@Richard, First of all, we cannot enforce our original rule. It's impossible with our current resources. This is the primary reason why we are doing away with it. The church does get accused of adopting worldly methods to draw crowds; however, the word "worldly" is a loaded word. Not everything secular minded people do is wrong or shouldn't be practiced. The Bible is our guide of how we ought to do things, not the world. For example, it is common practice for companies to mass mail residents about current promotions etc. Whether or not secular institutions mass mail people should not dictate how Christians spread the gospel. Allowing people some privacy online is not worldly. There is no intent to deceive. Pseudonyms are clearly not intended to be taken as someone's real name. Keep in mind that discussing something with a stranger in person is significantly different than discussing it with a stranger online. Verbal communication is a different medium than written communication. Also, in-person conversations have the luxury of privacy as the conversation is not reco rded or broadcast for anyone in the world to hear. People adjust what they say and how they say it depending on the medium. Many people would not appreciate what they say in person (even though it may not be intimate) being recorded and broadcast for public access. We recently conducted a survey at work which was anonymous. The employees didn't even use pseudonyms. There were some harsh criticisms that would never have been aired if a name had to be attached to the comment. Why? Because people want to keep their job, and there is no guarantee that you'll be able to express yourself freely without getting fired. If there were, than people would feel much more comfortable express their opinions. People who comment with a pseudonym still have to abide by the other rules, which are the ones that really control the quality.
Would it not be easy enough to have people flag those who anonymously post?
Anonymous commenting is currently not a feature offered by Moot. You can be anonymous in the sense no one would no your name, but you do have a to create a name with it's your real name or a pseudonym. Your suggestion would only rule out users who use pseudonyms that appear not to be real. This doesn't stop someone from mimicking the format with a pseudonym that has a first and last name, which people could be doing right now.
Have you had a real problem with people creating false names in the past? It seems like most people I see here, for the most part, are above board with their names.
Most of the comments you see use what we trust is their real name as we have no way to verify it. Comments that obviously use a pseudonym are frequently deleted. As a teacher I don't have rules I can't enforce, and we can't enforce this one. It may turn out that the majority of commenters will continue to use their real names.
I just want everyone to know I compared the image in the bathroom mirror with the ADvindicate avatar this morning can assure you that this is really me.
Maybe we'll end up with 300 of Gideon's men, er, ah, I mean Gideon's people.
@Doug Matacio I don't follow your meaning.
I'll let _Bruno_ know he can come back.
> @georgethe54th > I'll let Bruno know he can come back LOL, now that I understand. You, me and Bruno need to hit up Bakers again.
> @shilde > and we can't enforce this one. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say it costs more than you are willing to pay to enforce it. And that's understandable. Under those circumstances though, I would just proceed under the honor system.
> @kennethneal > Perhaps it would be more accurate to say it costs more than you are willing to pay to enforce it. This is true.
I believe that real names should be encouraged, if not mandated.
real names tend to promote civility and a lack of an agenda...it's a pity some people feel a need to hide themselves - i mean is a social gathering the same when everybody's wearing a mask...
I agree. Let those who are lying just have a little more added guilt. I like that Shane would not tolerate a name that was obviously not a real name, even if he can't enforce it. It gives a feel of integrity to ADvindicate that Spectrum does not have. Like Ken said, it is just an honor system, like many things in life.
While I was running Educate Truth from 2009-2012, people repeatedly told me how fortunate I was that I was not an employee of the church. I couldn't have agreed more. Working outside the church gave me a unique opportunity to create a platform for people to discuss a controversial subject. My career could have potentially been stressful or lost. If we lived in an ideal world where there was absolutely no threat for sharing our beliefs, than requiring real names wouldn't be as much of an issue. There are many reasons aside from the one I mentioned why people would prefer not to have an online presence that is attached to their name. We should not settle for the allusion of integrity or truth. I can think of a number of instances where those who have been commenting on this thread engaged commenters with a pseudonym. Apparently their name was not required for some of you to feel that the content of their comment alone merited a reply. We will continue to foster a n environment that encourages people to be open with their identity, but for those who feel they can't for one legitimate reason or another, will also have the opportunity to join in the discussions.
Well said, Shane.
> @eliziskander > It gives a feel of integrity to ADvindicate that Spectrum does not have. I'm surprised that those that espouse the truth so ardently yearn so desperately for for a "feel" or allusion of integrity. Shane's last post was well stated and right on the money - so to speak. > @jeremyvandieman > real names tend to promote civility and a lack of an agenda… So, just because someone uses their real name means they don't have an agenda? But ADvindicate repeatedly exposes those who have agendas in real life using their real names. I fail to see how this makes any difference. Again, we are back to allusions and feelings that have little basis in fact.
james, the escapism associated with pseudonyms seen on religious websites is part of a broader cyber phenomenon...cnn ran a docudrama a while back, citing research that shows people are emboldened on social websites due to a perceived anonymity in a way they are not when conversing face to face - don't ask me to cite it, because i didn't write down any info at the time...cyber-bullying leading to suicide on the part of the victim is merely one aspect of this phenomenon...pedophiles preying on hapless children is another, as is the case of serial killers seeking fresh victims... but it is true that those with an agenda will find a way to peddle it, regardless...on a religious website, moderator intervention is frequently employed to keep the conversation civil, and on topic...the issue in this case, though, is the bias of the moderator...but this just shows we are living in an imperfect world and need the grace of god working in our lives every moment and in every thing we do...caution is unavoidably more necessary when conversing with individuals who choose to remain anonymous and invisible...
Anonymous is a lot like Frank Sinatra's brother. Real is more better. I'm with most of the guys here, I like the personal touch. Besides, there are a lot of really meaningless monikers out there that we'd all have to endure.