![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 56. Go back in thread:
Posted by KaraS on March 26, 2005, at 23:22:11
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 26, 2005, at 10:09:07
> Dr. Bob, I formally request an exception to this very fine rule for asking sensitive questions about oneself. (Certainly not for asking sensitive questions about others.) Perhaps the exception could be incorporated as:
>
> "I currently post under another name on this board, but due to the sensitive nature of this question, I would prefer not to have my screen name associated with it. I will post under this name only for the purposes of having this specific question answered."
>
> As long as it wasn't misused (and I trust you to recognize misuse) my guess would be that posters in general would be understanding - especially if (like a name change) the duplicate names for limited purposes were disclosed.
I agree. I think it's a good idea to make an exception for special circumstances like this.
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 26, 2005, at 23:29:15
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 26, 2005, at 10:09:07
Ok, I confess! Larry is right! It was me!! ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 5:22:45
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name, posted by Dinah on March 26, 2005, at 21:03:55
> We'd know it was someone, but not who.
Ah.
>I just think there should be an exclusion for delicate questions.
It is funny how we are all anonymous. Yet the idea of another layer of anonymity is appealing... I have said more than I probably should. But am comforted somewhat by the thought that nobody would bother to wade through my thousands of posts...
But yeah. I do get what you mean. But it is strange...
Posted by gardenergirl on March 27, 2005, at 10:26:26
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 5:22:45
I wonder if there could be one or two "code names" that could be borrowed temporarily for such a purpose? Kind of like a person putting a bag on their head like the Unknown Comic. (Boy am I dating myself on THAT one!) I don't know exactly how it could work, but if you could just sign in under that name, then posters would know it was a familiar Babbler, but would not be able to "see under the mask" (or bag, as it were).
gg
Posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 12:38:31
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name, posted by gardenergirl on March 27, 2005, at 10:26:26
Yeah, I hate to see anyone not be able to post a health related question because they don't want it associated with their screen persona.
Not everyone is like me, willing to totally humiliate themselves in semi-public. :)
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 14:31:21
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name, posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 12:38:31
I think Toph brought this issue up a while back...
I still think one could ask it as a 'general question' rather than saying 'I did such and such and I was wondering'.
Posted by KaraS on March 27, 2005, at 17:16:02
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 5:22:45
> > We'd know it was someone, but not who.
>
> Ah.
>
> >I just think there should be an exclusion for delicate questions.
>
> It is funny how we are all anonymous. Yet the idea of another layer of anonymity is appealing... I have said more than I probably should. But am comforted somewhat by the thought that nobody would bother to wade through my thousands of posts...
>
> But yeah. I do get what you mean. But it is strange...
>
>
That's so true! People can't know who we really are yet we still worry about what they will think of us.
K
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 17:59:35
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » alexandra_k, posted by KaraS on March 27, 2005, at 17:16:02
Yeah. We do develop internet 'identities' around our posting name over time. After a while other posters get a sense of our posting name as a 'person' and then we don't want to say anything that might affect other peoples view of who we are.
I do understand the desire to be able to say whatever without worrying about that. It is funny that it is like that to start with. We don't care what that posting name says. We feel anonymous. But after a bit of time our posting name becomes part of us and then we don't feel anonymous anymore.
The price for 'making friends' I suppose... That we care what they think of us...
Posted by 10derHeart on March 27, 2005, at 20:03:41
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 5:22:45
>>But am comforted somewhat by the thought that nobody would bother to wade through my thousands of posts...
;-)..I might go wading. Sometimes, I have too much time on my hands, and a touch of OCD tendencies, you know....
(think you know by now, but just in case...I'm kidding)
Posted by 10derHeart on March 27, 2005, at 20:08:19
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 14:31:21
Yeah, but wouldn't that be a lot like a person saying, "I have this friend who..."
Fairly transparent? Still maybe not nonspecific enough for the comfort level of some, as they'd be worried (and maybe rightly so) that others were wondering if it's really about them?
Just thinking out loud....
Posted by KaraS on March 27, 2005, at 22:10:24
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » KaraS, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 17:59:35
> Yeah. We do develop internet 'identities' around our posting name over time. After a while other posters get a sense of our posting name as a 'person' and then we don't want to say anything that might affect other peoples view of who we are.
>
> I do understand the desire to be able to say whatever without worrying about that. It is funny that it is like that to start with. We don't care what that posting name says. We feel anonymous. But after a bit of time our posting name becomes part of us and then we don't feel anonymous anymore.
>
> The price for 'making friends' I suppose... That we care what they think of us...
That's it exactly. We may have created what we think is an anonymous persona... but overtime we realize that anonymous persona is still us. Now we have developed relationships with that alternate name but we still care how others perceive us. A rose by any other name I guess.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 22:20:20
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » alexandra_k, posted by KaraS on March 27, 2005, at 22:10:24
Yeah. But then if we can post under another name then after a bit of time that would be another part of us...
They would start out feeling anonymous, but over time they wouldn't feel anonymous anymore.
More and more parts of us.
I think that that is why we aren't supposed to post under more than one name.
Well. That and the problem of responsibility / accountability I guess. If someone posts something objectionable then we would want all of their posting names to be blocked.
And a poster could have a conversation with their selves...
It would be a way around the 3 post rule...
Posted by Dinah on March 27, 2005, at 22:39:43
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » KaraS, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 22:20:20
But my request for an exception was very narrow. The name would only be used for one thread, and only for specific questions like the one in this instance. You couldn't post indefinitely under that name. Or answer yourself, or get around the three post rule.
Dr. Bob could even give a posting identity limited use screen name for the purpose. Like anonymous (1,2,3,4) etc.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 2:10:45
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on March 26, 2005, at 10:09:07
> I formally request an exception to this very fine rule for asking sensitive questions about oneself... Perhaps the exception could be incorporated as:
>
> "I currently post under another name on this board, but due to the sensitive nature of this question, I would prefer not to have my screen name associated with it. I will post under this name only for the purposes of having this specific question answered."The rule just has to do with posting under different names *at the same time*. So even without an exception someone could change their name to ask a question and then change it back after that thread?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 2:16:38
In reply to Re: posting under different names at the same time, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 2:10:45
Except that it would be pretty obvious when say, Olaf posted on Admin that he was posting under a new name, asked an embarassing question, and then Dinah posted on Admin that she was posting under a new (old) name.
And if you lifted the requirement to post that you were changing names, it would open the door to less benign situations involving name changes for one thread. :)
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 2:19:44
In reply to Bravo, Dr. Bob., posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 2:16:38
I didn't remember any, but forgot to search. My son's reading "A Series of Unfortunate Events". :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 3:13:10
In reply to Bravo, Dr. Bob., posted by Dinah on March 28, 2005, at 2:16:38
> it would be pretty obvious when say, Olaf posted on Admin that he was posting under a new name, asked an embarassing question, and then Dinah posted on Admin that she was posting under a new (old) name.
What if, afterwards, Olaf posted again? That he was returning to his old name?
Bob
Posted by cubic_me on March 28, 2005, at 13:14:53
In reply to Re: posting under a new (old) name, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 3:13:10
I like the system Dinah proposed, where people could be 'anon 1, 2, 3, etc' or similar.
Posted by KaraS on March 29, 2005, at 1:48:34
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » KaraS, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 22:20:20
Posted by Dinah on March 29, 2005, at 1:51:00
In reply to Re: posting under a new (old) name, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 3:13:10
Posted by Spoc on March 29, 2005, at 6:58:00
In reply to Re: posting under a new (old) name, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2005, at 3:13:10
Ok, the answer to this will probably dawn on me immediately after I post and I'll feel stoopid, but: if the system "releases"/eradicates a name as soon as someone actually abandons it by registering with a new one, how do people end up posting under two names at once? (Maybe there is a "delete prior name" option in the process that I'm unaware of...)
I'm figuring the system must release the old name, and right away, if a person with this confidentiality objective must then formally re-register with it to get it back. If the name is free in between, I guess the person also risks that someone else will take it while they have the bag on their head. ;-) (Probably by coincidence, but if two and two were put together deviously by someone, potentially intentionally...)
Ok, I probably should have just gotten more sleep, may have made no sense at all!
Posted by KaraS on March 29, 2005, at 13:50:48
In reply to Re: posting under more than one name » KaraS, posted by alexandra_k on March 27, 2005, at 22:20:20
> Yeah. But then if we can post under another name then after a bit of time that would be another part of us...
>
> They would start out feeling anonymous, but over time they wouldn't feel anonymous anymore.
>
> More and more parts of us.
>
> I think that that is why we aren't supposed to post under more than one name.
>
> Well. That and the problem of responsibility / accountability I guess. If someone posts something objectionable then we would want all of their posting names to be blocked.
>
> And a poster could have a conversation with their selves...
>
> It would be a way around the 3 post rule...
Hi Alex,Please ignore my previous post. I must have checked off the "nm" box by mistake. I meant to agree with you that it could get quite complicated when posting under different names. I think it might work though if it's quite controlled and is only used in the case that Dinah mentions.
Kara
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2005, at 5:11:37
In reply to Re: posting under a new (old) name » Dr. Bob, posted by Spoc on March 29, 2005, at 6:58:00
Posted by Spoc on March 30, 2005, at 11:45:34
In reply to Re: the system doesn't release old names (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2005, at 5:11:37
>The rule just has to do with posting under different names *at the same time*. So even without an exception someone could change their name to ask a question and then change it back after that thread?
Bob
======
A few things are still escaping me about all this... I'll mention them after I affirm what my understanding is now, of what you're saying:I gather that it is indeed ok to hold and use two names, as long as an announcement of a switch is made on Admin in between use, under one of the names (with the option not to identify/reveal the link between names in the announcement). I guess that confused me because up until now, I had thought the rule was against *possessing* two names at any given time, linked to the same IP address and/or email period.
And in regard to your quote above, I also take it that when you say "change it back," you mean just through the Admin announcement, not literally, through re-registering (since if nothing else, the name would still show as taken). I guess I had thought re-registering was always mentioned as required, any time someone asks how to change their name. Leading me to believe each person could only have one name.
But here's where I get confused (I think there are even more things that confuse me about this, but these are the ones coming to mind at the moment): You state that "even without an exception" the anonymity objective is possible, as the rule is only against using two names "*at the same time.*" But if no exception was needed at all, why couldn't it be worked out that Phillipa and her husband could have separate names in use from the same computer?
Also, if no exception of any type was needed, and the rule is literally only against "at the same time," that would mean that people can have two names in use for any purpose, as long as they announce in between. So, that will be ok?
And, if taken literally, it seems like that would mean the number of names one person can have isn't even limited to two, if the rule is only against "at the same time."
Hmmmm.... I agree that this does sound like it would be very hard to keep track of. Admin could also end up peppered with announcements of switching between names within minutes of each other, with the associated names never being known, so the person really could have two or more identities going on the board...
Posted by AuntieMel on March 30, 2005, at 12:42:16
In reply to Re: the system doesn't release old names » Dr. Bob, posted by Spoc on March 30, 2005, at 11:45:34
I read it as being that if a person (through the registration process) changes their name, the old one doesn't get recycled.
So if you modify your name, and not create a new alter ego, you couldn't use both at the same time.
Although that does get a bit confusing on one bit. If you still 'own' the name, how does the system know it is really you reclaiming it. Password?
Good to see your verbal sparring skills back here, Spoc(no k)
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.