Aliases and anonymity online

daal · **#41**

Kind of ironic that a thread about anonymity in the go world should veer off in into a personal discussion about someone who chose to use his real name on the forum. On the one hand we see that using one's real name makes one more accountable, on the other, it opens the user up to lines of inquiry anonymous users don't have to trouble with. The (Western) go world is a small one, and many of the names behind the aliases are known to more than a few - all the more reason to be generous with the number of aliases people should be allowed to use.

jeromie · **#42**

I choose to use my real name online (my user name is my first name, but it's rare enough that it wouldn't be difficult to trace it back to my full identity, especially since I also report my location), but I think that anonymity should remain an option in most online settings as a matter of principle. There are a lot of good reasons someone might wish to remain anonymous on the web, and a number of those reasons are applicable to go servers and forums. In places that permit anonymity, revealing a person's identity (or threatening to do so) would be a major breach of trust.

As for the discussion around sandbagging, I think that the term carries an important connotation of intent. Anyone who states their level below what they know it to be in order to increase their chance of winning or with a desire to humiliate their opponent is sandbagging. But there can be many reasons to play a game below your stated level that are not sandbagging: servers that only allow a maximum strength at registration, ignorance of your own true rank, tournaments that rely on established ratings rather than user reported ranks, and significant improvement while an account was dormant all come to mind. Server admins and tournament organizers can't accurately judge a person's intent, so they have to set policies that will lead to the overall best health of the play environment and deal with exceptional cases when they arise.

Kirby · **#43**

EdLee wrote:

Since you freshly returned from the US Open, let's use it as an analogy.
AGA, like KGS and IGS, also has only one rating that does not differentiate between time settings.

...

Yes, you can argue, as you have, that this is not your problem -- it is merely AGA's fault/inadequacy for not differentiating between time settings.

Really ?

Why would it be my problem? I haven't broken any rules. I played at my rank and won a prize. So what?

But even going further: Is it even a problem? If the answer is yes, then the rules and/or rating system should enforce this, no?

For the record, bacon is delicious.

wineandgolover · **#44**

What a bizarre, and unnecessarily acrimonious thread.

Here are my thoughts. Flame away if you desire.

I have no problem with people having multiple accounts on servers. I have one I for when I am more serious, and another I use when I'm rusty or trying blitz, or drinking.

I can't think of a good reason for a user to have multiple accounts on a bulletin board. Just be who you are, and post what you think, even if the server allows anonymity. If what you have to say is so controversial that you are tempted to post with another account, rethink posting it at all. Do people really think it's a good idea to allow a second account to post objectionable material (racist, sexist, homophobic, whatever) and a third (and fourth) to upvote it?

I would favor a real-name policy on this BB.

Regarding banning, assuming a banning is warranted, of course admins should ban the user, not the account. The account didn't do something wrong, the user did.

Regarding sandbagging, I won't fault a player for playing at their listed rank in AGA tourneys. The way the system was set up at this year's Open, you had to fill out a form requesting a different rank, and justifying it to the TD. I totally understand people not wanting to go through the hassle. I also totally understand somebody grumbling about the rating system and saying, "Fine, I'll show you." The current rating system is flawed, but that isn't the players' fault. And if everybody requests a rating jump due to low sigmas and slow adjustments, than it's the same as if nobody jumped. Finally, until the AGA (and other associations) come up with a way to factor in game length, I don't think it's reasonable to force the players to do so.

FTR, I agree with daal about the irony in this thread. That was staggering!

Anonymong · **#45**

wineandgolover wrote:

I can't think of a good reason for a user to have multiple accounts on a bulletin board. <snip> I would favor a real-name policy on this BB.

One's own lack of imagination of appreciation of people's situations and cultures doesn't mean other people might not have a good reason. Perhaps Salman Rushdie plays Go and doesn't want to make it easier for himself to be assassinated. Or someone in an official capacity in the go world wants to post in a clearly non-official voice. Another common group of victims of this kind of thing are minority groups who don't conform to your cultural expectations, say a transgender person who is known in the go world as a woman but who's legal name is still a male one, or a native american with a 'strange' name. That you are happy to reveal your identity doesn't mean everyone else is, just look at the grief Facebook's policy causes.

wineandgolover wrote:

If what you have to say is so controversial that you are tempted to post with another account, rethink posting it at all. Do people really think it's a good idea to allow a second account to post objectionable material (racist, sexist, homophobic, whatever) and a third (and fourth) to upvote it?

Do you think my original post was controversial/objectionable? I have my reasons for making this account, one of which was to test the self-restraint of the admins here versus elsewhere. Another was to focus discussion on the issue itself rather than myself. I do agree though that sock-puppetry behaviour should not be allowed (such as upvoting one's own comments, posting glowing reviews on your own books/teaching/etc).

wineandgolover wrote:

Regarding banning, assuming a banning is warranted, of course admins should ban the user, not the account. The account didn't do something wrong, the user did.

What if the punishment is not a ban which disappears after a day or two, but a permanent black mark on the user's profile that they are a bad/naughty person. Should this punishment apply to all aliases? Or perhaps this form of eternal reputation-damaging punishment is the problem, not the spreading of it to all aliases?

wineandgolover · **#46**

Anonymong wrote:

wineandgolover wrote:

I can't think of a good reason for a user to have multiple accounts on a bulletin board. <snip> I would favor a real-name policy on this BB.

One's own lack of imagination of appreciation of people's situations and cultures doesn't mean other people might not have a good reason. Perhaps Salman Rushdie plays Go and doesn't want to make it easier for himself to be assassinated. Or someone in an official capacity in the go world wants to post in a clearly non-official voice. Another common group of victims of this kind of thing are minority groups who don't conform to your cultural expectations, say a transgender person who is known in the go world as a woman but who's legal name is still a male one, or a native american with a 'strange' name. That you are happy to reveal your identity doesn't mean everyone else is, just look at the grief Facebook's policy causes.

Your "snip" combines two separate thoughts of mine here. Just because I would favor a real-name policy doesn't mean I would impose it. I'd just vote for it. Why? On this board, civility isn't a huge problem, but I've seen some others blow up because of it. Real name policies generally add to civility.

And it sounds like you are saying that minorities and persecuted groups should hide their status. That makes me sad. Further it seems you are saying that even if accounts are anonymous, that being part of a minority or persecuted group somehow justifies making a second account. I don't see how that follows.

Anonymong wrote:

wineandgolover wrote:

If what you have to say is so controversial that you are tempted to post with another account, rethink posting it at all. Do people really think it's a good idea to allow a second account to post objectionable material (racist, sexist, homophobic, whatever) and a third (and fourth) to upvote it?

Do you think my original post was controversial/objectionable? I have my reasons for making this account, one of which was to test the self-restraint of the admins here versus elsewhere. Another was to focus discussion on the issue itself rather than myself. I do agree though that sock-puppetry behaviour should not be allowed (such as upvoting one's own comments, posting glowing reviews on your own books/teaching/etc).

There was nothing objectionable about your post, just controversial, which is fine. Under the forum rules, I can't see a reason that your other account would have been banned for it, had you used it to post. So it does nothing to demonstrate the need for a second account.

I am amused that you felt the need to test the admins. Did they pass?

All that said, I don't feel strongly at all about this issue, and after further reflection, I can think of reasons for a second account, such as a separation of commercial and personal posts. But, as always, I'd suggest following the policy of not writing something online that you wouldn't say to somebody's face. If you do this, you probably don't need a second account.

Anonymong wrote:

wineandgolover wrote:

Regarding banning, assuming a banning is warranted, of course admins should ban the user, not the account. The account didn't do something wrong, the user did.

What if the punishment is not a ban which disappears after a day or two, but a permanent black mark on the user's profile that they are a bad/naughty person. Should this punishment apply to all aliases? Or perhaps this form of eternal reputation-damaging punishment is the problem, not the spreading of it to all aliases?

If you believe the punishment is excessive, fine, then argue that. But to argue in favor of banning an account rather than the individual is the equivalent to confiscating the keyboard that was used to write hate speech. The account, like the keyboard, is just the tool.

Uberdude · **#47**

I'd be against a real name policy here (if it meant your visible username had to be your real name) simply because more people in the online go world know me as Uberdude than Andrew Simons. It's the alias I use across many sites/servers and is more meaningful. Some people even call me Uberdude in meatspace! I don't make a secret of my identity, and I assume (how correctly?) that most of the veteran members of this forum know who I am if they can remember. I've always thought it a bit strange there is no Real Name field on the profiles here for those who wish to disclose it (I set it on my KGS profile for example).

daal · **#48**

Uberdude wrote:

I've always thought it a bit strange there is no Real Name field on the profiles here for those who wish to disclose it.

Nice idea!

Bantari · **#49**

Anonymong wrote:

I would like to know what other people think about aliases and anonymity on go forums and servers. First of all I think people should be able to remain anonymous if they wish (contrast with Facebook's Real Name policy). I also think that one human should be allowed to make multiple accounts and these separate identities should largely remain independent. So for example I just made this account in addition to my usual one here, and though it may be fun to guess who I am, admins of this forum should not use their privileges to find out who I am, even if they only do it for their own personal gratification and do not reveal it publicly. Of course you might guess who I am from my writing style which I have not tried to disguise. There could be many different reason for making multiple accounts: rank inertia, slow/fast accounts, teaching account, chat account, argumentative/troublemaker/troll accounts and so on. If there is no bad behaviour or complaints I think all accounts should be treated separately. But when problems arise is where it gets interesting. Let's say a human has a slow and a blitz account, and is ranked quite a bit weaker at blitz. But then they play a regular game with the blitz account and severely beat their opponent, who then complains he is a sandbagger. Is this a valid complaint? Should admins investigating it find out his other accounts, and should they reveal this information? Or what if a person has an account for chatting on KGS and gets in some heated arguments about politics etc and is banned. Should their other accounts, which they use for playing rather than heated discussions and have never behaved badly also be banned? Does whether all accounts held by one human should be punished depend on the severity of the offence, for example I'd say chatting about politics shouldn't ban all accounts, but flooding of swearing or threats of violence and murder against other users should, but perhaps this is just reflecting my view that the former offence is not such a bad offence and is often handled in a heavy-handed way. Or how about admins using the threat to reveal aliases against the human's wishes, is this an acceptable way to enforce the behaviour they want, or an abuse of power similar to blackmail?

Not sure if this addresses your concerns, but...

My private view is this: If you create one acount for being nice, and one for being a jerk/troll/whatever - then you are a jerk/troll/whatever and you should be banned on all accounts, period. If you break the server policy - ditto. You are a person, not a collection of accounts with different personalities, no matter how you might see it. Unless there is some medical problems - in which case exceptions might be appropriate.

Other than this, do not misbehave, do not troll, do not sandbag, and you won't have to worry much.

And anyways, the KGS ban is for a short time only, up to 24 hours, I think, so its not a big issue in either case.
For comparison - on old IGS the banns were sometimes for *life* and you could get banned for voicing a polite opinion off-server (like on a independent forum), or even for who your friends were. People had something to complain about then. Now its just peanuts.

PS>
As a side-note, slightly OT perhaps:
I honestly do not understand the need for people to consciously behave like jerks.
To some of us (me included) it comes naturally in spite of our best efforts, true. But to do it "on purpose", like creating a separate accounts just to be breaking the rules or misbehaving - I don't get it. And yet I observe this kind of behavior over and over. Its not like people do not know they are rude, or are unaware of flooding the chat area or something.

Can somebody explain what is the fun in being a jerk?

Kirby · **#50**

I don't think that people create accounts simply so that they can "be jerks". If they do, I don't understand the behavior, either.

The purpose of creating different personas using multiple accounts, in my view, is to circumvent the bias that people have based on what they already know about you. It's not uncommon here on L19 for people to adopt non-objective opinions about controversial subjects :-)

For example, I don't need to express my opinion about escapers on KGS, because people have already know based on the many posts I've made about it. So even if I have a new valid argument regarding escapers, in some sense, people already brush off what I have to say, because they remember all of the old conversations and old arguments. The feeling is something like, "Yeah, yeah. Kirby is arguing the same thing about KGS escapers, again. Yada yada yada."

Perhaps this sentiment is true. But by making a new account, I think people are more likely to at least read what you have to say.

This being said, I don't advocate making secret accounts on the forum. Especially after attending the US Go Congress, I really enjoy being able to know who is saying what, and getting to know all of you better.

Even if making an anonymous account gives yourself a better chance of being heard, what's more important - "winning" an argument on the forum, or making Go friends? :-)

Abyssinica · **#51**

Friends are only important as you want them to be.

EdLee · **#52**

Quote:

Can somebody explain what is the fun in being a jerk?

Off topic:

wineandgolover · **#53**

Abyssinica wrote:

Friends are only important as you want them to be.

This sentence makes me sad. I hope you are joking. If not, I'm sorry for whatever happened to you.

Abyssinica · **#54**

wineandgolover wrote:

Abyssinica wrote:

Friends are only important as you want them to be.

This sentence makes me sad. I hope you are joking. If not, I'm sorry for whatever happened to you.

I don't like statement's like Kirby's that tend to imply what's "obvious" and "correct" that everyone just accepts without words and moves on.

Kirby · **#55**

Abyssinica wrote:

I don't like statement's like Kirby's that tend to imply what's "obvious" and "correct" that everyone just accepts without words and moves on.

I apologize if I offended you. To me, it is now obvious that having Go friends is more important than "winning" an argument on the go forum. As a long-time forum "arguer", I've experienced both sides of the fence.

Anyway, this (as with my other comments) is my opinion.

Abyssinica · **#56**

It depends if you want certain people as friends in the first place to me.

EdLee · **#57**

Sometimes, friends punch each other in the face.

_____________

Bill Spight · **#58**

EdLee wrote:

Sometimes, friends punch each other in the face.

_____________

Sometimes friends shoot each other in the face. :razz:

Abyssinica · **#59**

Sorry, I thought you were a deer.

Calvin Clark · **#60**

Regarding the sandbagging / multiple accounts / different time settings scenario, I'd note the KGS tournaments actually require users to play with their highest-rated account, even if that account is used only for blitz and not for tournament-length games. (Or, even if it's used for games with time limits longer than tournament-length.) So in a way, KGS mandates reverse sandbagging. ;-)

Aliases and anonymity online

Who is online