Real Names Vs. Anonymous Screen Names

[Libs]

On a previous incarnation of this forum, I was viciously and falsely accused by two miserable anti-Mormon women of being a pedophile because as a school teacher I advocated for school uniforms. At that time I was using my real name. Henceforth, someone Googling my name and pedophile, such as an employer, could possibly see that accusation out of context. Since that time I have always used a screen name.

Bernard

Wow, that's terrible. I can totally understand why people don't want to expose themselves to things like that. (Interesting, because I thought that was your real name )

[Brade]

On a previous incarnation of this forum, I was viciously and falsely accused by two miserable anti-Mormon women of being a pedophile because as a school teacher I advocated for school uniforms. At that time I was using my real name. Henceforth, someone Googling my name and pedophile, such as an employer, could possibly see that accusation out of context. Since that time I have always used a screen name.

Bernard

When I made it known that I intended not to be active in church anymore somebody on this very board asserted several times, and quite strongly, that the reason for my change was because I wanted to sow my wild oats. They asserted that they knew that was true. It was disturbing because it was and is (1) false, (2) not justified by any evidence, and (3) unkind. In that light I do see the benefit of anonymity, as I'm a happily married father and that sort of baseless accusation attached to my name could misinform friends who come here. Thankfully the mods here removed the posts. Unfortunately, I guess, it's a little late to turn back to anonymity; and I also like the check that being somewhat un-anonymous places on my behavior around here.

[saemo]

Obviously you don't have to give specifics, but I'm having a hard time seeings under what circumstances you being an ex-member would affect your employment.

I post with my real name, by the way.

I worked for a Mormon Church-owned business.

[Nominee]

Yikes!

Lehi

[Nominee]

I use both. You can call me Nominee, it's a nickname that some friends have called me since forever ago but other friends have never heard of. It just popped in my head when I was registering here so I used it for a screen name. Or you can call me Naomi, it's a real name that some friends have called me since forever ago but other friends ignore. I answer my phone without a hello but instead with "This is Naomi." I don't know what that says about me but I have always preferred to cut to the chase. It's too much to go through the whole "Hello?" ~ "Hello. ...Naomi?" ~ "Yes, this is she." ~ "Hi." ~ "Hi." Everything just seems to flow better if I answer with "This is Naomi" and then hand the conversation right back to the caller. Many call me sister Bartlett. That works too. Still, if you notice, my real name is my member title so I guess I can make it disappear if I want to (sorta). I decided a long time ago that it is best to speak and act in life as though I am a public figure. I don't know what that says about me either. Haha! But I am willing to face the consequences that come for being me. Consequenses are good as often as they are bad. A screen name doesn't make the internet as anonymous as some would like to think anyway. Like Nemesis said,

"...make a decision knowing that everything said on the internet can and will come back to haunt you later in life even if you think its harmless."

Keep it real. Heavenly Father knows who I am no matter what screen name I use.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Nominee

[Brade]

[Nominee]

Bahaa haha ha! You just made me laugh that hard again! Thank you. That was just such an inside joke and I felt blessed to be reading the right threads at the right times so as to catch it. Life is sweet.

[Brade]

Bahaa haha ha! You just made me laugh that hard again! Thank you. That was just such an inside joke and I felt blessed to be reading the right threads at the right times so as to catch it. Life is sweet.

[KevinG]

Daddy G is my real name. Or Brother G if you are a Boy Scout.

The full name is unpronounceable.

Just kidding- Kevin works too.

I don't self identify for security reasons. But I really try to act like I do in person.

[Daniel Peterson]

I have, as I said on the other thread, no particular objection to anonymous or pseudonymous posting -- except where a person hides his or her own identity while attacking the character and/or personality of another, identified, individual. That, I think, is unfair and cowardly. (I've been the target of a particularly obsessive campaign of such attacks from a particular individual for half a decade now, to say nothing of the scores of others who take irregular pot shots. This isn't just an abstract issue, as far as I'm concerned.)

That said, I flirted several years ago, rather briefly, with posting under a couple of pseudonyms. I was, already then, tired of becoming myself the topic. But it didn't work. My writing style is apparently so uniquely poor, and my personal depravity so distinctive and impossible to disguise, that my critics very quickly guessed my identity, and then -- although, amusingly, they themselves continued to post under pseudonyms -- gleefully added deception to my already very long catalog of crimes and sins. So I just went back to posting very openly, under my own name. For me, the alternative isn't worth the trouble.

Now, though, I've greatly reduced my participation on message boards. And that has been, I think, a very good move. It allows much more time for other things that I deem more important.

.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Daniel Peterson

[Duncan]

I have no problem using my real name. My name is Dr George Young. I live in Gaylord, Mi. I am a Chiropractor. I chose a screen name because I thought it was expected of me. I don't care one way or another.

George

I remember you when you posted as something else! welcome back!

[Bernard Gui]

Now, though, I've greatly reduced my participation on message boards. And that has been, I think, a very good move. It allows much more time for other things that I deem more important.

.

A good move for you, but a palpable loss for those of us

who enjoy your sense of humor, your insights, your

willingness to seek and share knowledge, and your

consistent and powerful testimony. Godspeed, good brother.

Bernard

[Chris Smith]

Posting under my real name keeps me honest. With a screen name, it's too easy to post rashly, because there are no real consequences. For me, my reputation is on the line.

Another reason I use my real name is because it gives me some name recognition. I publish on Mormon Studies, so I sort of hope that some folks who recognize me from the boards will have a bit of extra motivation to read my articles.

[kolipoki09]

Posting under my real name keeps me honest. With a screen name, it's too easy to post rashly, because there are no real consequences. For me, my reputation is on the line.

Another reason I use my real name is because it gives me some name recognition. I publish on Mormon Studies, so I sort of hope that some folks who recognize me from the boards will have a bit of extra motivation to read my articles.

I feel the same way. In fact, I think it was your posting here that first introduced me to your work. I don't publish in Mormon Studies (yet), but I devour it as a reader. This board has the tendency to yield some fine gold nuggets every once in a while.

But I think accountability is a big issue, and I'm glad you're able to post here without having to hide under a veil of anonymity. It may be different for others not particularly involved in religious studies in general, and thus having "other" obligations under which MDDB might prove to be problematic.

I seem to remember DCP being barred from speaking somewhere on grounds that his participation on discussion boards (or discussions about him) resulted in accusations of Islamophobia. It may have been the case for someone else. I don't quite remember and it's getting rather late anyway.

[cinepro]

Another benefit to using a screen name can be the humility that anonymity sometimes brings. For myself, I find myself less interested in compliments and criticisms when using the "Cinepro" moniker than I would be if it were my real name (and persona). If someone likes what Cinepro says, I say to him goes the credit, and if someone gets their feathers ruffled, give him the blame.

[mercyngrace]

I like the idea of anonymity in an open forum like this one because it takes the spotlight off of the speaker and puts it on his words.

I spent enough of my life being known by mine or my spouse's credentials. I'd rather be known for something more substantial... my soul.

Anyone who knows me well IRL or has heard me speak or teach, will recognize my words here anyway. WYSIWYG, nom de plume notwithstanding.

[One Clear Voice]

Unless your a well know public figure, using your real name is a real bad idea! It's amazing these days what someone who has an axe to grind can just make up and you end up on yahoo or google or Facebook looking real bad. My suggestion is keep it private! I'm sure the dirty little secret is that were all a little creepy when we want to be! (except my wife would argue about her)

[Bob Crockett]

Unless your a well know public figure, using your real name is a real bad idea! It's amazing these days what someone who has an axe to grind can just make up and you end up on yahoo or google or Facebook looking real bad. My suggestion is keep it private! I'm sure the dirty little secret is that were all a little creepy when we want to be! (except my wife would argue about her)

Posting anonymously is a moral failure, not a moral triumph. You should ask yourself whether anonymity grants you the right to say harsh things to another. It doesn't. Saying harsh things as an anonymous person makes your statement worse than it could otherwise have been. “Does anonymity justify non-Christian behavior? While they might be anonymous on the Internet, no one is anonymous to God . . . . What we say does make a difference.” LDS Church News, “Kindness in Words,” Feb. 23, 2008, U16. “Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret/Him will I put to silence.” (Psalms 101:5 (NIV)). God must have had a reason for putting an extra dose of condemnation upon an anonymous statement.

As Adam Smith said in the Wealth of Nations: " His conduct is observed and attended to by nobody; and he is, therefore, very likely to neglect it himself, and to abandon himself to every sort of low profligacy and vice.”

I do find it interesting to read the rationalization that security is necessary on the internet and therefore anonymity is compelled. I suppose that deciding to cover up my vehicle license plate on the ground that I am not going to make mistakes and my anonymity is necessary to protect my assets is a decent argument. But, better not to drive at all if that is one's moral compass.

I also find interesting the repeated justification that "Well, in real life I am a nobody and if I post with my real name it isn't going to lead to any connections. Might was well be anonymous." I suppose, on that justification, that I shouldn't have any problem driving around with my license plate covered up. That way, if I do make a mistake and hurt somebody, I won't get caught. Again, if that is one's moral compass, better not to post at all.

Another argument I've seen is that the founding fathers (typically, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison) used anonymous names when publishing their political broadsides. If they can do it, why can't I? After all, some of these were insulting and defamatory. There is, however, a difference between pseudonymity and anonymity. These writers were using pseudonyms. "rcrocket" is a pseudonym for my real name.

But, that is just my hobby horse and few believe me here, so I'll move on.

Edited December 14, 2011 by rcrocket

[lachrymolotov]

Using your real name is a bad idea because this is a place where people come to share contradicting viewpoints and the small-minded have a tendency to take disagreements very personally. With a person's real name, it is easy enough to create a fake Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace, etc. accounts and then make them look foolish or worse.

I noticed moderation mentioned how some non-LDS horsed around with the information of some posters here. It has happened the other way around, as well. Probably, moderation around here should make a rule never to mention that other place, if they feel that strongly about it. Frankly, I'm sick of reading about it and there are guilty parties on both sides. It would be nice if everyone made it a point to be more Christlike and took the high ground here.

Either way, using your real name on the Internet, in general, is a bad idea. Your enemies Google your names more than your friends and topics like religion and politics can easily touch a wrong nerve with people you know.

[Bob Crockett]

Then, my point has been, if you can't face the fire you shouldn't be posting anonymously. I think that argument is a canard, in any respect. My name and private details of my life have been exposed on a web blog by Maxine Hanks of September Six fame merely because I donated money to the Proposition 8 fight which had nothing to do with my internet activity. So, you're the prospect of being victimized by unscrupulous types by virtue of having a name and being exposed to the public.

Being more "Christlike" and taking the "higher ground," in virtually every circle outside the internet does not include making anonymous statements. People who speak in church are not anonymous. People who speak in General Conference are not anonymous. The Ensign on occasion publishes anonymous pieces by former drug or sex addicts, but I'm sure the Ensign staff knows these people. Missionaries are not anonymous. People who publish in academic journals are not anonymous. Newspapers do not permit submissions by anonymous persons, and if you want to publish a comment on a newspaper website you are required to provide some details, usually. The Deseret News does not permit anonymous posts.

I'm very surprised that this argument for internet security as a justification for anonymity has such currency amongst Latter-day Saints. If you're going to say something critical about somebody -- let's say, anti-Mormons or Evangelicals -- I mean, how courageous and fair is that to do so anonymously? It isn't, and a fear for security does not justify any such post in the first place.

[Sky]

Then, my point has been, if you can't face the fire you shouldn't be posting anonymously. I think that argument is a canard, in any respect. My name and private details of my life have been exposed on a web blog by Maxine Hanks of September Six fame merely because I donated money to the Proposition 8 fight which had nothing to do with my internet activity. So, you're the prospect of being victimized by unscrupulous types by virtue of having a name and being exposed to the public.

Being more "Christlike" and taking the "higher ground," in virtually every circle outside the internet does not include making anonymous statements. People who speak in church are not anonymous. People who speak in General Conference are not anonymous. The Ensign on occasion publishes anonymous pieces by former drug or sex addicts, but I'm sure the Ensign staff knows these people. Missionaries are not anonymous. People who publish in academic journals are not anonymous. Newspapers do not permit submissions by anonymous persons, and if you want to publish a comment on a newspaper website you are required to provide some details, usually. The Deseret News does not permit anonymous posts.

I'm very surprised that this argument for internet security as a justification for anonymity has such currency amongst Latter-day Saints. If you're going to say something critical about somebody -- let's say, anti-Mormons or Evangelicals -- I mean, how courageous and fair is that to do so anonymously? It isn't, and a fear for security does not justify any such post in the first place.

If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you change your screen name from "rcrocket" to Robert or Bob Crockett. I know that you include a link to your blog, but you could even take it a step further. I think it is possible to do this, and it would give us all a better idea of who you really are. But regardless of what you do, I don’t think anybody should feel obligated or guilted into to using their real names. I, for one, always try to make my posts worthwhile even though I post with a pseudonym.

[Sky]

I just wanted to point out that “Erin Eldridge” wrote an entire book published by Deseret Book using a pseudonym entitled: Born That Way?: A True Story of Overcoming Same-Sex Attraction with Insights for Friends, Families, and Leaders. There are other examples like this. Is her book any less worthwhile or credible simply because she used a pseudonym? When is it okay or not okay to use a pseudonym? Is there some clear line? Or is it more arbitrary? Where is the line, if there is one?

[Bob Crockett]

If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you change your screen name from "rcrocket" to Robert or Bob Crockett. I know that you include a link to your blog, but you could even take it a step further. I think it is possible to do this, and it would give us all a better idea of who you really are. But regardless of what you do, I don’t think anybody should feel obligated or guilted into to using their real names. I, for one, always try to make my posts worthwhile even though I post with a pseudonym.

I apologize if I haven't identified myself sufficiently.

I'm a litigator by profession. I guess that part of my life experience is based upon how jurors think of people who post insults (or at least make argumentative statements, such as the one you make above) on the internet anonymously. If I am able to get an expert witness to admit that he posts on public boards anonymously, I have been always able to discredit him or her for that fact alone. They tend to think that it is cowardly for sophisticated and educated people to do so, which seems to fall in line with what people like Mark Willis (KSL/Deseret News), Adam Smith and others say.

[i also deal with a lot of government employees in security situations and have family members there. I believe that they are asked about their internet posting activities, and they often have to submit to lie detection tests. Security agencies are not likely to have a lot of respect for a prospective Secret Service agent who posts anonymous argument, outrage, hit pieces, insults or anything like that. I wonder why?]

I just wanted to point out that “Erin Eldridge” wrote an entire book published by Deseret Book using a pseudonym entitled: Born That Way?: A True Story of Overcoming Same-Sex Attraction with Insights for Friends, Families, and Leaders. There are other examples like this. Is her book any less worthwhile or credible simply because she used a pseudonym? When is it okay or not okay to use a pseudonym? Is there some clear line? Or is it more arbitrary? Where is the line, if there is one?

I think I pointed out above that the Church has published without attribution articles by addicts, sex and drugs. There have been a few other articles where the "Name has been Withheld." But I can assure you that the Church knows exactly who these folks are before they publish, so when you read an anonymous article or book by a sex or drug addict you know that there is somebody behind that book, somebody you trust, which has vetted the publication.

Really now, this just my hobby horse. Rest assured that you're in good company, and I could easily be wrong or too persnickity about the whole thing.

Edited December 14, 2011 by rcrocket

[Sky]

I apologize if I haven't identified myself sufficiently.

I'm a litigator by profession. I guess that part of my life experience is based upon how jurors think of people who post insults (or at least make argumentative statements, such as the one you make above) on the internet anonymously. If I am able to get an expert witness to admit that he posts on public boards anonymously, I have been always able to discredit him or her for that fact alone. They tend to think that it is cowardly for sophisticated and educated people to do so, which seems to fall in line with what people like Mark Willis (KSL/Deseret News), Adam Smith and others say.

I’m sorry if I came across as being too argumentative. I just have a different opinion.

[Sleeper Cell]

[i also deal with a lot of government employees in security situations and have family members there. I believe that they are asked about their internet posting activities, and they often have to submit to lie detection tests. Security agencies are not likely to have a lot of respect for a prospective Secret Service agent who posts anonymous argument, outrage, hit pieces, insults or anything like that. I wonder why?]

Oops!