missydarlin

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.

Markie

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

VPescado

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 ).

fredman

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........

Shareholder

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.]

kokonutz

I dont care.

NOLAnwGOLD

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.

CameraGuy

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.

HNL

d e l e t e d

peteropny

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).

FewMiles

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..

nsx

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.

John C

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

John C

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.

fredman

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.