ILE Responsibilities

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

1. Should you identify your posts with a consistent name?

2. When, if ever, are anonymous posts OK?

3. If you start a controversial thread, do you need to be involved in the ensuing discussion?

― fritz, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

or does anarchy reign?

― fritz, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

1. Depends.
2. Depends.
3. Depends

HTH!

― HAR HAR I'M ANONYMOUSE!, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

This is my first time out as an anony-mouser.

THE POWER! HAHAHAHARAHAAGHHH!

Number one, open the shark vents.

― no! no!, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

1. No. Sometimes it's funny not to.
2. I use em for gags only eg John Milton = me haha you may laff now.
3. Sometimes RL intervenes, so silly to have a rule.

― mark s, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

1. Should you identify your posts with a consistent name?

not necessarily, but i prefer it. if there are a variety of different names for one poster you have to ask yourself why that is. i make it obvious that all my posts are from me, i think my opinion is valid enough to sign my name to.

2. When, if ever, are anonymous posts OK?

i think not really to be honest. but its down to discretion, people could just make up a name, so it becomes anonymous anyway. i think people have to ask why the post they are making is anonymous, and a bit of common sense is required. also, responses to anonymous posts should have a bit of common sense as well (the person presumably isn't confident in their opinion enough to sign to it)

3. If you start a controversial thread, do you need to be involved in the ensuing discussion?

No. sometimes you might not have an opinion as such, asking for a bunch of opinions is a good way to learn things, see different sides. you may not always have something of your own to add.

so:
depends
depends
no, is ok not to

― gareth, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

What I think:

1 and 2 are kind of the same. Anonymity/switching names is OK if it's not used as a cover behind which you hide for personal attacks on other people or general aggro-creation. By 'anonymous' I mean deliberate name-switching, not constistent avoidance of your 'real life' name, which is of course anyone's perogative.

3. No, I don't see why you should have to.

― N., Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

o sod i was going to use all my names at once

― mark s = duck s = aquaduck s = GOD007 = Joan Jett's Actual Girlfriend = Jacques , Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

could we all post as "no, i'm spartacus" on this thread, please?

― No, I think you'll find that I'm Spartacus, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Of course Mark's pseudonyms are a bit different as he always (?) puts his real email address.

― N., Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

i believe the hoppa does the same

― , Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

perogative / prerogative bleh

― N., Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

(actually John Milton and Jacques Lacan have their own e-dresses, as the joke sometimes demands it)

― mark s, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Oh well whatever. They're one joke pop-ups not related to nastiness anyway.

― N., Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

1+2: Consistent names are best, but pseudonyms are sometimes useful for delicate things. Biggest problem (apart from the obvious abuses) is the absence of a recognisable name leading to unfair assumptions as to who the person really is.
3: No. I've started at least one myself, and then stepped back from posting after realising I couldn't contribute constructively to posting.

― RickyT, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

My basic feeling on non-joke pseudonyms/anonymity is:

if they're telling the board something illustrative about yourself or asking for advice, fine.

if they're being used to be abusive or tell someone some 'home truths' then not fine.

if they're being used to give somebody anonymous but friendly advice then that's a grey area but I tend to give the benefit of the doubt.

― Tom, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

hell, this thread's reminded me that it's been ages since anyone uttered the dread word STATSCOCK

― Alan Trewartha, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Which I still rule. HAHA.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

1. I think so. It's complicated and confusing otherwise.
2. When you really don't feel strong enough for criticism but you need to say something...rarely if possible.
3. Not if you've got nothing to say.

― Maria, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I posted under a different name, and while I thought I had a valid reason for doing it I probably shouldn't have.

― Nicole, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

what is STATSCOCK?

and as I have stated elsewhere, am not really a beagle - am a girl who thinks coming back as a beagle would be cool, two proviso's permitting 1) reincarnation exists 2) I come back as my pet beagle who has a fantastic life

am NOT a loon, not desperately depressed. Just would like to lead the uncomplicated life of my beagle sometimes.

No one will ever answer one of my posting ever again after that admission. Buggeration.

― Wilfred the Beagle, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I always use the same email address to worship the statscock.

aquaduck s: what about prescient spice?

― Graham, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Nicole, were you doompatrol??

― N., Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Noooo! I'm not that inspired.

― Nicole, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

My god! If you had been d**mp****l, that would be the acting job of the century.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I don't know that much about Canada.

Or Alan McGee, for that matter. I was junichiro.

― nicole, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

1) As long as the e-mail address = k, then a different name is fine

2) Anonymous posts are oky if people are being funny and not masking attacks on other people/opinions. I'm undecided as to the value of anonymity when addressing painful issues, as I believe the person will receive more advice/empathy if they don't act anonymously. 3) No. Often posts don't start controversially. Someone asking a question, shouldn't necessarily have to answer their own question. Though, they should strive to defend their own beliefs.

― jel, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

the statscock never loads for me, only the title. i wonder why.

― Maria, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

That happens to me, too. I imagine that it's thinking.

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

oh yeah i like prescient spice: i am a whore for other selves. i was a top comedy pop-up recently on ilm also which i leave you to guess (i sort of wish i hadn't outed jacques lacan also)

― "my faces unfurl" (haha seek THAT gothfynder general), Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I really like that Jacques Lacan thing. I had wondered which clever clogs was responsible. I hope he keeps appearing.

― Nancy Drew, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I always put a different e-mail, im guessing that is not ok

― Chupa-Cabras, Thursday, 31 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.