How many different pseudonyms? #59735

[Craig Jessop]

DRAMA.COMMA!!!!!

[a writer]

Hey you guys, there was no reason to jump down ahem.'s throat like that. She even said that she doesn't know how it's done now, and she hopes that it's changed under the new system. And I don't think there's any reason that it can't be discussed on an open forum, either.

But now that you have gotten all defensive, let's be real. You DO look up question askers' real names sometimes. I've heard the editors mention specific instances where they've gotten really curious and just couldn't help it, and these haven't exactly been once in a blue moon happenings. I've even heard the editors mention specific instances where they've been really curious and then Facebook stalked the askee to find out more about them. Granted, I don't think I've heard of this happening when the question was of a sensitive nature, but I don't think it should happen, either, no matter what the nature of the question, unless finding the identity of the askee is imperative to the function of the Board somehow.

I think ahem.'s questions are valid ones.

[not a writer]

I'm curious why nobody has responded to this thread. In my view, the silence on the matter greatly indicates the Editors' culpability. It would calm my troubled soul if somebody were to reassure me.

[Foreman]

I'm curious why nobody has responded to this thread. In my view, the silence on the matter greatly indicates the Editors' culpability. It would calm my troubled soul if somebody were to reassure me.

Probably because their last response was 3.5 hours ago and they have JOBS? They might not even know someone has responded yet.

It's not like we're all in a room discussing this live, and they're sitting there not saying anything. Give them time. Goodness.

[mic0]

Nobody has responded to this thread? It is on its second page!

Anyway, the editors *did* respond, Craig Jessop made a very insightful comment, and just for you I'll say something. The writers who aren't editors do not have the ability to see who asked a question. Less than a handful of people can see that. Anyway, that is probably why "just writers" like myself didn't respond. Now you know...

[Craig Jessop]

Man, if this gets any more intense, we might just break the record for "people online at once!"

[C is for]

I'm curious why nobody has responded to this thread. In my view, the silence on the matter greatly indicates the Editors' culpability. It would calm my troubled soul if somebody were to reassure me.

Probably because their last response was 3.5 hours ago and they have JOBS? They might not even know someone has responded yet.

It's not like we're all in a room discussing this live, and they're sitting there not saying anything. Give them time. Goodness.

Foreman, "not a writer" was being sarcastic. Just so you know.

Edit: At least, that was how I read it.

[krebscout]

The anonymity on top of anonymity is very funny to me.

[Foreman]

I'm curious why nobody has responded to this thread. In my view, the silence on the matter greatly indicates the Editors' culpability. It would calm my troubled soul if somebody were to reassure me.

Probably because their last response was 3.5 hours ago and they have JOBS? They might not even know someone has responded yet.

It's not like we're all in a room discussing this live, and they're sitting there not saying anything. Give them time. Goodness.

Foreman, "not a writer" was being sarcastic. Just so you know.

I'm intrigued as to how you know this, but if someone wishes their remarks to be taken at other than face value they should probably give some minute degree of indication to that effect. Not my job to make guesses about the already notorious tone-of-voice-in-writing problem.

[Craig Jessop]

The anonymity on top of anonymity is very funny to me.

No kidding. My lunchtime study of the Luxembourgish resistance during WWII seems so much more applicable today.

[ahem.]

Man, if this gets any more intense, we might just break the record for "people online at once!"

Craig, you just thrive on drama. Stop antagonizing the poor writers. They have enough to worry about what with their "jobs" and "real lives".

Haha! Just kidding. Like I really believe that writers have lives outside of the Board. We all know writers' lives revolve around the Board. (<--- That was snark, you guys. In case you missed it.)

[C is for]

I'm intrigued as to how you know this, but if someone wishes their remarks to be taken at other than face value they should probably give some minute degree of indication to that effect. Not my job to make guesses about the already notorious tone-of-voice-in-writing problem.

Yeah, I was editing my message to say that that was how I read it, then I got a phone call and missed the opportune window. It could go either way.

I think we will make a rule that all facetiousness/snark/sarcasm be marked as such. The forum will be a much happier place then.

[Craig Jessop]

Man, if this gets any more intense, we might just break the record for "people online at once!"

Craig, you just thrive on drama. Stop antagonizing the poor writers. They have enough to worry about what with their "jobs" and "real lives".

Haha! Just kidding. Like I really believe that writers have lives outside of the Board. We all know writers' lives revolve around the Board. (<--- That was snark, you guys. In case you missed it.)

ahem. I adore you. Let's run off and get married. (<--- DEFINITELY NOT sarcasm)

[Marduk]

Look, more hornets nests for me to disturb.

All I'm going to say is that "The Editors" have clearly acknowledged before their ability to find out the identity of a given individual asking a question, should the need arise. They have also admitted to doing it. (If this is something that they really want to fight me on, I could probably dig up where it was said; this, however, would take a lot of work on my end, and I think it is an agreed upon point, so I won't at this juncture.) From there it is not a leap to call into question the frequency with which it is done; the editors are free to disagree with any accusations, but without specific instances, it is something that neither side can give much weight to (either in defense or repudiation).

Also Ahem., even though you think I'm a snob, I still like you. Just sayin'.

[Dragon Lady]

Having been married to a former editor, I know that it was possible for an editor to see the identity of a questioner. I also know multiple editors who were uncomfortable with that. So they specifically buried it in the old system (despite CPM's loathing of the code in the old version) and it's pretty deeply buried in the current version. It is possible when needed (and it HAS been needed). But an editor has to really want to find it to do it. And let me assure you that most editors highly respect the privacy of readers. (I don't know of a single one that doesn't. I say most because I don't know every single editor ever.)

[Darth Fedora]

Marduk, I think you might be referring to http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/58971/.

Having been a TA a number of times for classes that my friends were taking, I've had the administrative power to see their grades in the class. But even if you're curious, and even though knowing their grade on some exam doesn't really matter that much in the grand scheme of things, it's still crummy to invade someone's privacy like that and you just don't do it. I really don't think it's that implausible that the editors avoid looking up people's real names.

[Imogen]

you know, i really wouldn't mind at all if the editors or writers looked me up. feel free, y'all!

i wondered how this seemingly innocuous thread could cause controversy. now i know!

[vorpal blade]

i wondered how this seemingly innocuous thread could cause controversy. now i know!

I'm feeling guilty now.

[Emiliana]

It is possible when needed (and it HAS been needed).

Out of curiosity, what circumstances would make it necessary? I'm not trying to stir up more controversy (goodness knows, my real life has drama enough of its own without making more online), but I'm wondering what sort of situations have arisen.

For my own part, like imogen, I don't particularly care if anyone looks up my real name. But that's mostly because I'm 99.9% sure I've never met any of you.

[Tao]

The only time I became aware of a querent's name was upon receiving a suicide note. I can't recall ever even being curious to find out otherwise.