How many different pseudonyms? #59735

[bobtheenchantedone]

Admins on the message board have, before, used admin-y means to find out real names (or, in one notable event I still cringe to think of, fail to find out real names).

[C is for]

Admins on the message board have, before, used admin-y means to find out real names (or, in one notable event I still cringe to think of, fail to find out real names).

Ooh, really? The things one learns!

I have used admin-y means to discover who alternate aliases are (for example, the famed SWKT Parachuter -- I know who you are!). But the only way (that I'm aware of, at least) we can discover real names is through good old-fashioned stalking, and if you've been injudicious in choosing an email to register. So don't be too alarmed.

[ahem.]

I have used admin-y means to discover who alternate aliases are (for example, the famed SWKT Parachuter -- I know who you are!). But the only way (that I'm aware of, at least) we can discover real names is through good old-fashioned stalking, and if you've been injudicious in choosing an email to register. So don't be too alarmed.

Yeah... unless somebody decides to go psycho stalking over IP addresses or something, I don't know of anything besides email addresses (which admins can see even if you set them private). For a long time I didn't even realize those weren't viewable to the general public. I also learned we can see who is online even if they're "hidden."

[thebigcheese]

On a completely unimportant note, I just noticed that while bob is a Forum Administrator, C4 is merely an um Administrator.

[Dead Cat]

On a completely unimportant note, I just noticed that while bob is a Forum Administrator, C4 is merely an um Administrator.

I'm pretty sure (and it took me forever to realize this) that it's supposed to be "C is for um Administrator" as in connecting "for" and "um" into "forum." Or something like that. Of course, I could also be totally wrong.

[thebigcheese]

Ah! Clever.

[vorpal blade]

That is clever. Much better than what I thought, that "um" stood for "micro."

[Whistler]

I don't understand why it's such a big deal. The internet is not private, is this a revelation?

[thebigcheese]

I don't understand why it's such a big deal. The internet is not private, is this a revelation?

I think it's absolutely a big deal. You know, internet privacy is becoming an increasingly big deal in the news (just ask Facebook), and I think it's no different here. If you promise anonymity, you darn well better live up to that. Sure, people ask the board lots of random normal questions that don't matter very much. But some people are asking very sensitive questions about topics like depression, suicide, relationships, faith, sexuality, and a whole lot more. If people are asking those questions under the promise of anonymity and then find out that their anonymity is compromised because someone was curious, you are going to have a lot of angry people on your hands.

Just think: what if you were seeing a therapist, told him all your deep dark secrets, and then found out that he broke his confidentiality agreement with you? Would you be angry about that? Or even worse: what if you were an editor who got "curious" about a sensitive question, looked up the asker's information, and then discovered that you knew them? Would that affect the way you feel about them? Or the way you interact with them?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make any accusations here. I'm just trying to illustrate that privacy is a topic that shouldn't be taken lightly.

[Tao]

I don't understand why it's such a big deal. The internet is not private, is this a revelation?

I think it's absolutely a big deal. You know, internet privacy is becoming an increasingly big deal in the news (just ask Facebook), and I think it's no different here. If you promise anonymity, you darn well better live up to that. Sure, people ask the board lots of random normal questions that don't matter very much. But some people are asking very sensitive questions about topics like depression, suicide, relationships, faith, sexuality, and a whole lot more. If people are asking those questions under the promise of anonymity and then find out that their anonymity is compromised because someone was curious, you are going to have a lot of angry people on your hands.

I believe what Whistler was getting at was the fact that you take precautions anytime you are on-line. For someone who falls into that area of smart enough to work the system, but dumb enough to not realize they'd be caught, it would be quite simple to gather amazing amounts of info on an individual, even bank account passwords and the like. If privacy is so much of an issue for someone, they've probably already taken the steps necessary to prevent any mishaps. Also, remember the board tends to be comprised of information seeking individuals; I seem to remember hearing repeatedly Giovanni's self accolades for gathering so many names behind 'nyms. The fact that this doesn't happen coming from the writers could be considered more surprising.

Just think: what if you were seeing a therapist, told him all your deep dark secrets, and then found out that he broke his confidentiality agreement with you? Would you be angry about that? Or even worse: what if you were an editor who got "curious" about a sensitive question, looked up the asker's information, and then discovered that you knew them? Would that affect the way you feel about them? Or the way you interact with them?

Honestly? Deep down inside? Nope. Not at all. Granted, I don't claim to be the model of normalcy, but I can't say that it bugged me at all when the very situation you're describing happened. And while never faced with the second scenario, I must admit it would likely color my response, as I'd have more information to draw from.


Overall, I think it is a good question. Should editors have the capacity to seek out information of a querent? While the arguments for a quick 'no' are pretty clear, realize the caveats: even therapists are allowed, (in some cases, required) to break confidentiality if the situation warrants it. I would tend to think rather lowly of anyone who would breach faith capriciously, but perhaps the potential good can outweigh the potential harm.

[thebigcheese]

An alternative question for you: does the Board have any legitimate reason to collect people's real names?

[Tao]

Collect? as in seek out and keep in a box somewhere? nope, not really.

But seek out? Sure: You're a writer that has found out from non-public sources that an unknown student has made attempts to shoot a particular professor, then you receive a question ranting against this professor, or asking if there is any place on campus where you can get a vantage point looking into that same professor's office and see their desk.

Or how about receiving a very graphic submission describing all the things this 14 year old's father has been doing to them, asking what they can do to not feel bad about it, since he's the stake president, whatever he does has to be right, right?

Suicide is a tougher one. There is a significant difference between thinking of taking your life and being in danger of doing so. In every case, there needs to be a judgment call made to determine if something more than a faceless name on a internet Q@A board needs to be aware of the situation. Also, honestly, there is the sanity and sleep of the writers to take into account; you get a question from a student on suicide that sets of all the bells and whistles in your head, the editors refuse to breach confidentiality, so you write your answer as best you can and the day after it posts, you read of the shockingly unexpected suicide of the Elders Quorum President in Helaman Halls. "'No one had a clue' says roommate." Would it lay on your mind? Would thinking about the extra hours you put into the graphs of various cheeses that you answered at the same time might have been slightly misplaced? Would it be any comfort to know that the question you responded to was actually from an individual living off-campus and their FB status now mentions getting counseling?

Really, its a rehash of a universal question, one with no solid answer: how much freedom of the masses do we give up to help the one?

[thebigcheese]

Okay, here's another question that can help us answer that (any editors around?)... How many times have those situations actually happened in the existence of the board? How many times have there been suicide threats significant enough to warrant a name look-up? How many times have readers asked suspicious questions that warranted a name look-up? Another point here: who's to say that a person with violent or self-destructive intentions wouldn't just lie about their name? If I was gathering information for a malicious crime, you better bet that I wouldn't be giving out my real name. Suicidal readers are definitely trickier in that regard--maybe they would give a real name, maybe not.

Collect? as in seek out and keep in a box somewhere? nope, not really.

Sorry, perhaps "collect" was the wrong word to use. Real names are gathered as part of the registering process, probably encrypted, and stored in a database somewhere. That's what I meant. Given that, I think my question still stands. Why collect names? Many websites just require you to create a username and password, and that's it. I don't see why the board really needs that information, beyond the rare/unlikely situations you mentioned. Or if you really want that personal information, what's wrong with gathering less-direct information, like student ID numbers or some other identifier (again, they could lie about that)? You could still use those to report suspicious activity, etc.

[The Editors]

Dear readers,

We occasionally look up reader names for three main reasons: (1) They are applying to write for the Board, (2) questions are signed with regularly occurring pseudonyms, or (3) authorities need to get involved. In the case of applications, we look up names to ascertain identities because we have had a few negative experiences in the past with falsified identities. In the case of regularly occurring nyms, we check submissions to protect the identities of the readers. (For example, we rejected a number of questions from people who claimed to be Maddie who weren't her a few months ago. Ultimately, it is because of irresponsible readers that we have to check these questions.) The third case, although rare, does need to be mentioned. Just because you have not read questions when this might have happened doesn't mean that they do not exist; our trash bin of rejected questions has thousands of submitted questions that readers never see or hear about.

When it comes down to it, your identities are very safe. A total of four people who have over ten years of Board experience between them have the ability to see your name, and all of us take your privacy very seriously.

-The Editors

[Whistler]

another point: No is forcing you to put in your real name in registration! You could be like ahem and make a fake account. No one is forcing you to reveal anything, except an e-mail address.

[ahem.]

another point: No is forcing you to put in your real name in registration! You could be like ahem and make a fake account. No one is forcing you to reveal anything, except an e-mail address.

I like that now I can change the name associated with my Board account. Before I couldn't do that.