advindicate

Open full view…

Pseudonyms welcome — ADvindicate

Tue, 11 Mar 2014 06:23:54 GMT

George Evans
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 06:30:03 GMT

>“The most important contributors to online communities are those using pseudonyms” (Disqus) Legends in their own minds.

Tony Kimbley
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:35:25 GMT

> Also, commenters using pseudonyms commented 6.5 times more than anonymous and 4.7 times more than those who use a real name. Of course. It is easy to be bold when one is hiding behind a cloak of invisibility. This was one of the things that I respected about ADVindicate... one was accountable for the words they posted. Yes, I know it is difficult to enforce, but at least you tried. Let's get ready for the barrage of Spectrumites now who will inevitably come here to covertly blast the truth. Thanks for nothing, guys!

exsda
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 13:58:15 GMT

Thank you for allowing those of us, who need the protection from using our real names to add to the conversation.

Shane Hilde
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:05:42 GMT

> @adventist1962 > one was accountable for the words they posted. Whether you use your real name or a pseudonym, all comments are accountable to the rules that govern commenting. The idea of everyone using their real name sounds great, but in practice, it doesn't work very well. Conversation on the web and conversation in person are two very different mediums of communication. The same thing could be said in both situations with vastly different outcomes.

Tony Kimbley
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:57:48 GMT

When I say accountable, I mean that one is more careful what they say when their real name is on the line. When I used a pseudonym at Spectrum, I was much more comfortable spouting words that, if my real name were associated with it, I probably would have stated it differently. My opinion for what its worth is, if you can't stand up and be counted, you should just sit down. I am very disappointed in this decision and will most likely be an occasional visitor from here on. Be ready for a conservative Spectrum here very soon.

Shane Hilde
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:39:06 GMT

Recognize that it is physically beyond our control, and pretending that we do have control doesn't make us better than any other cite that allows pseudonyms. I would also suggest that the problem with Spectrum's comments is not the commenters using pseudonyms, but the content the site publishes that undermines the beliefs of the Adventist Church and thus attracts like minded people.

defunct account
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 15:42:39 GMT

The quantity of conversation may go up. The quality of much of it will no doubt go down for the reasons Tony mentions. The old name policy is certainly one of the reasons I chose to join the conversation here. Like Tony suggested, I may end up using this site much like I use the other, look at it every now and then to see what is going on in my church, as I am not really interested in talking with a lot of anonymous folks. We'll see.

Shane Hilde
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:26:16 GMT

> @kennethneal > The quality of much of it will no doubt go down for the reasons Tony mentions. Current rules at this site and evidence from Disqus' research would suggest otherwise. If I remember right, you and Tony comment quite a bit at another site despite the commenters who use pseudonyms.

Tony Kimbley
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:02:06 GMT

Over there someone has to stand up for the truth. I guess once the pseudonymians from there see they can post here cloaked, it is going to turn into the same thing. But, this is not my call. Too bad...

Shane Hilde
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:10:42 GMT

I'm confident there will be no waive from the other site. Our content has little appeal to them.

Richard Thomas
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:33:52 GMT

It was nice commenting to people with real names and real faces. I was hesitant at first joining with my real name but now I prefer it that way - just seems more sincere. There, I voted.

Shane Hilde
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:43:22 GMT

> @richardt > It was nice commenting to people with real names and real faces. And you can continue doing so. It's your prerogative whether you want to respond to commenters with real names or pseudonyms. Remember, we've never had a mechanism to verify identities, so it's possible you've been talking with people who have been using pseudonyms. ;)

Richard Thomas
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:44:11 GMT

So true but it seemed real enough.

Tony Kimbley
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:54:06 GMT

> @shilde > I'm confident there will be no waive from the other site. Our content has little appeal to them. You have already had one comment from a regular Spectrum poster. When the word gets out, (and it will) put on your lifejacket 'cause the flood will come. Some have told me in the past the two reasons that keep them away from here is anonymity and being deleted for views. I agree with Dr. Neal. Regardless of what the Disqus numbers say, you will have greater quantity with liberal quality.

Shane Hilde
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:55:22 GMT

> @adventist1962 > you will have greater quantity with liberal quality Even better as I'd like to expose as many people as possible to our content.

Tony Kimbley
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:59:07 GMT

... but you will be exposing vulnerable people to false interpretations of your content, as well. Wait until the Fordian/Heppenstallian crew arrives, you will see what I mean. Regardless, what is done is done. Let the chips fall where they may. Time will tell.

Richard Thomas
Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:50:55 GMT

Isn't the SDA church also criticized for adopting worldly ways to draw in bigger crowds. Seems kind of like the same thing here.

previous