Anonymous vs Eponymous

[Granville57]

I’ve often wondered about the emboldened, anonymous poster vs the poster whose true identity is known and out in the open.

It seems like some treat it as “open season” when it comes to criticizing and attacking the known individual. Should there be difference in the level of civility, or the types of posts, directed at one another if only one member’s identity of an exchange is known? If a member’s real name and background are out there for all to see, evaluate and judge, does that somehow make them less of a “regular” member of the forum and somehow more deserving of persecution? Should those whose identity is known be treated with any greater or lesser respect because of it? Conversely, do those members who share their identity post any differently than they otherwise would (putting aside for the moment the use of specific information that would obviously give them away)?

I don’t want to speak for others too much on this topic, but I’ve certainly seen it happen to elizab, TexPat, joe_papp and JV1973. They are all public figures, to a certain degree, and I suppose that weighs heavily on the equation, but I’m also curious to hear from TeamSkyFans and others whose identities are known, as I’m just not sure if they’ve experienced the same (although there was at least one recent example of this against TSF).

Should the level of discourse be different?

Although I’m primarily interested in the above, this conversation would be incomplete without discussing interactions with the mods as well.
Do you communicate any differently with Susan Westemeyer—or Daniel Benson for that matter—because they use their full, real names?
However, I do not want this to turn into a debate about moderating styles, there’s already a dedicated thread for that.
But does anyone treat, or interact with, the mods differently based on the use or lack of anonymity alone?

Primarily though, What about other forum members as stated at the top of this OP?

 

[Deagol]

Without enough time right now to answer in detail:

I would say posters who are publicly known deserve more "care" than anonymous posters. The fact that they are not "hiding" IMO brings them a lot more credibility.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I’ve often wondered about the emboldened, anonymous poster vs the poster whose true identity is known and out in the open.

It seems like some treat it as “open season” when it comes to criticizing and attacking the known individual. Should there be difference in the level of civility, or the types of posts, directed at one another if only one member’s identity of an exchange is known? If a member’s real name and background are out there for all to see, evaluate and judge, does that somehow make them less of a “regular” member of the forum and somehow more deserving of persecution? Should those whose identity is known be treated with any greater or lesser respect because of it? Conversely, do those members who share their identity post any differently than they otherwise would (putting aside for the moment the use of specific information that would obviously give them away)?

I don’t want to speak for others too much on this topic, but I’ve certainly seen it happen to elizab, TexPat, joe_papp and JV1973. They are all public figures, to a certain degree, and I suppose that weighs heavily on the equation, but I’m also curious to hear from TeamSkyFans and others whose identities are known, as I’m just not sure if they’ve experienced the same (although there was at least one recent example of this against TSF).

Should the level of discourse be different?

Although I’m primarily interested in the above, this conversation would be incomplete without discussing interactions with the mods as well.
Do you communicate any differently with Susan Westemeyer—or Daniel Benson for that matter—because they use their full, real names?
However, I do not want this to turn into a debate about moderating styles, there’s already a dedicated thread for that.
But does anyone treat, or interact with, the mods differently based on the use or lack of anonymity alone?

Primarily though, What about other forum members as stated at the top of this OP?

You have brought up a lot of different and interesting points.

Firstly, I welcome and appreciate all those who have posted their real names - I think it adds to what they have to say and greatly helps us in forming opinion.

Also - regardless of whether they are anonymous or not they should be treated with civility and respect but just as importantly their opinion or statements should be also be challenged and debated.


At times it is tough - as you do not know who you are responding to, but that is why I try to concentrate on what people write, not what they profess to be.

 

[Granville57]

regardless of whether they are anonymous or not they should be treated with civility and respect but just as importantly their opinion or statements should be also be challenged and debated.

Good point. I did not want to imply that someone should get a "free pass" simply by using their real, verifiable, name. I would hope that anyone posting on this forum would welcome a certain amount of debate as long as it was considered to be reasonable. Although I've often seen forum members come under attack not for anything they've posted here, but for what their actions may or may not have been, outside of this forum. That's where things can get very murky to me.

Whether or not I agree with, support or forgive the actions of others outside of this forum doesn't prevent me from being open to, and appreciative of, their contributions here. To me, gaining what might be valuable insight takes precedence over the need to judge—especially from an anonymous pulpit.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Good point. I did not want to imply that someone should get a "free pass" simply by using their real, verifiable, name. I would hope that anyone posting on this forum would welcome a certain amount of debate as long as it was considered to be reasonable. Although I've often seen forum members come under attack not for anything they've posted here, but for what their actions may or may not have been, outside of this forum. That's where things can get very murky to me.

Whether or not I agree with, support or forgive the actions of others outside of this forum doesn't prevent me from being open to, and appreciative of, their contributions here. To me, gaining what might be valuable insight takes precedence over the need to judge—especially from an anonymous pulpit.

Bingo.

Well said, for me I rarely get involved in any of the threads here that are not cycling related (BoB being a big exception) but that is a personal choice - I understand (and welcome) debates and discussions on different topics.

 

[Anonymous]

Without enough time right now to answer in detail:

I would say posters who are publicly known deserve more "care" than anonymous posters. The fact that they are not "hiding" IMO brings them a lot more credibility.

This.

Of course it's one thing if an anonymous poster can back up allegations made. But it's truly pathetic when anonymous posters literally make **** up.

 

[RedheadDane]

I don't... really think I act any differently towards "public" people.

To take joe_pap as an example: TBH, I wasn't really that involved in cycling when that case against him begun, basically for me he's not as much the Former pro (doper) turned dealer as Guy who sometimes posts on the CN forum. And it actually took me a while to realize that the person who'd sometimes post on Twitter (I read it through the Bike Chatter page) was the same person as the forum member... Yeah... I know. Same name...
As for those others the OP mentioned... well... they haven't been around while I've been here. (Don't remember the stuff about TSF... I'm slow...)

I don't really interact much with the mods but when I do I, as with every other forum member, just treat them as everyone else. Dunno why. Old habbit from other forums I guess...

To sum it up: I am not gonna treat anyone any worse because I know their real identity! On the other hand; I am not gonna treat anyone any better because I know their real identity!
Honestly! The Pope himself (the actual Pope, not Menchov) could join and I'd probably just be "Gutten Tag!"

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Well, we already have a user "DenisMenchov", but they're Serbian.

Personally, I don't think this needs to be a question, for this reason:

Personal attacks are against the rules of this forum. While people who post with their identities visible may be more vulnerable to such attacks, owing to a poster having more than just their posting history as ammunition (though the same could be said of, say, Ruben and Gerrit Jan), those attacks are still against the rules and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

[python]

Well, we already have a user "DenisMenchov", but they're Serbian.
......
, those attacks are still against the rules and should be dealt with accordingly.

which brings us to the main reason why the thread originator posed the concern.to remind, and i will stay away from user handles, a poster in the armsrtrong doping thread accused another poster who happenned to be armstrongs employee at one point but later fired and sued,...accused him
of being armstrongs ped facilitator. that is not only agaist the forum rules, that is libel

3. Illegal, libelous, or slanderous posts or threads will not be tolerated, and result in infractions or bans

 

[ElChingon]

Its a freaking forum already!

Someone uses a non-nickname as their handle, does it mean that's their real name? NOPE! Sometimes it can be, great, so what?

Someone uses a nickname as their handle, due to it being a forum and when you register is states:

Please enter your desired user name, your e-mail address and other required details in the form below.

So used a user name not my name. Besides who would use their real name as their user name if they have a real job? Sure some people are in careers where what they might post on-line has no issue with their job but others... well lets say the nicks come in handy because otherwise most of the posters will probably stop posting if they knew a poster their flaming and battling with is right next to them or near by.

Anonymity is the way to go, real names and this place would quickly turn upside down. I know I've said this next part many times, its supposed to be for fun and entertainment, but some people's views or idea of fun and entertainment is rather twisted as we've seen on countless threads. The only thing to improve it and keep the bad forum-ites away is a way to uniquely identify people with some kind of internet user registration which could vouch for members as unique people and when one was banned there would be no way they could get back on unless they were reincarnated or something like that.

 

[Granville57]

Someone uses a non-nickname as their handle, does it mean that's their real name? NOPE! Sometimes it can be, great, so what?

You've no idea what I'm referring to, do you?

 

[Granville57]

Just to be clear: I wrote this OP some time ago but there always seemed to be some specific interaction/attack going on with one of the aforementioned members that gave me pause about posting it. I didn't want the conversation to be about just that particular incident. But today's unravelling of events forced the conversation out into the open on its own, so here we are.

Today's offense was particularly heinous—as other members have clearly expressed as well—but I hope we can discuss both the specifics and the general issue overall.

Thanks

 

[usedtobefast]

this is the only forum i participate in. i find being civil at all times, to all people is the way for me. however nobody is perfect either. we all have our moments, so tolerance is key."let the first one who has not sinned,cast the first stone" as someone said. i posted my pictures,however murky, in the photo thread,which morphed into a lame comment thread. things are a lot more even than they were early on,imo.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Just to be clear: I wrote this OP some time ago but there always seemed to be some specific interaction/attack going on with one of the aforementioned members that gave me pause about posting it. I didn't want the conversation to be about just that particular incident. But today's unravelling of events forced the conversation out into the open on its own, so here we are.

Today's offense was particularly heinous—as other members have clearly expressed as well—but I hope we can discuss both the specifics and the general issue overall.

Thanks

Firstly, I agree with everything you wrote - but just to broaden the discussion.

Obviously what was stated earlier today was particularly nasty, because it was a direct response to the known poster.
But to look at it objectively, is there a difference between that and saying something equally libelous/false about someone who is not a (public) member here?

I have made some serious accusations in the CN forums against known persons - however I am always prepared to back up any such claim because I am also aware that those people can rightly bring a claim against me - being anonymous does not mean I can (or should) be above reproach.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Personal attacks are against the rules of this forum. While people who post with their identities visible may be more vulnerable to such attacks, owing to a poster having more than just their posting history as ammunition (though the same could be said of, say, Ruben and Gerrit Jan), those attacks are still against the rules and should be dealt with accordingly.

This.

Still, in general:

There is one porblem in all of this: if we took a strict interpretation of the rules as is, there would be a lot of speculation and discussion that falls under that header, and we might as well shut down the Clinic with its relatively free debate.

There is also a subtle difference between asking legitimate probing questions, asking the type of questions that are not always propular with the general Clinic, which can get very defensive about certain people who played a (bit)role in the totallity of cycling, sometimes involuntarily, sometimes voluntary, or paid, but do have some (potentially) reasonable argumentation driving them, and making strong accusations for either effect or a different agenda.

But this cuts two ways. There are certainly questions that can be put at the doorstep of ex-employees for instance, or giving an argued pov that might be disliked by many, but is not outside the realm of very similar type of assumptive extrapolation over the back of documentated facts, or assumptive and/or speculative reasoning, deployed regularly by others. If the same people who were quick to complain (rightly or wrongly, that is immaterial for my point) looked at their own posts, I am sure there could be libelous content found amongst several of those too. Or, arguably, libelous "for the time being", in some cases.

It probably matters greatly how you go about it, if you do it on this forum, if it is deemed acceptable or not.

Personally I never felt that the handle of poster entitled them to more, or less, "protection" than any other user, nor would it entitle them to more or less leeway in how they treat others here.

People are under no obligation to expose themselves here. If they do, they do so voluntarily. Whether that is brave, foolish, sinister, or inconsequential will depend on each case, and probably depend on the eye of the beholder too. Still, it as a choice made by them. And it makes no difference to me.

With the possible exception that I will point out a bit more often that if you want people like elizab, TexPat, joe_papp and JV1973 to contrubute here, a desire that gets expressed from time to time, it probably matters how you treat them. If they hadn't "outed" themselves, that sort of interaction would be impossible. It doesn't buy them a magic shield+3, or louder speakers though.

 

[Polish]

I think everyone should be treated the same whether they are anonymous or eponymous. Same forum rules apply is a given.

But there are different reasons for being eponymous or wanting to remain anonymous. Many reasons sure, but same rules apply...

Some people like to use their own names because they feel silly using made up ones. "What is the point to using a fake name" they ask?

Others use their real name because they work for CN. It would not be right for them to use fake names. Like wearing a fake name on your badge at work.

Still others use their own name or let their identities be know for the level of notoriety and/or protection their identity affords them. Of coures, the notoriety and/or protection afforded on this site would be very different from the notoriety and/or protection they would be given on other sites.

And why do people use fake names?

I think one reason is the old fashioned "Masquerade Ball" effect. You can act silly and out of character when noone knows your true identity. Its fun, you know it is true.

Still others use fake names like a bandit uses a nylon stocking over their face. To hide their identity while doing naughty things. Shame shame, against the rules.

And others are like me - having to hide their identity to avoid discrimination. Having to live in the closet sigh. You see, I own a small bike shop that caters to a segment of the "non-fanboy" crowd. No TREKs. Many of my clients are "non-fanboys". Raging non-fanboys. I think if they knew my cycling fan preferences they would act different towards me. More distant. Maybe even stop coming to the shop. BTW, some non-fanboys and girls here in the clinic have tried to "out me" on several occasions. Thats mean and against the rules.

Anyway, back to my original point. Everyone treated the same. From the most awesome troll to the most awesome rider. And everyone in between. Respect. Golden Rule.

 

[ElChingon]

You've no idea what I'm referring to, do you?

Well you might of gone into some convoluted message but I still feel the Mod's have their pet posters who they will never ban even if they are following the bait and are part of the problem. The whole name thing is the same, they want those known posters even if they will state they don't care but anyone following the forum for any length of time know its as true as it can be.

 

[Cobblestoned]

I think everyone should be treated the same whether they are anonymous or eponymous. Same forum rules apply is a given.

But there are different reasons for being eponymous or wanting to remain anonymous. Many reasons sure, but same rules apply...

Some people like to use their own names because they feel silly using made up ones. "What is the point to using a fake name" they ask?

Others use their real name because they work for CN. It would not be right for them to use fake names. Like wearing a fake name on your badge at work.

Still others use their own name or let their identities be know for the level of notoriety and/or protection their identity affords them. Of coures, the notoriety and/or protection afforded on this site would be very different from the notoriety and/or protection they would be given on other sites.

And why do people use fake names?

I think one reason is the old fashioned "Masquerade Ball" effect. You can act silly and out of character when noone knows your true identity. Its fun, you know it is true.

Still others use fake names like a bandit uses a nylon stocking over their face. To hide their identity while doing naughty things. Shame shame, against the rules.

And others are like me - having to hide their identity to avoid discrimination. Having to live in the closet sigh. You see, I own a small bike shop that caters to a segment of the "non-fanboy" crowd. No TREKs. Many of my clients are "non-fanboys". Raging non-fanboys. I think if they knew my cycling fan preferences they would act different towards me. More distant. Maybe even stop coming to the shop. BTW, some non-fanboys and girls here in the clinic have tried to "out me" on several occasions. Thats mean and against the rules.

Anyway, back to my original point. Everyone treated the same. From the most awesome troll to the most awesome rider. And everyone in between. Respect. Golden Rule.

Poor Polish. Really.
Isn't that a reason to hate Lance too ?
Ever thought about sharing your business with TexPAt ?
You both together could serve all the target groups or customers.
Everyone would be satisfied, and you could openly show your Lancelove.
Win Win.
The picture of Polish serving the raging and roided "non-fanboys" with a smile or just with nodding, really makes my day.

I figured that things are a lot of easier when you stay anonymous.
People like TexPat and Liz have to behave and stay serious all the time. Even more serious and strict than they really are.