Sigs

[Chris Jacobs]

I got the idea for this after some people added comments on the topic "Your posts reflect CAP to the outside world", saying that members should have to put their names with their mesages.  I feel both ways but it seems like it was a valid issue for a poll.  So vote.

[MIKE]

It's something I personally recommend for my stated reasons, but I don't think it should necessarily be a requirement for board membership.  That said, I do not look kindly upon those who would use their anonymity as a license to cause trouble.

[Chappie]

Personally, I feel it is up to the member as to whether or not they want to identify themselves in their sig line.  The majority of us here are adults and should have some civility in their demeanor.  But having said that, I realize that there are occasions where things are said/written "tongue in cheek" or in a sarcastic manner.  Given the current climate of CAP, there may be some who would fear either a personal reprisal or that it would put some heat on their commander should their remarks be viewed as contrary or critical to NHQ....because these posts are read by others both inside and outside CAP.  Just my .002.

[DNall]

It's something I personally recommend for my stated reasons, but I don't think it should necessarily be a requirement for board membership.  That said, I do not look kindly upon those who would use their anonymity a license to cause trouble.

I said yes on the basis of you morally should have to, but I'm 100% with Mike on this one. I personally prefer to do is in my username as you can see, versus the more formalized sig line you see a lot of people using. The reason for that is, in order to have open & frank discussions, I don't think there is a place for grade or other one-ups-manship type things, including to go so far talking to someone's chain of command. I don't hide where I'm at or who I'm working for, but I don't plaster it in neon either. That's just how my personal judgements have worked out on the subject, YMMV.

[LtCol White]

I think it should be a requirement. What would be the legitimate need for not revealing your identity? Anyone can read as a guest. Therefore, members should be required to publish it in the sig block.

 

[ColonelJack]

After reading this, I changed my sig to include who I am, as well as where I write and where you can buy my writing stuff.

Thanks to the many CAPTalkers who've visited The Colonel's Corner (my blog!) and have read my wide and varied stuff.

Jack

[LtCol White]

After reading this, I changed my sig to include who I am, as well as where I write and where you can buy my writing stuff.

Thanks to the many CAPTalkers who've visited The Colonel's Corner (my blog!) and have read my wide and varied stuff.

Jack

Now if we can get others to follow suit.

[BillB]

I don't post name in a sig. but many already know who I am.  While it may be a good idea to include name, rank and unit to a signature block, would someone in Maine Wing know who someone in California Wing was?

[RiverAux]

As long as you are generally respectful of others and contribute to the discussion I don't have a NEED to know who you are.  Sure, if I did know it may help me evaluate your comments, but I don't find it necessary. 

The flamers that want to come in and disrupt things will just post false information anyway, so requiring all that stuff is meaningless without a rock-solid method of identity verification. 

[Pylon]

We don't need it and that's intentional, by design.

What if CAP Member Snuffy is having huge issues with a dysfunctional squadron/group/wing, and wants to seek advice from the collective experience contained here, but doesn't want to name specific names, nor have their superiors chastizing them either after discovering the posts.  It's a legitimate concern.

Our policy as it is now is that you can put your name and/or other information in your signature, or you can remain anonymous.  You can't create a ficticious identity, but you can remain anonymous. 

Does anonymity lead to issues?  Perhaps, but an anonymous user who is violating forum etiquette and rules will be dealt with just as would a person with their name in the signature block.  Breaking the rules is breaking the rules, regardless of what's in your signature block.  Being anonymous doesn't give users here a free pass.

We've had very few problems stemming from people feeling they can get away with anything since nobody knows their name.  I don't see any valid reason to change it.   (Nor would the outcome of this poll change the board administrators' opinions on how things will be run.    )

[Fifinella]

What if CAP Member Snuffy is having huge issues with a dysfunctional squadron/group/wing, and wants to seek advice from the collective experience contained here, but doesn't want to name specific names, nor have their superiors chastizing them either after discovering the posts.  It's a legitimate concern.

PRECISELY, Fifinella said anonymously.

[CAP428]

I don't think it should be required, and for a number of reasons.

The main ones, though are:

There's not a huge problem with people posting disrespectful/hateful comments anonymously.  Sure, you might see some bad judgement here and there, but it's not like the forum is overrun by anonymous folks posting awful things.

There are plenty of people who might be hesitant to voice their opinion, but anonymity offers them the "courage" to post what they think without the fear of getting beat down for their thoughts.

Security.  You might not think it's a big deal, and chances are it wouldn't ever develop to be one, but posting your name and location online can in fact be a safety and security issue.

On a related note, you do have cadets on here, and, depending on their age, their parents may not be too crazy about them posting their name and where they live on their posts.  I would rather have the anonymous contributions of everyone possible than the exclusion of a huge faction of the CAP population just because you'd like to see "who said what."


That's what I think.

[Chris Jacobs]

(Nor would the outcome of this poll change the board administrators' opinions on how things will be run.    )

You caught me.  

[FARRIER]

Done

[dwb]

Absolutely not.  I think it's a really bad idea to require people to disclose their identities.

Why?

• Some people don't want everyone on here to know who they are.
• Some cadets, especially the younger ones, may have been told by their parents not to disclose their real name on the Internet.
• Some people just like to contribute to the discussion, and the more requirements you add to participate, the more people will decide it's not worth the trouble.
• As Pylon pointed out, people come here to get advice for problems they're having, and being able to have anonymity makes discussing these problems possible.
• I like that cadets and senior members of all ranks and backgrounds can debate on a relatively even playing field.  It's so much unlike real life, it provides a good experience (esp. for the lower ranking members)
• Who gives a hoot what someone's real name is?  Honestly, it just doesn't matter as much as people seem to think it does.

[Major Carrales]

Some might say that this  is an intregity issue...to sign ones name to one's thoughts.


I think, however, it is best to addreses this by incident.  If we have a putz that comes here and hides behine the "screen name" and causes trouble, I have faith the MODERANGERs will deal with it.

[FARRIER]

"Some cadets, especially the younger ones, may have been told by their parents not to disclose their real name on the Internet."

For protection of cadets is a valid point.

[davedove]

I certainly like seeing the names, locations, positions, etc.  I gives you a quick snapshot of who the person is, where they are, and what they do.

That being said, I don't think it should be required.  There are many reasons why not, the most important of which is the protection of cadets.

Sure, at times someone will use it to bash, but that tends to be the exception.  That's what moderators are for.

[floridacyclist]

I don't think it should be required, especially after coming up with my own copy of SMF and seeing how well it can lock folks out by a variety of filters; I trust the moderangers are familiar with those tools as well.

I do post my name and approximate position though as a courtesy to let folks know what experience level I'm coming from and for the same reason that I finally sought promotion after 2 years as a 2^nd Lt Lt: to be taken seriously.

I could have cared less about the silver bar until some Captain made a remark about "What do you know? You're just a 2^nd Lt".

I do think that we should not be afraid to let people know where we stand in life and CAP (if not our real name, which is mostly irrelevant on here anyway) and should treat each other with the same level of respect and decorum as if we were talking face-to-face or over the telephone. It is very possible to disagree respectfully with others and is a skill we should all try harder to practice.

On our squadron board, I am requiring names and CAPIDs (or a good understanding of who you are and why you're there) to be known to the moderators, but not publically displayed.

[dwb]

Some might say that this  is an intregity issue...to sign ones name to one's thoughts.

But you're still doing this, even if you aren't using your legal name.  People will still judge you on the content of your posts, even if they only know you by your username.

I don't always use my name in my CAP Talk sig.  It's in there now because we're coming up on encampment season, and we start threads on this board for folks to ask encampment questions.  Since my username doesn't make it obvious who I am, I put my stuff in my sig.

However, if you only knew me as justin_bailey, then you'd just day "That Justin guy is an idiot", or, hopefully, "That Justin guy really knows his stuff".

Whether you know me as justin_bailey, or as Capt Brodsky, doesn't really matter.  It's still me.

This holds true even of people who have a different persona online.  Some people are completely different in person than they are on a message board.  Some people create fake personas and pretend to be someone else online.  That's generally less of an issue here, since it's a niche message board.

[Fifinella]

Some might say that this  is an intregity issue...to sign ones name to one's thoughts.

I disagree.  Integrity is something one has whether or not you know his/her name.  I see this issue as being no different than having a "nom de plume". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_name Writers for centuries have written under assumed names to protect the innocent or the guilty.  Some of these writers were honest and courteous, some were not.  Some feared reprisals; some were taking cheap shots.  But had each of the authors been required to write under his/her given name, I believe some great works would never have been created.  Granted, CAP TALK will probably never go down in the annals of great works  , but I believe the principle is the same.

[RiverAux]

Granted, CAP TALK will probably never go down in the annals of great works 

Speak for your own posts!   

[Fifinella]

Granted, CAP TALK will probably never go down in the annals of great works 

Speak for your own posts!   

[Major_Chuck]

Well, I had mine posted for a while...until I got a late night phone call from my Region Vice Commander suggesting strongly to back off on my comments about the NHQ leadership and attracted the attention of a CAP two star.  Name withheld.

I've returned to using my basic signature becuase I really don't care anymore what the NHQ person  thinks.

[Monty]

Well, I had mine posted for a while...until I got a late night phone call from my Region Vice Commander suggesting strongly to back off on my comments about the NHQ leadership and attracted the attention of a CAP two star.  Name withheld.

I've returned to using my basic signature becuase I really don't care anymore what the NHQ person  thinks.

How about that......

No kidding?  If not, that's confirmation that the National Commander gets wind of these things if there ever was such a thing as a confirmation.

(I know we always suspect such things....but wow)

[Lancer]

Come on guys... can we honestly say Maxwell isn't monitoring this site? Really now... 

I've signed my posts since day one. Like others, it keeps me on the straight and narrow, for the most part anyways.

Drawbacks to this are:

Since I post my grade, I feel that there are others of a higher grade who discount my opinions because I haven't been 'in the trenches' all along.

Not posting anonymous keeps me from discussing local issues without possible repercussions; or, be able to voice an opinion I have without stirring the pot that I'd rather not stir.

I've thought about creating a separate login for those purposes, but don't feel like making the Moderanger's nervous about 'what I'm up to' by having two accounts.

I guess I'll just keep things the way they have been for the time being as it's worked for me this long. I'll just keep my vile rants to the post meeting parking lot discussion. 

[MIKE]

I've thought about creating a separate login for those purposes, but don't feel like making the Moderanger's nervous about 'what I'm up to' by having two accounts.

FYI: Membership Code of Conduct

Only one user account is permitted per individual.  Members of the same household may have separate accounts, however they should be kept clearly separate from each other.   Members found to have additional accounts may have those accounts deleted without warning, among other actions

Your friendly neighborhood Moderanger.

[sandman]

I'd prefer not to due to nature of my real job. 

[Ned]

Like some others, I'm a little conflicted on this issue.

On one hand, we all acknowlege the role of anonymity in facilitating candor and protecting posters and whistleblowers against improper retaliation.  Heck, the Founding Fathers found anonymity a handy tool.  And I appreciate being able to be semi-anonymous/"low profile" so that my personal observations don't wind up being taken as doctrine.

But we also acknowledge that trouble-makers and pot-stirrers are emboldened by anonymity.  On occasion, folks are flamed and/or intimidated by folks who would not do so if their identities were public.

But ultimately, I have been pursuaded that the costs of anonymity outweigh the benefits.  More than one CAP-related board/forum has been overrun by negative folks intent on furthering various personal agendas.  Even when the mods/owners have been doing their best to keep things flowing and above-board.

I would support a default public ID with a procedure available to permit mods to authorize temporary anonymous screen names to folks with a credible reason to keep their names private.

Ned Lee

[Lancer]

But we also acknowledge that trouble-makers and pot-stirrers are emboldened by anonymity.  On occasion, folks are flamed and/or intimidated by folks who would not do so if their identities were public.

And then there are others who do post their real names and embarrass themselves and the organization with almost every post.

I would support a default public ID with a procedure available to permit mods to authorize temporary anonymous screen names to folks with a credible reason to keep their names private.

Another 'members only' online community that I'm a member of has a number of forums and depending on the forum, when you post, you have a checkbox that you can check to enable the post to be anonymous. The admin's can still see your IP address, but your posting name is replaced with a randomly generated name/avatar.

It would be nice to have some level of anonymous posting, even if it's was kept in one forum header, like an 'Anonymous Soapbox' forum. You still need to be a member of the board, but you can post anonymously.

[A.Member]

I'm really curious to understand what really drives the need of some of you to know who everyone is? 

Do we have an abundant problem of e-thugging?  No.   On the rare occasion where there has been an issue, the moderators have done an effective job at addressing the problem - to the point of removing entire threads, if necessary.  We even have a nice convenient link to report specific posts to moderators should you have a concern. 

To me, this whole "concern" is much ado about nothing and rather silly.  It almost comes off as much more of a superiority and control issue by some.  Really, who cares?!  And do we need to keep bringing it up every month or so?  Seems to me the discussion should've pretty much ended with this post (my emphasis added):

We don't need it and that's intentional, by design...

Our policy as it is now is that you can put your name and/or other information in your signature, or you can remain anonymous.  You can't create a ficticious identity, but you can remain anonymous...

We've had very few problems stemming from people feeling they can get away with anything since nobody knows their name.  I don't see any valid reason to change it.   (Nor would the outcome of this poll change the board administrators' opinions on how things will be run.    )

Let it rest already.

[Major_Chuck]

Okay,  I'll use my other signature then...

His Most Imperial Lord
Warlord of the Empire
Protector and Most Gracious Sovereign of the Realm
Viceroy of the Third Imperial Crown Colony
Chancellor

and....

Kitty Litter Changer

[A.Member]

Okay,  I'll use my other signature then...

His Most Imperial Lord
Warlord of the Empire
Protector and Most Gracious Sovereign of the Realm
Viceroy of the Third Imperial Crown Colony
Chancellor

and....

Kitty Litter Changer

I like it.  You, sir, are obviously a man of great integrity. 

[Ned]

I'm really curious to understand what really drives the need of some of you to know who everyone is? 

Odd, for someone who is curious, you also seem rather dismissive.

To me, this whole "concern" is much ado about nothing and rather silly.  It almost comes off as much more of a superiority and control issue by some.  Really, who cares?!  And do we need to keep bringing it up every month or so? 

Hmmm, you're curious but people who disagree with you are "rather silly" and have "superiority and control issues."

At a very, very mild level, this is not a bad example of the issue.  While not exactly an "e-mugging" it is also unlikely that you would have tried as hard to spin the argument by negatively characterizing folks holding opposing views if your name was attached to your post.  A classic ad-hom argument, and one best done anonymously.



And perhaps the reason it comes up periodically is the same reason any topic returns -- the issue remains unresolved.



I can only agree that the forum owners can set any rules they like.  The "sandbox ownership" cliche is apt.

But there is always a give and take between list owners and the users.  After all, there is no forum without users; and no users without forum providers.  It is in everyone's best interest to grow together.

As I mentioned above, my principal concern is the negative dynamic that can spin out of control despite the mods best efforts.  One could argue that that is exactly what happened to the Portal.

Ned Lee

[Chris Jacobs]

Well written

[A.Member]

I'm really curious to understand what really drives the need of some of you to know who everyone is? 

Odd, for someone who is curious, you also seem rather dismissive.

If I seem dismissive of the topic, it's probably because I am. 

This topic has been discussed ad nauseam here several times before - and not long ago.  BTW, there is nothing ad hominem about my statement.  There simply is nothing new being said here, thus, there is no real reason to continually bring it up.  You have a "solution" in search of a problem. 

I don't really have anything more to say about it.  Again,  to me, it's just:

[Pylon]

Hey.  Everybody ice down your hot plates.

Get the discussion back to a civil demeanor, quick like, or the padlock goes on.  Roger?

[RogueLeader]

Okay,  I'll use my other signature then...

His Most Imperial Lord
Warlord of the Empire
Protector and Most Gracious Sovereign of the Realm
Viceroy of the Third Imperial Crown Colony
Chancellor

and....

Kitty Litter Changer

Fine, I wil too,
Rogue Squadron  Comander- thats where my "callsign" comes from
High General, New Republic Armed Forces
General of the Borleais Space Defense Complex

and finally,
Weekend Night Manager at Hardees



and Student

[ColonelJack]

Does this mean I get to be "Tsar of All the Russias"?

Goody!

Jack