TalkBoard Elections/05 - Question 4: Opinion of psuedo-handles

This question was submitted by member onefreeman:

"What is your opinion of psuedo-handles and how do you believe the use of psudeo-handles affects (or has affected) FlyerTalk?"

I'm not sure I understand the question, perhaps onefreeman is referring to members who create second handles with which to 'anonymously' attack other members.

Flyertalk's TOS permit members to have only one handle. Any exception must be granted by Randy. I have no problem with whatever member also utilized the handle arturo, though that joke apparently ran its course.

Sometimes members have been known to create a second handle when they couldn't log into their main handle for some reason, that's not the best method to use (better would be sending an email to admin@flyertalk.com). Though I do understand it, especially if their email to admin went unanswered. The new user should (a) just contact someone for assistance, not post and (b) ask to have the new handle deleted.

Finally, some members have requested a change in handles for one reason or another, this has been handled on a case by case basis by Randy and the current process seems fine. Though perhaps I'm not understanding either the questions or someone's concerns.

This question was submitted by member onefreeman:

"What is your opinion of psuedo-handles and how do you believe the use of psudeo-handles affects (or has affected) FlyerTalk?"
I believe everyone should be limited in general to one handle, on a case by case basis I can see changing a handle but more than one handle simple can not be allowed because of the amount of abuse it would allow

On one side, I can see how psuedo-handles are advantageous - to allow anonymity, to aid when problems occur with primary log-ins, etc etc. With a forum of this size however, I would agree that one handle per user is the best way to go.

Duplicate or multiple handles have been the source of a great deal of ill will on this and other Internet bulletin boards.
They are rarely set-up for any positive reason and thus I'm not in favor of them except for very limited purposes.
In addition to the arturo example above, a current FT moderator, Moderator2 has two handles. He uses the Moderator2 handle in an official capacity when moderating his forums and his regular handle when posting as a member. I believe this experiment in duplicate handles for mod's was determined to be unwieldy and thus was discontinued.

If by “psuedo-handles” Randy means the use of two or more handles, then I would be against that except as already covered by the FT rules. Multiple handles should not be needed in a civilized information exchange forum.

[[I]QUOTE=Randy Petersen]This question was submitted by member onefreeman:

"What is your opinion of psuedo-handles and how do you believe the use of psudeo-handles affects (or has affected) FlyerTalk?"[/QUOTE]


Hi
I would say that people should only use one handle on any of the forums. I know of forums where some people have used upto 8 handles (and still do) it causes all sorts of conflicts and problems.

I would have to ask the person who posted the question why he would want to use multi handles on the forum?

regards
RadioMan

Cholula is correct, I had forgotten that Craig6z uses the handle Moderator2 when acting as a moderator. That's pretty bad, since Moderator2 is a co-moderator with me of MilesBuzz!

IIRC when moderators were first introduced to Flyertalk this was done anonymously. There was quite a controversy over 'just who are these moderators' as they were given handles like Moderator1 and Moderator2. It was later decided that moderators would perform their duties publicly.

The dual-handle solution works well for Craig6z. For me it would be unwieldly, I bet I'd post with the wrong handle quite a bit and I often handle simple moderator chores quickly between meetings. Logging out and logging back in with a different handle would be a chore, especially because my Internet Explorer often doesn't let me log out properly!

In any society or social grouping, a person develops a reputation that he or she must live with. The human desire to be liked and accepted is one of the primary drivers in leading people to behave in socially acceptable ways. Anonymity is desired when one wants to do something unpopular without suffering the recourse. Bulletin boards by their very nature are fairly anonymous to begin with. Alter egos and second handles serve only to allow people to behave in ways that they do not want known by the greater group and in darn near all instances, that is a detriment rather than a benefit to the community as a whole. We can never stop all such occurrences as many people (in a way I just cannot understand) seem to draw some type of satisfaction from annoying others and actively work to do just that. But we should continue to strive to make these occurrences as rare as possible.

Gleff again has good points around lost passwords or a change in handles. With a community this large we should provide tools to allow self-service to those with password issues if at all possible. I am not certain what tools exist there today. And, especially for new users, we do want to allow a change in handle. Your handle is your identity on these boards and sometimes that perfect witty name comes to you right after you register.

Allow creativity but prevent abuse. Who could possibly be against that? The devil again will be in the details. And sometimes you are better off maintaining policies that are slightly vague and permit a degree of human judgment. Those who seek to abuse and annoy are often outstanding at using the rules to their advantage and playing their games just within the letter of the law. There is an advantage to having someone who can make a determination based on the spirit of the rules. I haven't been around as long as some, but that is exactly what I believe we currently have. While there might be some bumps in the road as we ramble through the process, I haven't heard anyone yet complain of a complete failure to eventually reach the right result. That to me means that we might look to tweak things around the edges, but for now anyway, the current policy seems to be working.

Gleff again has good pointsI think I should appoint John C as my campaign manager! :p

Thanks for the compliments, and to all for keeping this so issue-focused.

I think I should appoint John C as my campaign manager! :p

Bah! You're doing better than that already. I'm seriously considering giving you a vote! ^ ;)

Btw, there's a current thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4698221) in the technical issues forum on members changing their username.

When the OP refers to pseudo-handles, I am assuming they are refering to duplicate handles. If that's the case, then I don't believe duplicate handles have a place in our community. With the exception of Craig6z/Moderator2 & arturo/whoever and the examples gleff provided above, there should not be any duplicate handles. Like every candidate above me, I feel that duplicate handles create, in general, a negative aspect on FlyerTalk. My belief is that if you have something to say, be a big enough person that you can say it as yourself - not behind some secondary handle. There is absolutely no reason for people to have a duplicate handle if they are posting as a member of FlyerTalk.

Those that use duplicate handles on FlyerTalk to badmouth other posters or to stir up controversy, in my opinion, are not really what I would consider to be valuable members on FlyerTalk. Why? Well, first off, they don't respect FlyerTalk and its Terms of Service. Second, they aren't strong enough people to just post what they believe & stand behind it. Third, I just question why someone would feel the need to create a secondary or third handle - I feel it would only be because of ill-will.

I don't mind if users change their handles to something else (esp. location specific ones when they've reloacted) but multiples? An absolute no-no....

If one is going to be malignant here, a second handle is just but one of several tools they could use. Just because bad people use them doesn't mean they are inheirently bad.

There are several regular users of the chat feature, that have a "backup handle" in case they get timed out and stuck in chat in their first handle. To my knowledge, they've never used it elsewhere.

I'm with Stimpy, and the idea that the problem is not specifically the ownership of a second handle, but the malicious use of it.

One Person = One Name - simple to remember and easy to understand.

I was all ready to break free of the pack, and stand on my own, but in the end I agree with the other candidates:

Just say "No" to pseudo handles (assuming that we know what they are :)).

pseudohandles ?

I am on other websites where I know of people with 5-6 different 'stage names' they use specifically to cover their stances on very particular subjects, or when replying to (flaming) specific people, and my experience with that is this: It's not good.

A person can have 20 pseudohandles for all I care, as long as the username database can handle it, it all comes back to ONE thing: good moderators.
If a person uses 10 different usernames to say basically the same thing, most people can see thru it.

I even know of someone that used 5 different usernames on one forum (on another website) solely to instigate an argument with others - his OTHER usernames ! He started a forum with a posting, logged off, logged on with another username, and replied 'you're an idiot', logged off, logged on with a 3rd username and defended the first posting, logged off, logged on with a 4th username with a verying reply to the 2nd and 3rd posters, it was nuts.
Folks can go that far.

Decent moderation would have stopped it after the second posting, tracking someone's MAC address can stop it also, unless you can spoof your public MAC address........

Oh - in addition to secondary usernames being not good, my experience is also that those that do that ALWAYS slip up and get caught. They always screw up and post something under the 'wrong' username........

I am against the adoption of separate identities on FT, and the use of second usernames. A community works best when it is open and honest. Pseudo-handles by their very nature are deceptive and should have no place in a healthy community like FT. It has been my experience that pseudo-handles most often appear when a member has been given a Time Out on FT. It is very rare that a member will maintain two, ongoing identities, on a consistent and regular basis.

My view is that any member found having and using a pseudo-indentity be dealt with by explusion, after presenting his or her case to the FT Board. They would remain suspended until their case was heard, in both identities, and should it be proven they've added yet anothe identity to post during this interim period, there would be no appeal to expulsion. I recognize policing is an issue here, and I pretend not to know how this can or cannot be done, given the operations of the internet. But in lieu of physically barring reposting under new identities, there should be a notice area whereby such individuals are revealed to the Community each time they reappear.

This said, as with most societies, I believe there should be a mechanism on FT to legally change our Username. And to do so without losing our "post record". This has actually been done, by Randy upon request of a member, but I would like it to be made possible in a more systematic fashion.

[My own username came about when I happened to own shares in both AC and CP at the very time CP announced a takeover bid for AC, though the intermediary of a third Canadian company I happened also to own stock in! That's when I started posting on FT, after lurking for quite a while. When I no longer owned shares in AC -- or CP -- I felt my username was inappropriate, and thought about changing it. However, that would have meant going back to zero and loss of my "elite status" on FT, among other things. I would have welcomed an official way of changing my username 18-months ago. BTW, I am now once more a shareholder in the new ACE, so resolved the username matter that way.]

I dont care.

This question was submitted by member onefreeman:

"What is your opinion of psuedo-handles and how do you believe the use of psudeo-handles affects (or has affected) FlyerTalk?"

With each person being identified with their own personal handle is great, it gives people ability to pick a name suited to their own personalities and also some privacy, especially to workers and other lurkers that provide valuable information. However, I'm don't advocate that one person to have multiple handles and therefore multiple "personalities" on FT. However, this can be a very hard rule to enforce.

If the issue brought forward is one of "Multiple Handles", then this is a serious issue that MUST be handled in an even matter.

There is no room on FT for Multiple Handles. Users registering a second handle should be suspended for a minimum of 30 days.

Any user who registers a Multiple Handle while serving a suspension should be suspended permanently.

d e l e t e d

I'm against allowing multiple handles with perhaps the only exception being that the Chat feature often doesn't allow someone to relog in after being booted if they were just in there. I could see justification for a second handle for this purpose if it's clear who the second handle belongs to (eg peteropny & peteropny2).

"What is your opinion of psuedo-handles and how do you believe the use of psudeo-handles affects (or has affected) FlyerTalk?"

This is a trick question right? Who's going to answer that fake handles have been good for this community?

We've seen many incidents of fake handles including specious claims of "oh, it's my wife's/husband's/mum's/pet budgie's handle; not mine" and suspended members using new handles. (From my time as a moderator, it can be almost amusing at times to see how bone-headed people using fake handles can be.) Has it negatively affected FT in the past? Yes, I'd have to say so.

I think, however, that the FT TOS is quite clear that multiple handles are not permitted, and the moderators simply have to keep their eyes open. Not every case is clear-cut, not every case is going to be caught. They do their best and I'm happy about that.

FewMiles..

I can see one potential use for an anonymous handle: A well-known FTer wants to post a question, opinion, or tactic that might provoke retaliation from a program who probably knows who the FTer is based on 10,000 posts. Even if he doesn't have his own web site, right Gary?

I would like to kick around the idea of explictly anonymous temporary handles, such as anon00001, a la Craigslist. These would be usable for discussing program-sensitive subjects and they would have to be traceable by administrators to a permanent FT handle. (For example, you have to be logged in to request issuance of an anonymous handle.)

Abuse of this feature would lead to time out or other consequences, applicable to all handles used by that person. Moderators would aggressively delete inappropriate posts that use anonymous handles, giving them less slack than posts using permanent handles. Naturally, personal attacks using an anonymous handle would earn immediate censure.

pseudohandles ?

I am on other websites where I know of people with 5-6 different 'stage names' they use specifically to cover their stances on very particular subjects, or when replying to (flaming) specific people, and my experience with that is this: It's not good.

Sure, there are instances where it might be justified, but in general I agree with you that this is the primary driver in having mutiple names far too often.

A person can have 20 pseudohandles for all I care, as long as the username database can handle it, it all comes back to ONE thing: good moderators.

This is where I disagree. It is somewhat akin to saying drugs in schools cause nothing but problems but I'm OK with the kids having drugs - what we really need is better hall monitors to make sure they don't take any of them. In my mind, it is a lot easier to just eliminate the problem before it starts.

If a person uses 10 different usernames to say basically the same thing, most people can see thru it.

Sure, and most people can say no to the squeegee guy who wants to wash our windows for a "tip", but our ability to cope shouldn't mean that we have to tolerate the patently annoying.

I even know of someone that used 5 different usernames on one forum (on another website) solely to instigate an argument with others - his OTHER usernames ! He started a forum with a posting, logged off, logged on with another username, and replied 'you're an idiot', logged off, logged on with a 3rd username and defended the first posting, logged off, logged on with a 4th username with a verying reply to the 2nd and 3rd posters, it was nuts.
Folks can go that far.

So how is allowing this to happen and forcing the mods to have to deal with it a good idea???

Decent moderation would have stopped it after the second posting, tracking someone's MAC address can stop it also, unless you can spoof your public MAC address........

So what is the rule you are proposing? You can have two handles but they can't talk in the same thread? Or they can, but they have to be nice when talking to one another? Isn't a far easier solution for everyone just to say one person = one name?

Oh - in addition to secondary usernames being not good, my experience is also that those that do that ALWAYS slip up and get caught. They always screw up and post something under the 'wrong' username........
That is funny when it happens, I'll admit. But I still think the far easier solution is to just prevent the problem to begin with.

I can see one potential use for an anonymous handle: A well-known FTer wants to post a question, opinion, or tactic that might provoke retaliation from a program who probably knows who the FTer is based on 10,000 posts. Even if he doesn't have his own web site, right Gary?

I would like to kick around the idea of explictly anonymous temporary handles, such as anon00001, a la Craigslist. These would be usable for discussing program-sensitive subjects and they would have to be traceable by administrators to a permanent FT handle. (For example, you have to be logged in to request issuance of an anonymous handle.)

Abuse of this feature would lead to time out or other consequences, applicable to all handles used by that person. Moderators would aggressively delete inappropriate posts that use anonymous handles, giving them less slack than posts using permanent handles. Naturally, personal attacks using an anonymous handle would earn immediate censure.

If you can't say something under your own name, it likely shouldn't be said. I think this is a reasonable discussion, but I would oppose any such proposal as I believe the downside risk far outweighs the upside potential.

The only real benefit of multiple handles is when something gets technically off-kilter and "hangs" an ID as discussed above. But I would rather focus the effort on fixing that technical glitch rather than creating a workaround that just might be worse than the original problem it was intended to solve.

I don't like secondary handles, but I'm talking about something you can ENFORCE, and unless you have all the tools and LOTS of time to burn, you will go nuts trying to police it. Is this an area of real concern for FT ?
I don't think it so.

It takes enough time just to moderate, and now we need to do investigative work on discovery of secondary handles ? I really don't think we need to.
Secondary handles by design are used to start trouble, and good moderating will take care of problem areas, let alone who the troublemakers are.

I can see one potential use for an anonymous handle: A well-known FTer wants to post a question, opinion, or tactic that might provoke retaliation from a program who probably knows who the FTer is based on 10,000 posts. Even if he doesn't have his own web site, right Gary?

I would like to kick around the idea of explictly anonymous temporary handles, such as anon00001, a la Craigslist. These would be usable for discussing program-sensitive subjects and they would have to be traceable by administrators to a permanent FT handle. (For example, you have to be logged in to request issuance of an anonymous handle.)

Abuse of this feature would lead to time out or other consequences, applicable to all handles used by that person. Moderators would aggressively delete inappropriate posts that use anonymous handles, giving them less slack than posts using permanent handles. Naturally, personal attacks using an anonymous handle would earn immediate censure.

An interesting idea, but I just can't agree with it. If one cannot say it with one's own ("real") handle, then perhaps it's not something that should be said in public on FT.

For those "questions, opinions, or tactics that might provoke retaliation from the program", there's always use of private messaging or secret discussion forums. After all, you don't want to give away all the best secrets. ;)

FewMiles..

Well, as noted by Gary and others already, I'm not entirely sure what is meant exactly by the term "psuedo-handles."

Yet, from what I understand, it is somewhat difficult to see, in general, where they are a good idea for FT and FT'ers.

IMHO, while there may be some special cases made for exemption, to be decided by Randy, for say the likes of "Kris Kringel", or even "arturo", I think it is far better to stick with the single handle concept. :)

Of course, for those old time, original members out there, you'll remember that may opinion on this item may have very well been swayed by the likes of:

cod
quack
Dr Pfp
Doctor PfP
Reverend PfP
Miss PfP
Karl Stevens

And on, and on, and on...

Some FT'ers may think secondary and even tertiary "handles" are useful for "humor," but IMHO, many a true word is spoken in jest. So called "humor" or "satire" at the obvious expense of other FT's should have no place here on FT or for that matter in any real caring "community!"

Thanks! :)

-Mark

I don't like secondary handles, but I'm talking about something you can ENFORCE, and unless you have all the tools and LOTS of time to burn, you will go nuts trying to police it. Is this an area of real concern for FT ?
I don't think it so.

It takes enough time just to moderate, and now we need to do investigative work on discovery of secondary handles ? I really don't think we need to.
Secondary handles by design are used to start trouble, and good moderating will take care of problem areas, let alone who the troublemakers are.

I agree with you fredman regarding the difficulty of enforcing the “one handle” rule. And I am not proposing that we hire a database goon squad. Overall, I think we are both saying that we don't need to make any major changes with regard to this topic. My only point is that I do not believe we want to allow the difficulty of enforcement to confuse the fact that it should be explicitly disallowed. This is a case where you might not go actively looking for rule breakers, but you want the rule on the books for those instances where the problem does arise.

I agree with you fredman regarding the difficulty of enforcing the “one handle” rule. And I am not proposing that we hire a database goon squad. Overall, I think we are both saying that we don't need to make any major changes with regard to this topic. My only point is that I do not believe we want to allow the difficulty of enforcement to confuse the fact that it should be explicitly disallowed. This is a case where you might not go actively looking for rule breakers, but you want the rule on the books for those instances where the problem does arise.

Well said.

BTW, yet another example of problems created by multiple handles would be having multiple votes in the TalkBoard election. Not that anyone would ever do that. ;)

It's hard to enforce a one-handle rule, but then again, anyone with enough personal integrity won't get into an arguement/discussion/shouting match and create new handles to defend themelves (posing as someone else) unless they have some real issues at hand.

It's hard to enforce a one-handle rule, but then again, anyone with enough personal integrity won't get into an arguement/discussion/shouting match and create new handles to defend themelves (posing as someone else) unless they have some real issues at hand.
You are correct! I think you would be "fascinated" to know who did this exact thing!