All must use their own real names, even here in the non-member discussion board

[Larry Sanger]

You must use your own real name, even here on the "Non-member discussion" board.  Sorry for the inconvenience, but this is a part of our unusual (and we think refreshing) "culture," which we ask you to respect.

[Eugene van der Pijll]

May I point out that that leaves no place to leave anonymous feedback? See the thread at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,830.0.html , where a useful correction was suggested by an anonymous user, and where you stated that this forum was the preferred channel for these kind of contributions.

[Hayford Peirce]

There was at one point a long, and acrimonious thread, started by someone named Harebrained in which, in spite of his nickname, some fairly important issues were thrashed out. A number of people, including me, derided his meaningful participation while using such a, well, hairbrained nick, but, I'm pretty sure, he was never instructed that he had to use his real name in the non-member discussion area. Am I wrong about this?

In any case, he turned out to me one of many one-note johnnies, so to speak, those who come to CZ for a while, pose difficult questions, poke the lion with a sharp stick a couple of times, tell us what we're doing wrong, how we should be doing things, ie, their proposed way, and then vanish, without ever, I would say, having made any contribution at all to any of the articles....

[Hayford Peirce]

Oh, yes, here's the discussion about Privacy, begun by our hairbrained friend:

http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1634.0.html

[Aleta Curry]

... those who come to CZ for a while, pose difficult questions, poke the lion with a sharp stick a couple of times, tell us what we're doing wrong, how we should be doing things, ie, their proposed way, and then vanish, without ever, I would say, having made any contribution at all to any of the articles....

You're not wrong.  It's so easy to give negative criticism without doing any b* work oneself.  I deal with this all the time in societies and organisations in real life, so I suppose I'm sensitive to it.

[mike3]

You must use your own real name, even here on the "Non-member discussion" board.  Sorry for the inconvenience, but this is a part of our unusual (and we think refreshing) "culture," which we ask you to respect.

Thank you for the clarification. So I'm going to leave this forum then, because I do not want to use the real name here because I'm concerned about the effects it will have *out*side the Citizendium arena, in other parts of the Internet and maybe offline as well, given some of the disputes and debates I have gotten into out there. (One group I got involved in debating with once resorted to very low tactics such as posting personal information about a certain "opponent" of theirs (not me, though) out of some extreme obsession, and because of that I do *not* trust them, and there are some others out there that don't seem so nice or trustable either.) Hopefully you will understand, and I am deleting my account as of this posting and will not come back unless and until I am more sure that the usage of my real name will not cause that type of concerning trouble.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

You must use your own real name, even here on the "Non-member discussion" board.  Sorry for the inconvenience, but this is a part of our unusual (and we think refreshing) "culture," which we ask you to respect.

Thank you for the clarification. So I'm going to leave this forum then, because I do not want to use the real name here because I'm concerned about the effects it will have *out*side the Citizendium arena, in other parts of the Internet and maybe offline as well, given some of the disputes and debates I have gotten into out there. (One group I got involved in debating with once resorted to very low tactics such as posting personal information about a certain "opponent" of theirs (not me, though) out of some extreme obsession, and because of that I do *not* trust them, and there are some others out there that don't seem so nice or trustable either.) Hopefully you will understand, and I am deleting my account as of this posting and will not come back unless and until I am more sure that the usage of my real name will not cause that type of concerning trouble.

If you can observe, good. Nevertheless, I spent many years on electronic fora (USENET, ARPANET, early limited access Internet), where non-anonymity worked, and, in cases where anonymity entered, USENET being perhaps the most dramatic example, the resource became unusable. It is, I believe, a real commitment of some in this community because they do not wish to participate in venues with a general rule of anonymity.

There are cases where verified pseudonyms are acceptable, and I believe that covers many of the difficult situations. Oh -- I don't trust everyone. There are people who would be out to harm me had they the opportunity. I simply do not choose to operate by their rules.

It's your choice on your own actions, but I sincerely hope that CZ never allows anonymity for anonymity's sake.

[Larry Sanger]

May I point out that that leaves no place to leave anonymous feedback? See the thread at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,830.0.html , where a useful correction was suggested by an anonymous user, and where you stated that this forum was the preferred channel for these kind of contributions.

You make a good point, Eugene.  But I don't think we had adopted the rule until after Tintin was gone.  The "POSTING RULES FOR MAIN CZ BOARDS" you see above are relatively recent.  In any event it is the rule now.  It doesn't have to be; we could change this.  I don't know where we discussed this particular rule, but I do recall discussing it.

[Arne Eickenberg]

There's a thread that was opened by a new arrival here, who's asking to use a pseudonym at CZ, which would surely include the forum. For extreme cases like this one—provided of course that he's able to document the (death) threats he's talking about—there should maybe be an exception to the real-name rule. (But really I don't know. Should such a potential CZ author be rejected? Then the people threatening him would have won.)

[Daniel Mietchen]

What about a variation on the ONE anonymous account theme, such that the account would be operated by the constabulary, and those who have good reasons not to edit under their real names just send their stuff to them to put it in?

[Hayford Peirce]

What about a variation on the ONE anonymous account theme, such that the account would be operated by the constabulary, and those who have good reasons not to edit under their real names just send their stuff to them to put it in?

As if the Constabulary doesn't have enough to do already?  I think that this is a non-starter of an idea.  (Perhaps if the Constabulary were expanded to have, say, 40 members, from the two [two!] currently active ones.)

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

What about a variation on the ONE anonymous account theme, such that the account would be operated by the constabulary, and those who have good reasons not to edit under their real names just send their stuff to them to put it in?

As if the Constabulary doesn't have enough to do already?  I think that this is a non-starter of an idea.  (Perhaps if the Constabulary were expanded to have, say, 40 members, from the two [two!] currently active ones.)

Didn't a few police states try to have a membership approximately equal to the number of Citizens? 

[Daniel Mietchen]

What about a variation on the ONE anonymous account theme, such that the account would be operated by the constabulary, and those who have good reasons not to edit under their real names just send their stuff to them to put it in?

As if the Constabulary doesn't have enough to do already?  I think that this is a non-starter of an idea.  (Perhaps if the Constabulary were expanded to have, say, 40 members, from the two [two!] currently active ones.)

Don't think that counts as an argument, given that we are talking about cases much rarer than CZ approvals.

[Hayford Peirce]

As if the Constabulary doesn't have enough to do already?  I think that this is a non-starter of an idea.  (Perhaps if the Constabulary were expanded to have, say, 40 members, from the two [two!] currently active ones.)

Don't think that counts as an argument, given that we are talking about cases much rarer than CZ approvals.

Have you ever bothered to look at how much Howard, say, and Milton, have contributed over the last year?  How would you like to have an anonymous Howard and Milton each sending in their material to the Kops to be put somewhere or other?  Hate to say it, Daniel, but it ain't ever gonna happen!

[Daniel Mietchen]

As if the Constabulary doesn't have enough to do already?  I think that this is a non-starter of an idea.  (Perhaps if the Constabulary were expanded to have, say, 40 members, from the two [two!] currently active ones.)

Don't think that counts as an argument, given that we are talking about cases much rarer than CZ approvals.

Have you ever bothered to look at how much Howard, say, and Milton, have contributed over the last year?  How would you like to have an anonymous Howard and Milton each sending in their material to the Kops to be put somewhere or other?  Hate to say it, Daniel, but it ain't ever gonna happen!

How much of this required anonymity?