So as you know we have yet another spark of desire to end the aliases that have been started on this board. For those that voted in Brett's Poll ... A huge Thanks of course except for the 3 people that made 31 multiple votes to shut down PP, and a big thanks to Brett for adding that poll option along with Multiple Voting, a recipe for spite.

Here is the interesting thing: A while ago we had someone join PP that was like the 3 who voted to shut it down. They were a little spiteful and decided to erase all the river and features and river warnings since that was a 100% un-moderated area. Because of that, I have made that area moderated to prevent abuse and forced all new members to be approved by a moderator. The problem is that for the last year as I have reviewed new members it has startled me how difficult it is to tell who is fake and who is not. Many of you know when you joined I sent you an email asking if you were real. That's alot of work and quite honestly I don't know how were going to 100% manage this.

So to start this poll is just to remove the below Aliases that I have found. If you know of others PM me and I will add them to the list.

• Sir Boofs Alot
• Hugo
• Belshazzar
• Confucius
• Coreboater
• Funnywater

I hate to say this but people will still speak their minds and even forcing real names in profiles is difficult unless we have an E-Bouncer checking your state issued Paddling Licsense ... amazing


Edited by James - 18 Jun 2009 at 8:44am

OK, I am finally going to comment on this matter, I have been holding off until now.

I have participated in other forums throughout the internet including professional, sports, gaming, and hobbies websites. All these other websites do not allow aliases to exist once they start spewing harsh language or other non-constructive statements (some do not allow aliases at all). They are allowed to exist if they have and continue to have thoughtful and constructive input relating to the websites function and activities.

So, when Hugo like comments are made, Hugo gets banned from the site. Complaints are lodged and Hugo like people are either banned or suspended for a period of time, and a warning is issued to that affect to the abuser.

This is how most other websites are handled and maybe we should join them on how we handle abusive aliases.

I think this is reasonable and there is a report button at the bottom of each post that we all can use to report abuse on this website. SO, use it! I also think the report should be cc'd to the abuser so he can tell when he has crossed the line and knows that his time is coming to an end.

I voted yes, but only if the alias is abusive and destructive to this website. It's time to grow up and get a little more serious about this great resource.

That is all I have to say about this.

D


Edited by dave - 18 Jun 2009 at 9:07am

My question is;

If we ban irritating people because of their abusive and unwavering opinion, shouldn't we ban Leif?
I agree, he has the sack to stand behind what he says. But, he is as inflammatory and irritating as any of the aliases.
Are we drawing the line at unknown posters, or irritating ones?
And who decides what is irritating?

The poll will be left up for voting until next friday at which time we will make the final decision.

I think aliases are a problem because they are intentional efforts to hide an identity by posting under an alternate account.  Because they are aliases, and not a user's primary account, only the most inflammatory posts are made under the alias. 

I don't support censorship, but I do support limiting users to one account.  That's pretty common and consistent with other sites, as Dave mentions.  If people want to be jerks with their one account, well, it's up to us to police the threads.  No one is censored, but no aliases are present. 

I think it should still be possible to post anonymously.  I don't think the alias is a problem because we don't know who the poster really is, it's a problem because it's a secondary account used for the most inflammatory posts.

Leif certainly creates most of his own problems, and exacerbates others.  I don't think he needs to be banned or moderated though.  It's noticeably more calm around here with him away though.  How much of that is him being away, versus those folks who always look to get in his face not having the opportunity though?

on another note, I don't particularly like the edit function.  Good idea, but abused on this board.If it were disabled, and someone really needed to correct something, they could quote their previous post and clarify. 

Can anyone other than Randy Johnson 'get in' Leif's face?
I realize you were speaking metaphorically, but it made me smile.

   

Slickhorn, D4 and Wiggins all make good points. I started all this because the aliases on here seem to just spew negativity. I have friends who live and boat here who won't come on anymore because of it. Anyway, I say end the aliases, talk shit if you want, but sign your name. Alias or not, if all you do is irritate people, I don't want you on my block.

Harms for president...

Yes Hugo, but I do not use a chicken sh*& alias like you. I just use my real name, and I have decided to take a more mature stance on this website and stop messing with people because I am bored at work.

This is a great resource and I would like to see it evolve into a serious sporting website that anyone can enjoy and utilize without the fear of being personally attacked because they have a real opinion.

furthermore, I have never had any issues with Leif's posts. He is one of the more mature and intelligent people here. I just liked messing with him because he is such a fun guy. He is also one of the people that never got mad at me for pushing his buttons, he always took it like it was, just joking around and we had fun with it.

Edited by dave - 19 Jun 2009 at 9:21am

When I'm in a meeting at work, or at thanksgiving dinner at grandma's, I don't drop f-bombs, bait people or otherwise act like an ass (as much as possible, anyway). And if I do, I can expect to be disciplined. 

It's no different here.  "Censorship" is a bit strong for what is being discussed here, in fact almost all the posts above are advocating people posting whatever they want to say here, but doing so from only one account. 

1984 references are just ridiculously overblown here.  No one is going to send Leif to the Ministry of Mank, take away his boats, and torture him for posting inane diatribes. 

Just FYI to folks interested in the fine print. This poll will end on next friday. All votes made by Aliases will be removed from the count. It will also not be treated as a simple majority wins. I am looking for a overwhelming concensus of people that want Aliases around. A few folks might re-call our last few polls in the same exact topic. It was overwhelming that people wanted Hugo and aliases. Apparently everyone has changed their minds on the subject which is fine, I think the conversation is more important than a simple vote, at least it would seem those willing to discuss the issue are more interested in the outcome than those who just want to toss in a quick vote.

I would personally say that this has more to do with post propaganda than post censorship myself.

And although my patience is running low on many accounts it is not due to E-haviour but rather the current condition of my shi shi gashira (rest in peace)

Slickhorn and others have made the point that while aliases make it easier for people to bait and attack people in ways that they most likely wouldn't if they weren't intentionally concealing their identities (much less if they were interacting with their targets in person), eliminating aliases won't necessarily eliminate baiting and personal attacks.

There are plenty of people out there who are more than happy to use their real name while doing all of the above, so in the end eliminating that behavior from a site is less about aliases and more about enforcing a set of standards that take the site in a direction that it's most frequent and influential users want it to go. If the objective is to get rid of people who are unneccessarily hostile and destructive, the answer is to give them the boot - whether they're signing in with their real name or an avatar.

The problem with online forums is that it's difficult to achieve a consensus about what's permissible and what's over the line without alienating more people than you attract. There seems to be a sweet spot that encourages participation and grows the resource without drifting into either complete anarchy or an over-moderated online church-meeting, both of which are proven forum-killers. Most forums have explicit or implicit standards for conduct that evolve over time and the site owner and/or moderators enforce with time-outs, bannings, IP-blocks for people who go too far and it may be time to consider putting those mechanisms in place here.

Since this is an open resource and often the only thing that you have control over is yourself - one potential way forward if you don't have the power to single-handedly overhaul the site is to "be the change you want to see." If you aren't an owner/developer/moderator really want to see a site go in a more positive direction, start by obeying the golden rule, and try to create the positive aspects of the site that you aren't seeing. If that doesn't work and you see something that you don't like, try sending them a civil PM first instead of immediately returning and/or opening fire in public.

(Finally - while I'm a big pro-free-speech guy myself, that's a set of rules that applies to interactions between the government and citizens. If someone walks into a house, office, club, online forum, etc and offend the people there, the folks that run those places have every right to toss them out.)

I was trying, inarticulately perhaps, to point out that "censorship" is not the right metric here, as some seem to be caught up by that idea.  My point was simply that in some settings, such as those I mentioned, what is socially acceptable is not a function of censorship or free speech, but rather manners and the culture at play in the event. 

JayB made my point more ably than I managed to:



I just don't see anyone here advocating censorship, and I think Meghan's comparisons to 1984 were more than a little ridiculous.  People are risking their lives in Tehran right now where they face real censorship and opression.  Let's try not to relate people acting childishly in an online forum read by a small number people with something as serious as censorship or the right to speak freely.  People dying != people talking shit in a forum.