Programs: TalkBoard: We discuss / ad nauseum things that mean / so very little
Posts: 10,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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!"
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.
__________________
Flying just is not as fun as it used to be, and it might actually be less secure as well.
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.
__________________ Click here to learn how to construct and book mileage runs.
Location: 10 minutes from the best cheesesteak in Philadelphia
Programs: traffic pulse super-plat... hey my commute is on I-76 :(
Posts: 15,512
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!
__________________
Get involved in the "politics" of FT. Pressure YOUR TalkBoard representatives to PARTICIPATE in OPEN debate.
