is exactly what I had done in the post she was replying to). This was a debate that had been going on for a month without anything being changed. It was particular frustrating because I was responsible for the creation of 2 of those secret forums, could see that they had not achieved their desired effect (in fact they'd achieved the opposite) and was trying to follow through with the decisions we made when we created them (ie. they were created as a trial, they didn't succeed in their goals, they were supposed to be deleted).

[/quote]

Jeremy wrote:If you completely disagree with me Erik, which anonymous trolls are, or ever have been a problem? How would forcing people to put their real names in their signatures reduce the problem of anonymous trolls?

Well... they wouldn't be anonymous... because their names would be right there... So that's the problem solved right there.[/quote]

Which anonymous trolls are a problem?

What will stop those trolls from creating new accounts and putting fake names in their signatures?

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 09 Sep 2007 22:44

That's why I made the bike lock analogy - we can't possibly 100% stop people getting around the rule - but that's not say that it will not have some effect in reducing the amount of anonomous trolling.
Anonymous trolling is not a major problem on these forums because, in part, we have the real name in signature thing and poeple think its a rule. You may have decided that no one would be banned for not complying with it backwhen you made the rule - but it when was that ever made clear to users? When it was announced did the mods make it clear what actions would or wouldn't be taken if the rule was broken? Did the rule not operate on the assumption that there was some penalty some implicit threat behind the requests to put their names in thier signature? Was it not posted that those who did not have their names in their signature's days were numbered?
Now that mods are trying to be clearer about what will and will not happen when the rules are broken we either disclose and make good on the implicit threats made when the rule was brought into effect and maintain the status quo - or remove the rule and allow for the potential for the forums to change for the worse - a change for the worse I think will occur based on the many studies which show that anononymity often translates to ruder, more agressive behaviour, particularly online. And the opinion that having the rule will reduce the amount of anonomous posters on the forums even if it will not completely reduce it 0.

Wu_ · Post by **Wu_** » 10 Sep 2007 06:42

I think the comparason your making dyalander isnt very accurate. If a person breaks locks, bringing along a simple tool would be comparable to making fake accounts and having them accessible for rude behaviour that shouldnt be traceable to the actual user.
It is not really a big deal to make an account.. it just takes a minute. the completion may take longer because it has to be authorized but if u were to put in a few more requests (while your waiting for your first one to go through) in a random timeframe nobody would really notice and you would have enough accounts to work with for a while.

I have no real basis to say this but imo your trading anonymity for fake "real" identities. You'll have seemingly real people acting a certain way and you will be characterizing them in a certain way but in actuality they dont exist and it is just an alterego from some other user that u might like alot.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 10 Sep 2007 18:10

How can you possibly claim that there won't be a single user who complies with the rule instead of making a fake account? I've never claimed that this would end anonymity on the boards I simply maintain that it will reduce it.

Not only will some (not all) people go somewhere else to cause trouble, there will be a number of footbaggers who come on to modified who will be compelled to use their real name when they otherwise wouldn't and having done so they will act differently online - they will feel more accountable. Sure, some will use fake names but some will comply and this positive effect the rule will have, in my opinion, justifies it.

Even now there are a number of users who only have their real names in their sigs because they think it is a rule - out of these users a small proportion whould probably be more disruptive if they had been allowed to be anonomous from the beginning.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 10 Sep 2007 18:12

How do you know that?

Do you have any evidence, or this actually just speculation?

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 10 Sep 2007 18:19

do you have any evidence i'm wrong?

and what about the questions I asked in the post I made regarding the initial implementation of the rule?
From the initial announcement when the rule was first made:

attention.
we have decided that real names must be present in every forum members signature unless your username is your real name. if your name isnt in your signature by two weeks time your posting privileges will be revoked until it is changed. this is required even if your forum name is your real name. just for consistencys sake. sorry to be so harsh. but we decided its important.

How am I doing anything other than bringing the current rules into line with the way the vast majority of modified has already been behaving.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 10 Sep 2007 18:44

You're the one arguing for change; the burden of proof is on you.

When the rule first came into play, we purposefully left things vague because we wanted people to feel like it was a rule, even though we weren't actually going to enforce it. In fact the only time when we did enforce the rule was when I posted in one of the stickied topics on the rule about a clean up of the sticky topics and Sam Colclough responded with a tirade of abuse about how he'd never put his name in his sig (we actually knew he didn't have it there, and were following through with not enforcing the rule).

I think this rule change is especially concerning because the majority of people who express problems with putting their name in their sig are new people to the forum, who don't know anybody, and it's understandable they don't trust people on the forum enough to put their real name in their sig.

Given time, most of these people end up putting it there, and I'm sure part of the reason was the empathy for their feelings shown by the mods, but if that changes to an arbitrary "you can't post until you have your name there" policy, those people will either not join, or they'll put fake names there. (I'm saying this with the experience of the .org forum, where it is compulsory to have your real name as your posting name).

I would say that it's much better for footbag to make things welcoming to new players (especially the ones who don't know anybody on the forum) and to show compassion and understanding for how they feel, rather attempt to keep them, and the exceedingly rare anonymous trolls, off the forum.

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 10 Sep 2007 18:51

Well, I'm not a mod anymore, so I don't feel like I have any authority to say certain things, like how people should act, and what rules they should follow and whatnot. I just feel that real names are important, and a very positive element of the forums.

Honestly, I feel that the arguments on both sides in this discussion are quite weak.

Jeremy wrote:Which anonymous trolls are a problem?

I never said anything about anonymous trolls. I suppose you are trying to make a point that there aren't any? I see this becoming much more of a problem if accountability were to be removed, through potential anonymity. Like it's been said, basically, if nobody knows who you are then why would some people bother to be considerate, or productive, or helpful?

Jeremy wrote:What will stop those trolls from creating new accounts and putting fake names in their signatures?

Not much, I suppose. I guess if someone uses a really obviously fake name, the mods and admin can question it, and the admin have access to IP info and such (although I suppose that becomes a lot less useful once new users without required real names start filtering in (but that addresses Wu's issue of creating bogus email accounts)). If a user acts like an ass, they'll get a warning, fake name or not.

Geez, my "argument" sounds really weak too.
I guess it comes down to community.
Modified is a huge part of the footbag community. I don't really see why someone who actually cares about the community and being a part of it would want to use a fake name... it just seems counterproductive. If one of those "trolls" uses a fake name then nobody will care, because they will just stay on everybody's ignore lists. If a good player, or someone "significant" in the community uses a fake name, then they are just kind of cutting themselves short -- they won't be taken as seriously.
Just some thoughts.