Main Menu

Anonymity

Started by Skyray, October 08, 2007, 12:23:16 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hawk200

Quote from: tedda on October 09, 2007, 03:46:47 PM
Quote from: Skyray on October 09, 2007, 02:56:06 AM
I don't care if you think the threat or the response is out of line, it was from someone who has been dicing with me, and it was of the "we know where you live" variety.

Use common sense.  Regardless of whether you care or not, you will be viewed at fault if you choose to puff your chest out and issue threatening edicts about your at-home arsenal in the public areas.   Again, if you receive a threat here, it behooves you to report it so we can deal with the sender and diffuse the situation appropriately.

In all fairness, if someone threatens you and you state that you will respond to that threat, that behaviour isn't unfounded. Usually, telling someone that if they hit you, you're gonna slug them back isn't about posturing, it's about making the other person think about what they're considering in the first place. Kind of a low level version of Mutually Assured Destruction, not in the extreme, but the same principle.There may be some sticky legal issues, but it's not unfounded agression.

To make any statement to the effect of "I know where you live" is considered a threat of harm in just about any state of this union. And asking someone of their current whereabouts isn't really an attempt to play nice.

I used to joke with a good friend that "I know where you live, and I'm going to come over and drink all your beer!". The kind of message sent to Skyray doesn't seem to have the same good nature behind it.

pixelwonk

You miss the point.
Any such behavior is unacceptable on a publicly viewed CAP forum.
Anybody wishing to go all Bernard Goetz on someone is a problem, whether it's a threat or a retort, via PM or in public.

Especially.when.it's.public.

Let's revisit some bullet points of the Membership Code of Conduct.

Members will not engage in libel, slander, name-calling, or personal attacks.  Members will not post any hateful material about any person, unit, or organization.  There is a line between leadership examples and scenarios, or having constructive discussions about problems without naming names, and attacking others outright.  Personal threats are also strictly prohibited.

All members will respect the opinion and dignity of other members, whether or not they may be present.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and certainly discourse on varying opinions is excellent. However, members will not attack others based on their opinions and beliefs, regardless of whether they agree or not.

Members will only discuss matters on topic for the forum in which they are posting.  Members will not make blatantly off-topic posts or attempt to derail legitimate discussions. All topics must relate and be of interest to CAP members in a professional aspect.

The administration and staff of the discussion board will be the sole judges of whether or not any conduct violates these rules.  These rules are not comprehensive and the administration or staff may deem any other behavior or content to be inappropriate as they see fit.


"Thanks.  Have a nice day."




Mustang

Since when does government represent the majority?  More people voted for Gore than Bush...
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "


Hawk200

Quote from: tedda on October 09, 2007, 06:44:28 PM
You miss the point.
Any such behavior is unacceptable on a publicly viewed CAP forum.
Anybody wishing to go all Bernard Goetz on someone is a problem, whether it's a threat or a retort, via PM or in public.

Especially.when.it's.public.

Let's revisit some bullet points of the Membership Code of Conduct.

Members will not engage in libel, slander, name-calling, or personal attacks.  Members will not post any hateful material about any person, unit, or organization.  There is a line between leadership examples and scenarios, or having constructive discussions about problems without naming names, and attacking others outright.  Personal threats are also strictly prohibited.

All members will respect the opinion and dignity of other members, whether or not they may be present.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and certainly discourse on varying opinions is excellent. However, members will not attack others based on their opinions and beliefs, regardless of whether they agree or not.

Members will only discuss matters on topic for the forum in which they are posting.  Members will not make blatantly off-topic posts or attempt to derail legitimate discussions. All topics must relate and be of interest to CAP members in a professional aspect.

The administration and staff of the discussion board will be the sole judges of whether or not any conduct violates these rules.  These rules are not comprehensive and the administration or staff may deem any other behavior or content to be inappropriate as they see fit.

Alright, I'll accept that you deem it unacceptable.

Pericles

For several years I participated in a usenet forum on Scientology, and compared to here, that was a jungle.  People not only used pseudonyms, they used anonymous mailers.  And even at that, several critics of Scientology had their pets killed, got threatening phone calls, and even had private information reported to the IRS.  So I am a little particular about who has my personal information.  I can't picture anyone in a benevolent charitable organization acting that way, but there is no sense in taking a chance.

lordmonar

No one is saying that you can't be anonymous.  But anonymity comes with pros and cons.

On the pro side...you can be more open, up to the limits of the whims of the moderators.

On the con side...you loose a bit of credibility by being anonymous.  When "IGOTNONAME" is expounding on the benefits of his pet idea, he does not set up his bona fides.

When I took my college public speaking class that in one of the first thing you have to do to help get your message across.

So.....full disclosure or no disclosure....it makes no major difference so long as you can live the the consequences.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Hawk200

Quote from: lordmonar on October 10, 2007, 06:14:26 AMOn the con side...you loose a bit of credibility by being anonymous.  When "IGOTNONAME" is expounding on the benefits of his pet idea, he does not set up his bona fides.

I find it hard to believe that you would question the credibility of a persons pet idea based on whether or not you know their name.

Then again, maybe not. Many people dislike it when they lack power over someone. It may sound spiritualistic, or holistic, or whatever, but names have power, and there are many people that have serious issues when they can't gain or are refused power over someone else.

Skyray

Quote from: Hawk200 on October 10, 2007, 01:07:27 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 10, 2007, 06:14:26 AMOn the con side...you loose a bit of credibility by being anonymous.  When "IGOTNONAME" is expounding on the benefits of his pet idea, he does not set up his bona fides.

I find it hard to believe that you would question the credibility of a persons pet idea based on whether or not you know their name.

Then again, maybe not. Many people dislike it when they lack power over someone. It may sound spiritualistic, or holistic, or whatever, but names have power, and there are many people that have serious issues when they can't gain or are refused power over someone else.

Maybe that is what this is all about, Power.  I never heard about the NC's "goons" clearing restrooms.  I did hear that he took to traveling with bodyguards, but what the heck, Brittany Spears travels with bodyguards.  As for the conflict of interest issue on radio procurement,  I met the National Radio guru back when the NTIA compliant rules were a major issue, and one of his credentials was that he worked for Motorola.  I remember thinking that it was inappropriate at the time.  My skirts are not totally clean along those lines.  In 1991 and 1992 I ran a small FBO, and we did maintenance on the group 172.  I would have loved to do it for free, but my business was such that I had to charge.  I never charged more than vendor cost, but it was a conflict of interest because I was the group operations officer.  But back to the subject of "rumor." I have never posted anything here that I did not have direct knowledge of or that I didn't reveal my source.  Sometimes the source was NOTF, and you guys don't seem to be very tolerant of that source.  In fact, you don't seem to be very tolerant of anything.  So be it.
Doug Johnson - Miami

Always Active-Sometimes a Member

Larry Mangum

I tend to agree with Major Carrales, and that is why my tag line, reflects who I am and my position with CAP.  I do think there is a need for whistleblower protection however as long as it is used exactly for that and not as a means to cover your tracks while smearing or attacking others for personal reasons.    I have seen too many cases lately of people filing anonymous complaints as part of a vendetta against each other or other units in a tit for tat fashion.    Not only is that bad for the membership and the organization but it consumes resources that can be put to a much better use then investigating every little petty issue. Sometimes I think CAP's motto should just be "Grow Up!", at least in Washington State.

Just my two cents worth.

P.S. I like Major Carrales, grew up in Texas and I was taught a person's word is their bond and not to tolerate liars and cheats.
Larry Mangum, Lt Col CAP
DCS, Operations
SWR-SWR-001

Walkman

You know, it's real easy for someone to type a random name and location in their sig. I'm mean truly, unless you've had a handshake, you could be talking with anyone here.

Pericles

Quote from: lordmonar on October 10, 2007, 06:14:26 AM
No one is saying that you can't be anonymous.  But anonymity comes with pros and cons.

On the pro side...you can be more open, up to the limits of the whims of the moderators.

On the con side...you loose a bit of credibility by being anonymous.  When "IGOTNONAME" is expounding on the benefits of his pet idea, he does not set up his bona fides.

When I took my college public speaking class that in one of the first thing you have to do to help get your message across.

So.....full disclosure or no disclosure....it makes no major difference so long as you can live the the consequences.

I tend to agree, Lordmonar, but sometimes those consequences are unwarranted and unexpected.  I have always felt that discourse should be free and open, and that ridiculous ideas would get sifted out by logic.  Back when I was in college, I took a jurisprudence course that was taught by a Jesuit, and the discussion sometimes got a little wild and far afield.  Imagine my dismay when I found out that one of my classmates, who was a local law enforcement officer trying to improve himself through education, had been suspended from his job for something he said in class.  A member of the class was in his department, and instead of speaking up and telling him that his opinion was faulty, went behind his back and reported what he said to his supervisor who suspended him.  I remember from participating in another forum that you had a similar experience; at least one of the participants was braying about how they were going to do you in.  If you don't mind, how did that turn out?  FWIW my position in that discussion was that I disagreed with you, but I sure as hell disagreed with him trying to get you fired.  Seemed to be an unfair debate tactic somehow.

star1151

Quote from: Hawk200 on October 10, 2007, 01:07:27 PM
I find it hard to believe that you would question the credibility of a persons pet idea based on whether or not you know their name.
I agree.  If anyone's really THAT concerned that I post anonymously, they are welcome to email me or talk to me in person.  But I will NOT post my full name and location and find it odd that my word is worth nothing because I choose not to for my own security.  I find it incredibly offensive and if this is an attitude prevalent in CAP, it's making my decision to stay or not that much easier.

Larry Mangum

Anonymity to post an idea or thought for consideration is fine and can be a great way of starting a discussion. Anonymity as a way of attacking another is not.
Larry Mangum, Lt Col CAP
DCS, Operations
SWR-SWR-001

IceNine

Let me throw this out there.

Is what Midway Six posts here or on CAPBlog any less credible, and accepted because he doesn't openly post his name?

A lot of us know him but, It doesn't matter much

That is just the most prominent example I can come up with.

"All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies"

Book of Bokonon
Chapter 4

davedove

I think where the problems occur is with brand new posters.  Someone comes in making a very forceful opinion like everyone should just accept what he says.  We don't know who the person is.  He could have years in CAP, be a brand new member, or just be an outsider stirring up trouble.

Once a person has been posting for a while people start to know and accept him, even if he is only known by his alias.
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003

Flying Pig

By wawgcap....
"Anonymity to post an idea or thought for consideration is fine and can be a great way of starting a discussion. Anonymity as a way of attacking another is not."



I can agree with this.  As a rule, I like to attach my name to what I write.  But I can see someone who witnesses something and wants to get the word out to make people aware of something and let others do their own research. 
But like the post above, I have a real issue with people who attack others behind the curtain being anonymous.

It is true that I could be anybody, maybe not even who I say I am.  But attaching a name does give an amount of credibility. 

When your responsible for your words, you think twice about what you say.  Try doing a Google search with your real name and you may be surprised about what comes up.  Thats one of the first things our  Background Investigators do with new applicants.

Just like a felony....you will always be responsible for your past.  (I had to sneak that in there  :o)

DogCollar

Ah...it's an interesting time we live in, isn't it?  I guess I have always assumed (and that's dangerous, I know) that anything communicated via computer is not private or anonymous.  I can only speak for myself...and please, do not take offense...but adding my name makes me accountable to all of you, causing me to want to be the best "citizen" on this board that I can be.  Again, that is meant as a criticism of anyone who wants to communicate anonymously.  Rather, it helps me to engage more constructively.  That's my .02worth.
Ch. Maj. Bill Boldin, CAP

Walkman

Quote from: davedove on October 11, 2007, 05:01:02 PM
I think where the problems occur is with brand new posters.  Someone comes in making a very forceful opinion like everyone should just accept what he says.  We don't know who the person is.  He could have years in CAP, be a brand new member, or just be an outsider stirring up trouble.

Once a person has been posting for a while people start to know and accept him, even if he is only known by his alias.

I really think you nailed it right there.

Hawk200

Quote from: Flying Pig on October 11, 2007, 05:56:30 PM

It is true that I could be anybody, maybe not even who I say I am.  But attaching a name does give an amount of credibility. 

Forum rules aside, would I be more credible if I put "Alfred E Neuman" as a signature? How about "John Doe"?

I think it's a somewhat naive assumption that just because a name is up, the information is credible. Our society is a bit beyond the type of honor and honesty that used to exist and permitted that belief. There was a time that such an assumption was perfectly reasonable, but not anymore.

I'm not saying that everyone should suddenly withdraw their names, but I don't think that it's really appropriate to simply ignore someone because they don't have a name up.

As davedove said, a history on this forum gives a lot of credibility among regulars. The new posters are obvious (not considering the numbers next to their name of course  :D), and you can tell when someone new isn't familiar with the regulars either.

Short Field

Absolutely correct!  There are a uncountable number of people posing as something they are not on the internet.

My biggest reason for remaining semi-anonymous is to avoid starting minor wars with the local members.  For example, I could easily get caught up in a discussion on how to work around the old folks who are so computer illiterate they can't log on to a computer, much less do something in e-Services or on the IMU. 

If someone who knows me printed out the comments and gave it to the "old folks" there would be a lot of hard feelings.  They would feel attacked in a public forum even though I would have never said something so impolite to their faces.  Doesn't mean it isn't true, just that I would not say it to their face or in front of their friends.   AND the main point to NOT FORGET is that I was not on the forum to trash them but to learn how to work around them - or, best of all worlds, learn how to motivate and train them.





SAR/DR MP, ARCHOP, AOBD, GTM1, GBD, LSC, FASC, LO, PIO, MSO(T), & IC2
Wilson #2640