View Full Version : The age of rage.
John Little
24-Jul-11, 15:52
Interesting article in the Observer today;
How the internet created an age of rageThe worldwide web has made critics of us all. But with commenters able to hide behind a cloak of anonymity, the blog and chatroom have become forums for hatred and bile.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/24/internet-anonymity-trolling-tim-adams
I don't believe one word of it John, whoever wrote that article has never browsed the .Org.
Never has there been such a friendly Forum on the Internet as can be seen in all the threads on here!!
Everyone gets on like a house on fire and there are never any arguments,disagreements or nastiness.
Long may it stay that way!!!
C3......:roll::roll:;)
Schopenhauer was evidently ahead of his time.
Its a good article. I recognise the temptation to let loose sometimes and I also recognise the trolls who get off on throwing their crap onto the internet. I think its getting to the stage where people who use the internet will need to be aware of the processes spoken about in that article. Self regulation is the only way to change that and failing that a moderating system like most forums use and thank goodness the worst of it is never seen on the org but sometimes it gets close.
John Little
24-Jul-11, 21:32
I agree.
Caithness Org is a community website, not a fantasy playing field.
I really have come to think that the curse of a community website is anonymity.
On a community website, surely you should interact with members of the community - or people who used to be, or even want to be?
That is to say with real people.
If you have pseudonyms then instead of a community website you get a Hellbroth sometimes because what speaks is not the considered thoughts of your neighbour, but the license of the dis-individualised.
Someone who you might like, who is a really nice kind person that would do anything for their neighbour now finds that the chains of social morality no longer exist.
I am a very large man who has gone through life with very little trouble because I am 6' 4", 16 stone and fit as a flea.
I know very well that face to face most people would not speak to me as some have on the Org. They would be polite - as would I.
No doubt some would, but on a website like this we are all equal. Who you are and what you look like does not count for anything. That basic human interaction is missing.
Were I to think through how to do the Org and had the power to do so, I would ban pseudonyms.
and require every member to re-register in their real names.
If I were speaking to Douglas MacKenzie of St Andrews Drive instead of Demontrousers Snarky of the Org then I think that I could debate well with Mr McKenzie.
And it would be far more of community than of war.
I would tend to agree with that John. I always assume most people who know me know who I am anyway and if anyone wanted to find me who didnt know me, I would be a bit concerned especially if he was 6'4". :lol:
Maybe a data base with real names that could be accessed if there was any unreasonable behavior or threatening behavior? Its kinda tricky.
John Little
24-Jul-11, 21:57
Ye-es but my thought was that unreasonable or threatening behaviour would be a lot less likely if people used their real names. My experience of Caithness always is that folk tend to be overwhelmingly civilised and balanced people.
Rosy glasses maybe.
However it occurs to me that it might be worth giving thought to a two section Org- one which you can access with pseudonyms and cuss the hell out of each other and another where real names are used.
I think the pseudonym section would wither in times, because the real discussion would take place with real names on the 'real Org' and any trolls could snipe and snark to their heart's content at each other on the virtual Org.
David Banks
25-Jul-11, 23:36
Ye-es but my thought was that unreasonable or threatening behaviour would be a lot less likely if people used their real names. My experience of Caithness always is that folk tend to be overwhelmingly civilised and balanced people.
Rosy glasses maybe.
However it occurs to me that it might be worth giving thought to a two section Org- one which you can access with pseudonyms and cuss the hell out of each other and another where real names are used.
I think the pseudonym section would wither in times, because the real discussion would take place with real names on the 'real Org' and any trolls could snipe and snark to their heart's content at each other on the virtual Org.
You get my vote on this suggestion, John.
I seem to have missed a couple of trends that have happened during my life so far. I never "caught-on" to the sex, drugs and rock and roll of the 60's. Similarly, I did not join-in at the beginnings of the internet age. However, I do not see any nefarious mindset behind those who chose to use a pseudonym -- I think it was just a "fashion" which many people have followed.
When you register for the org you have to register a user name. It never struck me that it would be your pseudonym. This post seems to accuse those that have a user name, rather unfairly I think.
Yours Sincerely,
Barking Battleax
oldmarine
26-Jul-11, 00:59
Its a good article. I recognise the temptation to let loose sometimes and I also recognise the trolls who get off on throwing their crap onto the internet. I think its getting to the stage where people who use the internet will need to be aware of the processes spoken about in that article. Self regulation is the only way to change that and failing that a moderating system like most forums use and thank goodness the worst of it is never seen on the org but sometimes it gets close.
gleeber: I agree with your comment. For the most part this org appears to be a safe place. I have seen some questionable comments but usually they are eventually corrected or barred from the org.
gleeber: I agree with your comment. For the most part this org appears to be a safe place. I have seen some questionable comments but usually they are eventually corrected or barred from the org.
This sounds a bit sinister; Orgers being 'corrected' :eek:
Walter Ego
26-Jul-11, 08:06
I'm all for free choice, that includes the posters being able to remain as anonymous (or not) as they choose.
Regarding the notion that people act differently behind a cloak of anonymity, yes, I'd say that some do. There's idiots online just the same as there are idiots spewing malicious gossip on street corners and in pubs and cafes behind other peoples backs. There seems to be some notion that human nature has suddenly become 'altered' by online forums.
'Trolls', those people who go out of their way to wind up others? Same again, an online handle for some peoples normal 'real world' behaviour. I don't like using the term 'Machiavellian' as it doesn't really describe Machiavelli at all...but everyone understands the term....Machiavellian behaviour has always been around, some people get off on it. Again - not a new phenomenon.
To me, people take themselves and online forums far too seriously and develop extremely thin skins when challenged sometimes over the most ridiculous subjects. Certainly, people are less guarded online...but is that always a bad thing? How many of us critisise someone we know for surrounding themselves with sychophants and who refuse to listen to views that don't agree with their own?
Come online and you certainly are not going to get away with that attitude...?
This thing about using real names - unfortunately I seem to remember years ago that there was a physical incident as up here, as in such a close society, most knew each other, and this turned to violence (I think) - maybe old time local orgers remember?
The cloak of anonymity seems a sensible way to proceed (don't forget I was lambasted because I mentioned it would be nice to know Orger's locations, and by that I meant not street, but such as Strathy, Wick, Tucson, Toronto, Kent etc..) but if trolls or abuse erupts, either through posts or PMs, there is a mechanism for dealing with it.
John Little
26-Jul-11, 09:20
Yes I see that.
That's why I suggested a two part Org - one for false names and one for real names. Someone could be as nice as pie to their neighbours on the real Org and the same person could be Beelzebub Astheroth the Troll on the other section.
That way they get community cohesion on the 'real org' and catharsis on the 'virtual org'.
I may be old and pedantic, but I cannot see a problem with Orgers and their wish for anonimity. Many of my Org pals are also on Facebook and we all freely display our normal persona. One advantage with Facebook over the Org is that your on line friends can selected or rejected as you wish.
I have what I consider a select group of Orgers, who I have personally met, whom I consider the elite. I have only regretted meeting one, but thats my choice.
Why consider a two layer Org? It is fine as it is, when I log on I am just another blip in the cybernet, who happens to have a connection with Caithness long may this last, we are all Jock Tamsons bairns
Bobinovich
26-Jul-11, 10:18
...One advantage with Facebook over the Org is that your on line friends can selected or rejected as you wish.
Oh I dunno, the Org's Block list comes in handy for those who's posts you've given up wanting to read :D
John Little
26-Jul-11, 11:02
I may be old and pedantic, but I cannot see a problem with Orgers and their wish for anonimity. Many of my Org pals are also on Facebook and we all freely display our normal persona. One advantage with Facebook over the Org is that your on line friends can selected or rejected as you wish.
I have what I consider a select group of Orgers, who I have personally met, whom I consider the elite. I have only regretted meeting one, but thats my choice.
Why consider a two layer Org? It is fine as it is, when I log on I am just another blip in the cybernet, who happens to have a connection with Caithness long may this last, we are all Jock Tamsons bairns
Aye but the trouble with Jock Tamson's bairns is that some delight to bark and bite.
The org is like a masked ball and you don't know who people are.
Oh I know who you are and that you are happy with the orgers you have met, but I wonder if you find them different in the situation they are in? The mild mannered chap you know and like and are happy to have a dram with - is he the piranha of the Org?
I've been asking myself the purpose of a community website because it seems that there are alternatives.
If it is to foster a sense of community, open-ness, co-operation and respect among people who live in a particular area, well it ain't going to do it if it deals with unknowns.
If it is to provide a place where people drop the everyday masks and say what they think and often with the gloves off, where people become who they really are, stripping off the veneer then it succeeds.
Jock Tamson's bairns indeed - but in society at large there are conventions by which we live.
Remove the conventions and what do you get?
And which version gives a real reflection of the good people of Caithness?
John Little
26-Jul-11, 11:11
Actually - a useful analogy would be a meeting of the local council.
Councillors meet, talk over what is on the agenda, say what they think, and are accountable.
Imagine Highland Council where all come in robes covered in thick brocade to disguise their outline, pointy hoods to disguise their hair, and animal masks for their features.
That they all assumed cod-English or American accents to speak.
I wonder how that would be.
I think it's a question of responsibility and accountability.
The pseudonym removes something of the adult in us because we can simply walk away from it. We didn't say it - it was that other guy Devildrawers McNasty.
Actually - a useful analogy would be a meeting of the local council.
Councillors meet, talk over what is on the agenda, say what they think, and are accountable.
Imagine Highland Council where all come in robes covered in thick brocade to disguise their outline, pointy hoods to disguise their hair, and animal masks for their features.
That they all assumed cod-English or American accents to speak.
I wonder how that would be.
I think it's a question of responsibility and accountability.
The pseudonym removes something of the adult in us because we can simply walk away from it. We didn't say it - it was that other guy Devildrawers McNasty.
Blimey, can it just not be like the rest (most) of the web-entertainment.
John Little
26-Jul-11, 12:42
Blimey, can it just not be like the rest (most) of the web-entertainment.
No reason why not.
But for serious discussion on community matters or news etc why not real names? In a separate section?
I have only regretted meeting one, but thats my choice.
How priviliged I feel, knowing that I am that one!!!![lol]
Oh I know who you are and that you are happy with the orgers you have met,
And which version gives a real reflection of the good people of Caithness?
You know who I am....I think not!! And do you consider yourself to be the mouthpiece of the good people of Caithness? What qualifies you for that position? My Family all true born Caithessians, my paternal tree goes back to 1750. But I would never presume to be the voice of Caithness, there are many on the Org who are more suited for that post. I am now an ex-pat Caithnessian, who loves the County and all its people. One of the beauties of Caithness is its diversity of peoples, and from the Press & Journal and the 'Groat each day we see Caithness warts and all. But back to your OP...a two tier Org Aye Right!!!!
How priviliged I feel, knowing that I am that one!!!![lol]
Do not get a beeg head, you are not the one, there others in the world apart from you
Do not get a beeg head, you are not the one, there others in the world apart from youReally?How disappointing!
John Little
26-Jul-11, 16:49
You know who I am....I think not!! And do you consider yourself to be the mouthpiece of the good people of Caithness? What qualifies you for that position? My Family all true born Caithessians, my paternal tree goes back to 1750. But I would never presume to be the voice of Caithness, there are many on the Org who are more suited for that post. I am now an ex-pat Caithnessian, who loves the County and all its people. One of the beauties of Caithness is its diversity of peoples, and from the Press & Journal and the 'Groat each day we see Caithness warts and all. But back to your OP...a two tier Org Aye Right!!!!
Cue righteous indignation.
Perhaps you'd better read my posts again.
The trouble with Facebook is that people's faces and names keep popping up on my page and asking me if I know them. So a distinguished looking chap with a genial appearance comes up on my page, and also on the Org and he lives in Edinburgh and speaks in a certain forthright way.
And it's not you?
Fine.
Here's me thinking what a grand fellow you looked; apologies if I was mistaken.
Where did I say that I spoke for Caithness?
I believe that I have started a debate and asked which is the real face of Caithness- the one from the Winehouse thread or the one I am more familiar with.
I have never claimed in any place to be qualified to speak for Caithness and the thought that I would do so is completely ridiculous.
You fly up in your righteous wrath on a hair trigger it seems.
Yet I bet in real life that you are as balanced and even as anyone I know.
Yet behind 'Golach' you may say as you wish.
Which is precisely why I have put this question up for people to talk about.
Don' t you like the question?
You fly up in your righteous wrath on a hair trigger it seems.
Yet I bet in real life that you are as balanced and even as anyone I know.
First statement, aye.
Second statement, vehement nae. Yes, Golach is certainly balanced. He has a chip on each shoulder.[evil]
John Little
26-Jul-11, 18:03
Aye?
Well I have dignity too, so I will make an offer fair and square.
You show me one post where I have claimed to speak for the people of Caithness or where I have claimed to have the right to do so, and I will withdraw from this forum straight away and will never darken its doors again.
Such a claim would be that of an arrogant and presumptuous fool- and if I have done that, then it is time this forum were rid of me.
Fair enough?
I await your pleasure.
You challenging Golach or me JL?
John Little
26-Jul-11, 18:26
Not you Gleber2.
You have not implied that I think that I speak for Caithness folk or have the right to.
I wish to know where I have made such claims. There appears to be part of myself that I do not know, and I wish to be introduced.
My lasting memory of Woodstock was a comment by one of the presenters. "There's always a little bit of heaven in a disaster area" Its not always easy to find that bit of heaven on the org but in my opinion John Little is one of the angels. I know, its a bit corny but i like it and I mean it. John Little has given more to the org in the time he has been here than anyone. He is respectful tolerant knowledgeable and humble. Never once has he made claims for special status although his internet personna will no doubt grind with some. Thats tough and not john Littles problem.
Now you have more time on your hands John Little why dont you consider standing for the far north constituancy at the next general election? I can gaurentee you one vote and your status as a Caithnesian could never be disputed considering the cosmopolitan nature of caithness and your early years in Thurso.
Vote for Little. The voice of Caithness. Its got a good ring to it.
John Little
26-Jul-11, 19:21
That's too kind Gleeber. I ain't Caithness enough for that and certainly not back to 1750. The most I've ever done in that line was Parish councillor; and anyway, though Mrs L likes to visit she'd never move being a thin blooded southern girl.
There are people I think very highly of on this forum and I would vote for them.
There is no substance to the thought that I have ever claimed to speak for Caithness folk or would consider that I had a right to.
I find the voicing of it disappointing.
BTW - I also love Caithness. Always have and always will.
There is the little slice of Heaven on earth.
That's too kind Gleeber. I ain't Caithness enough for that and certainly not back to 1750. The most I've ever done in that line was Parish councillor; and anyway, though Mrs L likes to visit she'd never move being a thin blooded southern girl.
There are people I think very highly of on this forum and I would vote for them.
There is no substance to the thought that I have ever claimed to speak for Caithness folk or would consider that I had a right to.
I find the voicing of it disappointing.
Golachs notorious for slinging mud. I understand your disappointment. Perhaps he will apologise?
Golachs notorious for slinging mud. I understand your disappointment. Perhaps he will apologise?
Why should I apologise gleeber? If John Little is dissappointed, should I worry?
John Little
26-Jul-11, 19:46
Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.
Your right John. Mud sticks. It happens on the street too.
John Little
26-Jul-11, 19:57
Your right John. Mud sticks. It happens on the street too.
Aye - but it was not my reputation I was thinking of.
Do not get a beeg head, you are not the one, there others in the world apart from you
Hey, you two, this thread is not about your history and differences.
It was actually looking like a good debate....
Hey, you two, this thread is not about your history and differences.
It was actually looking like a good debate....
I know what you mean Moira but would you agree that everything that happens on the org is part of the debate? Ever since the org got serious it's been evolving and w'eve had to evolve with it to cope with the new intrusions into our lives. It's good that were talking about it. By talking about things they become clearer. Were just not used to the internet yet. It's a great tool.
Sorry Gleeber, I would disagree. Caithness dot org has not become more serious, it's become more ridiculous.
I regret that the more, recent, posters missed some great debates on these forums.
Caithness dot Org has moved on considerably over these past years.
Heaven forbid that these Forums ever adopt the Facebook strategy.
My lasting memory of Woodstock was a comment by one of the presenters. "There's always a little bit of heaven in a disaster area" Its not always easy to find that bit of heaven on the org but in my opinion John Little is one of the angels. I know, its a bit corny but i like it and I mean it. John Little has given more to the org in the time he has been here than anyone. He is respectful tolerant knowledgeable and humble. Never once has he made claims for special status although his internet personna will no doubt grind with some. Thats tough and not john Littles problem.
Now you have more time on your hands John Little why dont you consider standing for the far north constituancy at the next general election? I can gaurentee you one vote and your status as a Caithnesian could never be disputed considering the cosmopolitan nature of caithness and your early years in Thurso.
Vote for Little. The voice of Caithness. Its got a good ring to it.
I think not G...When one 'professes' in a statement that he would rather see 'freedom over prohibition', and doesn't care about people who have personal troubles.....to wit: addiction etc., then it is a becoming a sad worls......and this is an 'educated man'.
Without prejudice!
In addition JL is the voice if Caithness, along with 133 other people with submissions to save the Dounreay Dome.
John Little
26-Jul-11, 21:43
Why don't some of you start a new thread.
'Let's bring John Little up for things he has not said'
Quote me please - where have I said I do not care?
And the pair of ye - if you can't put up then I suggest you know what the logical outcome should be.
John Little
26-Jul-11, 21:47
I think not G...When one 'professes' in a statement that he would rather see 'freedom over prohibition', and doesn't care about people who have personal troubles.....to wit: addiction etc., then it is a becoming a sad worls......and this is an 'educated man'.
Without prejudice!
In addition JL is the voice if Caithness, along with 133 other people with submissions to save the Dounreay Dome.
Without prejudice!
Dear God!!
This thread is now about the Dounreay Dome it seems.
Where do we go from here?
Why don't some of you start a new thread.
'Let's bring John Little up for things he has not said'
Quote me please - where have I said I do not care?
And the pair of ye - if you can't put up then I suggest you know what the logical outcome should be.
No sense in getting upset John....You said it.....
And you were number 1 man in Saving the Dome/ you are the first to sign and said yourself that you completed....the brief! For want of a better word/ description. I can 'put up'. I was just reading these posts quietly and there you say your piece.
FYI...If you say something in other posts they are not alone/ on their own...It reflects who you are and your thoughts! But that's OK. We are all just human beings....some seemingly better educated than others....
John Little
26-Jul-11, 22:00
No sense in getting upset John....You said it.....
And you were number 1 man in Saving the Dome/ you are the first to sign and said yourself that you completed....the brief! For want of a better word/ description. I can 'put up'. I was just reading these posts quietly and there you say your piece.
Said what?
I am utterly lost.
People are not stoooooopid.....But I shall say no more, as I don't want to lose any more Demerit Points.....
John Little
26-Jul-11, 22:12
Actually it's in my recent and immediate experience that some people can be extremely stupid.
There's a new thread I recommend you to.
Right up your street.
Said what?
I am utterly lost.
I get the drift John. It's a good starting point to debate the age of rage.
It's important to keep it respectful though.
Hey, you two, this thread is not about your history and differences.
It was actually looking like a good debate....
my apologies Moira, I should have sent that as a pm, I will endeavour to try better soon.
John Little
26-Jul-11, 22:25
I get the drift John. It's a good starting point to debate the age of rage.
It's important to keep it respectful though.
Well I wish you'd explain it to me Gleeber because it is completely beyond my ken!
Aye right Golach, I'll take your word for it. :)
Ahem, back to pseudonyms, when I first registered here I chose not to use my real name. At the time I was doing a job which would have frowned on my participation in many of the debates that I have enjoyed. In addition, I may have made others feel uncomfortable if they knew my real identity so I chose to be discreet. I do however try to be the same person 'virtually' as I am in real life. (maybe slimmer, oh, and taller and blonder as well lol) I no longer have the same job but i keep my pseudonym and I use it many other places too. It has become as real as I am. If anyone cares or is interested they can ask me who I am by pm and I'll gladly share my identity with them in return for their real name. Yes pseudonyms do allow for bad behaviour but I would not ban them. I would never have joined if I had to had to use my own name and, whilst some of you might cheer lol I would not have missed being an .Orger for anything. I have enjoyed it.
Well I wish you'd explain it to me Gleeber because it is completely beyond my ken!
I kept getting kicked off the org last night and in the cool light of early morning and another lovely caithness day I'm far too optimistic to be critical, although........
I grew up with that kind of garbage being whispered in corners and sewars from Thurso to Lybster. Sandy seems to be saying, who do you think you are John Little? Its similar to what Golachs saying but much more blatant. I dont know the answer to it. Its only a small part of whats wrong with the org and until people look behind their noses for the answers and stop blaming blaming blaming the internet will continue to flow through the gutters of human affairs. I think it could rise above that if used properly. Maybe that's the challenge.
Im off for a day in the hills just with me and my God and with any luck my thoughts will be clear from the kind of crap I have to put up with on the org. I dont exclude myself from being in it till the neck but I think I could do much better.
I grew up with that kind of garbage being whispered in corners and sewars from Thurso to Lybster. Sandy seems to be saying, who do you think you are John Little? Its similar to what Golachs saying but much more blatant. .
Gleeber, I have no need for you to explain my thinking, the garbage I was against is John Littles idea of a two level Org, which he thinks would create a better Org and create better debate. The Org has won awards for being what it is, why change it?
northener
27-Jul-11, 08:38
Sorry Gleeber, I would disagree. Caithness dot org has not become more serious, it's become more ridiculous.
I regret that the more, recent, posters missed some great debates on these forums.
Caithness dot Org has moved on considerably over these past years.
Heaven forbid that these Forums ever adopt the Facebook strategy.
Unfortunately, Moira. I believe that a few posters on here are using it in a similar way - especially when they don't like something they read on here.
If something controversial gets posted, just look at the responses (sometimes in some garbled text-speak) by people who never appear to comment on anything else.
John Little
27-Jul-11, 09:15
Gleeber, I have no need for you to explain my thinking, the garbage I was against is John Littles idea of a two level Org, which he thinks would create a better Org and create better debate. The Org has won awards for being what it is, why change it?
And there lies the difference in our approach.
I have put up an argument for discussion and have made a case for it. I am quite willing to listen to and to consider arguments for and against what I have said and to alter my opinion.
Squidge has made a very good argument for pseudonyms and I can see her case entire.
But to you any alternative idea is 'garbage'.
Do you really approach everything that way?
Or is it just "Golach"?
I totally agree with the post from Squidge, she is much more articulate than I, and put my feelings on this subject in a far better manner than I ever could.
John Little
27-Jul-11, 09:24
I totally agree with the post from Squidge, she is much more articulate than I, and put my feelings on this subject in a far better manner than I ever could.
Then you may not be the sort of strange shouty man that I would cross the street to avoid.
On the whole you have had my respect on these forums; I prefer that situation.
How about I throw my hat into this thread then Sandy and Golach can have a go at me and take some of the pressure off of John?
Mmm!! where to start is worrying me........ rage, Dome, said or not said, voice of Scotland, sewers of Lybster, real name or not, invasion of Russia????
OK, maybe I should just go back to bed for the day!!!
C3.......:roll:;)
John Little
27-Jul-11, 10:27
Squidge.
You make the case for pseudonyms very eloquently and I find what you say very convincing.
Do you have any thoughts on the idea of a separate section for real names for people who want to/can talk without masks?
I think that already exists in a loose informal way. Let's see.... I post here and used the chat rooms under my pseudonym. From that I got to 'know' some of my Internet friends and following on from that, met face to face, had a giggle and created a real life relationship. Therefore more than a few people know that Squidge is me and I am Squidge. Why would I need two forums? I would say exactly the same on both. We assume that people who say things we find abhorrent would not say them in real life.... Maybe they would and then perhaps they would not be the kind of person you would want to meet. A couple of years ago we had a carry on where another website was set up and some very unpleasant and nasty things were said about me and others who were moderators at the time. I joined as Squidge and tried to deal with it head on. It was unpleasant and really really cutting at times but it was not real life. I would have met any of the group who were being unpleasant because I truly believe that none of them would have battered me senseless and left me for dead despite their assertions. I just post as me whether that is the Squidge you know solely from here or the Sue that you know in real life, you will either like me and my posts or you won't regardless of what I call myself.
John Little
27-Jul-11, 11:12
Fair enough.
it's been in my mind that people who get aggressive or say things that are more than a bit off would be far less likely to say them if they were doing so under their real names.
To say some of the things on here that get said under false names would take real moral, even physical courage face to face.
Maybe they would and if that is so then I am wrong that real names would have a self-moderating influence.
Fair enough.
it's been in my mind that people who get aggressive or say things that are more than a bit off would be far less likely to say them if they were doing so under their real names.
To say some of the things on here that get said under false names would take real moral, even physical courage face to face.
Maybe they would and if that is so then I am wrong that real names would have a self-moderating influence.
Just a thought John Little, how would any one be able to believe the "real names", they could be as fictious as our pseudonyms. Just a thought, are you really John Little? [lol]
John Little
27-Jul-11, 11:44
I am sure that our chief Mods could figure a way of doing a reality check - like requiring a postcode or something like that.
As to me I am just what it says on the tin.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=515584384
I raise my glass to you.
I am sure that our chief Mods could figure a way of doing a reality check - like requiring a postcode or something like that.
As to me I am just what it says on the tin.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=515584384
I raise my glass to you.
Thank you I return the compliment, but can one really believe Facebook, no one moderates the profile input, my profile could all be a figment of my imagination, the photograph could be of anyone.
And I think the Mods on here have a difficult and thankless job at the moment without taking on more moderation.
John Little
27-Jul-11, 12:01
Thank you I return the compliment, but can one really believe Facebook, no one moderates the profile input, my profile could all be a figment of my imagination, the photograph could be of anyone.
And I think the Mods on here have a difficult and thankless job at the moment without taking on more moderation.
Well that's all true.
The FB profile I mistakenly thought might be you looks the sort of chap you'd have a damn good laugh with and a good craic over a few pints, well turned out and respectable. But yes it could all be a figment and the photo could indeed be anyone.
Which raises the question of whether we can actually believe anything that we see.
I think on the whole we have to accept decent people as they present themselves- which is decently.
Of computers I know little of how they work.
But it seems to me that there is a sort of gate keeping system in place for people who wish to join the Org. Certain email addresses are not acceptable.
If the gate-keeping qualifications to join a real names section were sufficiently severe, I wonder how much more moderation it would need?
Well I never - seems Google wants your REAL name now!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14312047
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.