Using assumed names

[gungho4scouts]

Not sure if this is the right forum for this. I'm taking a thought from another thread regarding the use of anonymous slash multiple names used to post on this site.

 

Is it unetheical for anyone to post under multiple assumed names? Some believe that by doing so is considered untrustworthy. Would you say the same for our Founding Fathers?

 

Justice Stevens of the United States Supreme Court discussed the tradition of anonymous publishing in a case in which the Court struck down an Onio election board regulation that prohibited anonymous campaign literature. The full text of the opinion is available at http://www.law.cornell.edu

 

"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose there true identity.

 

The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any

public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of

the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."

 

The freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary realm. In Talley, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the distribution of unsigned handbills urging readers to boycott certain Los Angeles merchants who were allegedly engaging in discriminatory employment practices.

 

Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted that persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. Justice Black recalled England's abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe their ideas will be more persuasive if their readers are unaware of the identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge their message simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of political rhetoric, where the identity of the speaker is an important componentof many attempts to persuade, City of Ladue v. Gilleo, the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity.

 

The specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court's reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes. This tradition is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard-won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation.

 

Ever heard of Silence Dogood, Publius? Is it truly against the principals of Scouting?

[SR540Beaver]

Rarely does anyone use multiple names in the same forum. Why would they? What is to gain. Typically, the multiple name problem comes up with a user who has been banned for bad behavior and uses a second name to bypass the ban and continue with their games. We had one fellow here who did this. In addition, he went thru a stint of actually having multiple names all at the same time and presented himself with personal data for each persona that was contradictory. He claimed to be single and married. He claimed to be from this state or that state. He claimed to have a number of children or no children. He was playing everyone here and had a vendetta on one poster in particular. In short, the man had serious issues and needed professional help. He went beyond playing the devil's advocate. His purpose was to disrupt the forums. I think it made him feel important and God like that he could pull the wool over everyone's eyes. I always imagined him sitting at his PC like a 5 year old with glee in his eyes over the prank he was playing. The guy I'm speaking of has been kicked off of other scouting forums for the same bad behavior.

 

In a forum like this, what would you gain by posting today as XYZ and tomorrow as ABC and the following day as 123. The only reason I can think of is present different voices of opinion and to be devious. You can do that as one person just as easily.

 

It IS untrustworthy.

[JimmyD]

Your comparing apples to oranges. Move the thread to the politics forum although I believe it should be locked.

[scoutldr]

We all post here under a "nom de plume". So did other famous writers, such as O. Henry, Mark Twain, Franklin W. Dixon, Carolyn Keene, and Victor Appleton (the last three were all the same person, as I recall.) Nothing "untrustworthy" about it, but it does not give one license to be rude. I chose not to post a personal profile, because I wish to remain anonymous. If I decide to call my DE a "twit", as someone else did once, I prefer he not know it was him and who said it. Pro-vol relations are hard enough without calling each other names in public. I also prefer to ask questions and make comments without being seen as putting my Council "on report".

[Trevorum]

... and we can't forget Dr. Seuss, George Orwell, George Sand, Lewis Carroll, James Tiptree, Jr., Harry Turtledove, and Ellery Queen, not to mention Voltaire!

[packsaddle]

Oh I don't know...I bet I could forget a few of them

SR540Beaver, I have to ask, was there only ONE person who did that? It was confusing to me and I couldn't keep track of how many real persons there were.

[SR540Beaver]

I don't know how many people have used different ID's here, only one for sure. That was Yaworski/Zorn Packte/Fat Old Guy/JasonOK, etc. He even tried using Bob Whites real name as an ID at one point. Those are only the names I can recall off the top of my head. He had several others too. He even went so far as to answer his own posts using different personas. Go figure.

 

Misrepresenting yourself, harrassing particular members, and stirring things up just to get attention is far different from people in the literary world using a pen name.

 

SR540Beaver is MY second name here. I originally was KWC57. However, I asked Admin-Terry if I could change my name to reflect that I had attended a certain WoodBadge course as a Beaver. He graciously allowed it and even changed the name in all of my previous posts to reflect my new name. I was upfront at the time and told everyone why I did it and even signed my posts with, "formerly KWC57) for a period of time.

 

My question still is, why would anyone want to post as two or more different people at the same time on a Scouting board except for devious reasons?

[packsaddle]

I agree, deception is the most feasible reason that I can imagine. The only other strong prospect would be fear and that could just be a motive for deception. I had forgotten your original moniker. I still smile when I read the current one.

[Proud Eagle]

There are legitimate reasons for using multiple names on a forum such as this.

 

Lets pretend a unit leader gets involved in this forum. He reveals information that could identify him, his unit, his council, his fellow leaders, etc. Then some of the other leaders from his unit get involved in this forum as well.

 

Now, that first leader wants to post his opinion in the Issues and Politics section, but he feels it could cause problems in his home unit. Therefore, he could either not post his thoughts, or he could create a second anonymous name to use to post items in that section.

 

I have often felt torn between the advantages of being forward and providing identifying information, and being reserved and remaining anonymous.

 

Of late, I have chosen to be out in the open about who I am, to the point that anyone that wanted to do so could use the information I have posted to find my real name on at least one official website.

 

Because of this, I have started being a bit more careful about what I say. I want to set the best possible example to any locals who are reading this, and I want to avoid creating any possible conflict. I know I have posted a few things in the past that were somewhat less than fully thought out, and I have posted other things that indicated my personal opinions about various topics of controversy.

 

In a way, I now have to think more about how my posts would reflect on the troop, council, and lodge than they do on me personally. That doesn't mean I won't be critical or controversial, but rather that I will try to be a bit more restrained.

 

N.B. Nothing I post here constitutes official policy, opinion, or should be taken as authoritative in any way. My posts are mine and mine alone and should be considered a reflection upon me. I represent no one but myself here.

[evmori]

Proud Eagle,

That might be a reason but I don't feel it is a legitimate reason. If you are afraid something you post here will cause waves or upset someone in your home unit if they read it, then you shouldn't have posted it in the 1st place.

 

There is no legitimate reason for multiple names in this forum.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[gungho4scouts]

I disagree.

 

o What better place to "test" thoughts and ideas with those who you hope will be looking at it in a puritan way, (as a Scouter!)

o There are times when the best way to understand another persons point of view is to put the shoe on the other foot.

o I personally thinks it's great that this site allows discussions regarding homosexuals continue on for 215 messages. Not because I support the homosexuals agenda, rather it affords me a glimpse of the argument for and against it.

o Why create conflict at "home" when you can work out the issue here first. Having a thousand personal mentors is re-assuring when venturing in new territory or trying to understand why the things are the way they are.

 

Finally, it's not a very good idea to post any personal information on the Internet unless you're a politician running for office. One of your duties to God is the protection of your children. Last thing you need is some crackpot showing up on your door step over a "mis-understanding." I personally don't have bodyguards or federal agents to protect me. So, why take the chance.

 

If you feel compelled to share your true identify just remember for the sake of self-preservation, trust should be earned not freely given.

[Hunt]

I agree that there are many advantages to posting anonymously. If I were using my real name and unit, I would never discuss problems with boys in the unit, or talk about what was said in BORs, etc. I certainly wouldn't criticize any of the other adult leaders. But anonymously, I can discuss some of those issues without taking the risk of personally hurting any of the people involved.

Also, to be blunt, I don't really care who you are. Even if you use your real name, and tell me that you've been SM of Troop X for 30 years, so what? I'm not going to check up on you to see if you're telling the truth, and I'm going to judge your opinions and arguments on their merits anyway. So, for example, I'm probably not going to tell you what training I've had or haven't had, because I'm annoyed by people who say, "Well, if you had received this or that training you would know the right answer to this question."

[EagleInKY]

I must admit, I've had the same concern about posting information that should be confidential. If anyone who knew me read my posts, they could probably figure out it was me. I have been concerned about talking about a boy or another leader, and then - some day - them finding out what I said on this board. I'll probably continue to post as I have, but the concern remains.

 

Incidentally, I would have no problem with a poster that needs to protect anonymity with a sticky issue using another moniker to post the issue. I would, however, have problems if the poster started having conversatinos back-and-forth between his multiple "personalities" in order to influence the thoughts on the board or to justify a position. That, I believe, is the problem we had with the multiple personalities of FOG.

[packsaddle]

When I review manuscripts for potential publication in scientific journals, I am often allowed to do this anonymously. The theory is that it allows the freedom to make what sometimes can be painful criticisms of a colleague's research. I never hesitate to reject anonymity because I feel the need to pose those criticisms constructively and there is never a risk to me for confronting the author(s) directly (they sure do it to me). However, in this forum there is a risk that BSA could eject me because of my views. However small that risk may be, I consequently remain anonymous.

[Eamonn]

I was asked a few weeks back if Bob White and little old me were one and the same? I took it as a complement!!

I have at times called different real people twits. I have at times posted things that I have done that would or might make me eligible to be the twit of the month.

As far as I know there has only ever been one other member from the same Council as I'm from post here. I think he spends most of his time posting in another forum. I did at one time have the name of the Council in which I serve posted in my member profile. While it wouldn't be rocket science to track me down and find out all about me, I don't think that too many people will take the time, in fact I can't think that anyone would want to.

Sometime back we had a professional who was a regular in the forum, sad to say someone else who posted that he was also a Professional Scouter, challenged the time the first guy was spending in this forum, so to protect his job he quit posting.

I have at times by accident found out who people are and while I admit it has been a pleasant surprise, it has always been by accident.

I can see the need at times for people to change the name that they use. But I fail to see any need for anyone to post using two names.

My feelings about what I post here is that I will not post something that I would not be willing to say to someones face. That includes me saying that I think that they are a twit or acting like a twit.

Somehow I can't see my good friend Bob ever calling anyone a twit, he is much kinder that me and I'm still not him and never have been him, in this forum or any other forum. I'm sure that he has never been me or even wanted to be me.

Eamonn.