Requiring true identity to post on WaccoBB.net?

[Barry]

Hi Everybody,

There have been several requests lately that we require people to validate their true identity before posting to prevent people from posting unkind things that they are not responsible for. The thought is that without the shield of anonymity people will be more responsible and considerate.

Mark Morford wrote about this problem and he suggested the same solution: disclose your identity.

I am generally in favor of this approach, since my intention from the beginning is to have people use their real names (and preferably photos) as a way adding transparency and authenticity to our cyber connections and tie that back to real community. I want this to be a safe environment for the progressive community where opinions and viewpoints are welcome and presented in a respectful manner.

Since I haven't been able to validate real identities, I haven't tried to enforce it.

Another problem is that if a user is technically sophisticated, I can't prevent them from re-registering once I have removed them from the system.

I have a thought about how this could work:

First, it would only be limited to new members as of May 10th. Members who joined before this time would be warned once and then removed from the system.

Secondly, it would only apply to the discussion categories (including General Community, WaccoTalk, WaccoReader, Conscious Relationship, etc.). Users would not need to be validated for posting to For Sale or Housing or starting a new thread in Events and Classes.

If a new, un-validated user tries to post to one of the discussion categories, they would be told that they need to get validated.

Validation could happen in a number of ways:

1) 2 existing members vouch for them. If a vouched-for member gets banned (after a warning) the "vouchers" would no longer be able to vouch for future members.

2) Show up at a WaccoBB function with some ID.

3) A small donation via their credit card (and the name matches).

4) Show their ID via Skype. (This can be recorded).

I'll probably need some community support to help implement this system.

What do you folks think?

[ILoveWestSonoma]

I think it's sad that you would need to "verify" anyone in the first place. People should respect the opinions of others and welcome calm and proper debate in a public forum. Spammers, flamers, etc. are inevitable (I guess), but it's a shame some of us cannot control ourselves and be polite while in dissagreement.

Craigslist uses "flagging" as a method of community self policing, but even this is abused as self proclaimed flagging nazis have taken control of several forums there.

I believe in the right to privacy...being a female and having had bad online experiences I understand the need to be anonymous. I personally don't like to share my personal details on the internet especially having fallen victim to the cyber crime of identity theft. It's a bitch to get your identity back once it's been stolen.

I think you should consider the Skype idea or the small donation idea via PayPal. At least that way you have a solid way of verifying a person's identity without exposing their personal details to the online world...and a source of income to help defray the costs of bulletin board upkeep. Also, it's been my expereience that once a person buys into something they take "ownership" in it and resolve to take a personal stake in maintaining the integrity of it.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers!
BK

[theindependenteye]

[quote=Barry;89316]

>>There have been several requests lately that we require people to validate their true identity before posting to prevent people from posting unkind things that they are not responsible for. The thought is that without the shield of ananymity people will be more responsible and considerate.
...>>What do you folks think?

Friends--

To me this makes sense.

For the purpose of preventing flames, who knows? It'd probably help deter some, though I've been on lists where everyone was known, and they still went at it like sixth-graders on meth.

My hope would simply be that, to some degree, it lessens the anonymity of the exchange. If I'm talking to someone, I like to know to whom I'm talking. If I meet someone at a party who's wearing a bag on his head, I might say "Hey, neat bag," but I'm probably not going to engage in any serious interchange. How much does a name really tell me? Not much, but it tells me at least that this person is engaging with me as himself, not as a figment from Second Life.

Is there a way to validate identities? I dunno. But for some, at least, there may be a greater onus attached to entering under an assumed realistic name than under some clever handle. In any case, I'd rather carry on a conversation with a pseudonymous Leonard K. Leonard than with "Barfetissimo."

Would some people be deterred from sincere posts by having to use their own names? Possibly: they might feel the post would put their job in jeopardy, offend an acquaintance, or is just too intimate. I'd suggest, in response, that (a) there are countless sites for such posts that maintain anonymity, and (b) you'd better think twice about posting anything on the Internet for which you require true anonymity. The past outing of various posters on this list undercuts any illusion of "safety."

For me, the value of this forum is in exchanging views with a range of people, in a sense of community. I may know some of you personally, I may meet some in the future, and some I may never encounter except here. A few, I never *want* to encounter, but I'm still interested in the way they think and in trying to talk with people who may be very alien to my own perspective. Some people are always going to rant, others pride themselves on their snide-idity, but on a local community board, I'd just like to know who's talking.

I haven't addressed whether this whole notion is a fascistic squelch to free speech. I'm hopeful that we can forego opening that can of worms and those who differ with this idea will speak your concerns with both vigor and respect.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[NudeTea]

It's an honorable endeavor, Barry, to try to sway things in a more noble direction. Gratitude, most certainly.

When you intend to prevent people from saying 'unkind' things though, that's a tricky conundrum in my experience. Some of the more 'unkind' things I've read here are from people whose true identities are not concealed, and they are simply speaking their truth. It seems to me that when it seems unkind, that's a byproduct of truth in some people's esteem.

I admire "I Love West Sonoma's" idea of using Paypal or some other form of validation by bank. Sadly, once again, I have read posts that lead me to believe that once someone is a paying member, they presume to lay some kind of claim on the site; that they can now say whatever they want because they bought in. I could be wrong. That is simply a personal judgement on my part, I admit, but it's what I've seen.

I have no answers for you. Opinions on the other hand? Economics 101A says there's a downside to every choice. No easy way to enact change, and I wish you well with this.

["Mad" Miles]

Barry, Everyone,

I support your effort here, and have commented numerous times about the problem of trolls on waccobb.

But I also think the right to privacy is paramount. Hence a fundamental conflict.

If there were some way for you to verify identity, but only the information a participant wants to have made publicly available is posted, then that might be the beginning of a solution.

Of course, anyone with a modicum of technical sophistication can create a completely fictitious identity that appears to be "real". (i.e. factual, whatever that means. See below for the beginning of an explanation of what I mean here.)

But the effort to create such a psuedo-identity might curb the appetite of those who flame from the shadows. (Sounds cool, but as we know, it really sucks!)

Keep in mind that some of the recent "trolls" here have been all too happy to be open about their identity. What will we do when someone is fine with giving their name but still insists on sniping away and engaging in forms of subtle and not so subtle emotional abuse? It's not like this is a problem that only arose with the invention of the internet!

This is a pickle. Requiring identification, if only to the moderators of waccobb is a beginning to trying to curb abusive posting. But I can guarantee it won't be the end of the matter.

What I have done for years as a moderator of a few local political lists (which are mostly announcement only, but some allow for discussion) is to ask an offender to stop. If that doesn't work I, "moderate their ass", which means anything they post only goes to the list if I OK it first. If that doesn't work I dump them from the list.

That has generally worked, and has only been necessary in one or two cases over the last ten years, but I'm talking about a very small pond of only twenty to one hundred and fifty people or so per list. Waccobb is a larger, more open, lake and probably will take a different approach.

By the way, PayPal doesn't work for me, as I've told Barry privately. But I've paid my annual supporting member donation by personal check via snailmail. That, plus my very public persona, should be enough to verify my identity.

Don't get me started with the numerous and sometimes complex debates about identity, truth, and reality that are at the core of much Social Theory and Social and Political Philosophy from the last fifty to one-hundred and fifty years. If not much, much longer.

Suffice it to say that we're all making it up as we go along. Any notion of objective truth, especially in these matters of what consists as reality in a society, is a socially conceived and artificially consensed fiction that we treat as "The Truth".

But that's not the question at hand... Or is it?

I don't envy you and your co-moderators your job. But I'm glad you're finally acting to attempt to resolve an endemic problem.

May you/we succeed!

"Mad" Miles

(Mad, in the sense that I care deeply about charitable and respectful communication between those willing to make the effort, and the exclusion of those who have proven they either won't, or can't.)

[Valley Oak]

I like the proposed idea. I think it would probably work and I strongly support taking the risk of making it happen. It would make Wacco a much better, community oriented, bulletin board with various positive results that we don't enjoy now. I believe it should be attempted this year or as soon as possible.

Edward

[Valley Oak]

I just got an idea. How about this:

Two Wacco Talks (maybe also Community, etc). One is 'wild and wooly' and the other is identified. The wild and wooly, anything goes. But no one can bitch about it. They get a fair warning at the beginning of their subscription and that's it. If people in the Wild 'n Wooly section complain they are simply reminded that they have a CHOICE! As time goes by, almost everyone will drift towards the ID Wacco Talk.

Just a thought.

Edward

[Valley Oak]

There was a scientific study done (someone help me here) where volunteers for this project could anonymously give an electric shock to a subject that gave the wrong answer to a question. The study was done in two parts: one, the 'shocking' volunteers were right in front of the person who was being shocked. Two, the 'shocking' volunteers were absolutely anonymous in another room or with a cap and gown that covered their faces. The absolutely anonymous volunteers were merciless in their delivering numerous electric shocks to the subject (or victim).

What does that tell you? I think it's pretty obvious, especially regarding the issue at hand here in Waccoland.

As it turned out, it was precisely the volunteers (unbeknownst to them) who were the real subjects. The person 'receiving' the electrical shocks was a hired actor who wasn't shocked a single time! After the study was completed, someone sued the scientist who organized the study and it went to court. This is a famous case. I believe that he got off with no penalties but an excellent movie, starring William Shatner as the scientist, was made about this. The judge in the trial really wanted to 'fry' the scientist but he was left wanting.

This study is referred to constantly for many different reasons, including to help understand why the Germans did what they did to the Jews (although it certainly doesn't explain all of it). The experiment is cited frequently for various kinds of other studies that are done today in psychology, sociology, history, economics, politics, philosophy, war, etc.

Edward

[MsTerry]

How much does a name really tell me? Not much, but it tells me at least that this person is engaging with me as himself, not as a figment from Second Life.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

Conrad, when I go see one of your productions, who is behind the words that are spoken?
Is it the author, the actor, the character, the producer or the audience that come to hear it?

"you know, someone said the world is a stage and each must play their part"
Elvis Presley in Areyoulonesometonite

[Valley Oak]

The study I was talking about earlier is called the Milgram Experiment, conducted in 1961 (Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

The movie is called "The Tenth Level" (The Tenth Level (1975) (TV)).

A decade later, in 1971, another study using the same principles was conducted at Stanford University with equally shocking results (Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Edward

[Skook]

There have been several requests lately that we require people to validate their true identity...

Wouldn't work for me Barry, because I have a local business and I'm afraid that my sometimes controversial positions here would have a negative impact on it.

For a variety of reasons I agree with Mad Miles that moderating the hell out of the few rude and antagonistic posters you have here would be the best solution.

As you know, your primary troll sniffs out emotional vulnerability and delights in upsetting people. I have seen him/her squelch myriad discussions here in the last couple of years, and what should be a community of vibrant discussions has been paired down to a handful of participants with thick skins as a result.

Bite the bullet and stand up to the few antagonistic individuals; ban their ass, then when someone new shows up, give them one warning only. Your community will thank you for it.

[hales]

I post under my own name, though I know that is considered risky behavior, by some. In general, I am in favor of letting people express themselves, unless they demonstrate a lack of concern for the feelings and situations of others. I think it's cowardly to use anonymity to be mean or hurtful. I also think it's a good idea to have some kind of boundaries, guidelines and consequences, in case one forgets to be civil, from time to time. I think I and most people occasionally need feedback to be aware of the impact what I say on others. It's important to realize that some people have been hurt in the past, or are just natually much more sensitive than those who simply enjoy a good argument to get their "blood up"..

Being forced to prove identity seems a bit Orwellian to me, I'd rather that those who do not show respect for others be warned and notified as to what constitutes civil behavior, once or twice, then put on moderated status.

If certain people want a "rubber room" for un-moderated wildness, I would have no problem with that. At lease sensitive people could easily avoid them..
: )

On the other hand, I think Barry does a good job of running this site, and should simply use his best judgment on this.. ; )

Scott.

Wouldn't work for me Barry, because I have a local business and I'm afraid that my sometimes controversial positions here would have a negative impact on it.

For a variety of reasons I agree with Mad Miles that moderating the hell out of the few rude and antagonistic posters you have here would be the best solution.

As you know, your primary troll sniffs out emotional vulnerability and delights in upsetting people. I have seen him/her squelch myriad discussions here in the last couple of years, and what should be a community of vibrant discussions has been paired down to a handful of participants with thick skins as a result.

Bite the bullet and stand up to the few antagonistic individuals; ban their ass, then when someone new shows up, give them one warning only. Your community will thank you for it.

[theindependenteye]

>>Conrad, when I go see one of your productions, who is behind the words that are spoken? Is it the author, the actor, the character, the producer or the audience that come to hear it?

I don't quite get how this relates to the main question, but to answer yours: I try to write words appropriate to the particular character, so they're mine and his. The "meaning" of the work isn't necessarily in those words, though, but in how they synergize with the other personae in the play. And of course the audience adds the way they hear it, which I somewhat control as director but never 100%.

I don't see the connection to Wacco here, unless it's that some people see themselves more as "creating a character" here than speaking their own minds. When that happens, it seems (whether it is or not) an attempt to make fools of us all, like real people arguing with a puppet.

Cheers--
Conrad

[theindependenteye]

>>Wouldn't work for me Barry, because I have a local business and I'm afraid that my sometimes controversial positions here would have a negative impact on it.

That's surely a valid concern. Anyone have any clear answers to that?

Do you mean that you're identified closely with your business -- that is, a significant number of your customers know you by name -- and that if they knew your opinions on certain things they wouldn't patronize you? Do you avoid expressing these opinions in other social contexts where you might be known?

>>For a variety of reasons I agree with Mad Miles that moderating the hell out of the few rude and antagonistic posters you have here would be the best solution.

Yes, it's the best solution to the problem of flames & trolls, even though it's not been hugely effective up to this point. I'm quite sure that if Barry becomes more proactive in stomping down the offenders, he'll get blindsided with flames as a dictator.

My other question is to several who expressed concern that their privacy might be violated. Do you mean just your name, or other information about you?-- no one's suggested listing addresses, posting photos, etc. People have been writing letters to editors for decades, and these generally require a name. Is there a reason the Internet should be different?

I don't want to get maneuvered into being more of an advocate here than what I've already stated, so with these several questions I'll leave the floor to others.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[jitterbug]

I think this is a good idea.

I have a concern with #2 "existing members vouch for them. If a vouched for member gets banned (after a warning) the they "vouchers" would no longer be able to vouch for future members."

If someone vouches for a member, validating their identity & then that new person gets banned for inappropriate behavior, why is the "voucher" then not able to vouch for future members? I don't like the idea of being held responsible, in a way, for another member's behavior. As long as that person is really the person they say they are, the voucher did their job.

It seems a little harsh to forever ban someone from vouching.

It's a different story if someone vouches for a new member who then turns out NOT to be who they said they were. But how could that be determined?

[MsTerry]

I guess I am the only one who thinks it's strange that we are now discussing (in general community) how to deport someone from Waccoland who doesn't follow the rules and at the same time trying to keep someone in this land who doesn't follow the rules set by the US.

[Sara S]

Yes. I think that Barry should use his own judgment here, but should be a bit tougher than in the past. It shouldn't be difficult to weed out the unpleasantly clever trolls; we need a MEAN SCREEN!

I post under my own name, though I know that is considered risky behavior, by some. In general, I am in favor of letting people express themselves, unless they demonstrate a lack of concern for the feelings and situations of others. I think it's cowardly to use anonymity to be mean or hurtful. I also think it's a good idea to have some kind of boundaries, guidelines and consequences, in case one forgets to be civil, from time to time. I think I and most people occasionally need feedback to be aware of the impact what I say on others. It's important to realize that some people have been hurt in the past, or are just natually much more sensitive than those who simply enjoy a good argument to get their "blood up"..

Being forced to prove identity seems a bit Orwellian to me, I'd rather that those who do not show respect for others be warned and notified as to what constitutes civil behavior, once or twice, then put on moderated status.

If certain people want a "rubber room" for un-moderated wildness, I would have no problem with that. At lease sensitive people could easily avoid them..
: )

On the other hand, I think Barry does a good job of running this site, and should simply use his best judgment on this.. ; )

Scott.

[MsTerry]

My question was to show that we don't control how others perceive us.
Words can be interpreted in many ways, and once a character is made, the audience has a hard time separating the words and the message.
The actor or director might have a different interpretation than you do of the words. The audience will have a different one.
Some in the audience might think the words came from the character, others from the director or the author.
Certainly you've heard of the actors that had to fear the audience for the audience believed the character was truly evil.
When you write words for the villain, does that make you evil?
Or are you merely being able to place yourself in somebody else's shoes?

I don't quite get how this relates to the main question, but to answer yours: I try to write words appropriate to the particular character, so they're mine and his. The "meaning" of the work isn't necessarily in those words, though, but in how they synergize with the other personae in the play. And of course the audience adds the way they hear it, which I somewhat control as director but never 100%.
Cheers--
Conrad

[Skook]

What's missing in this discussion so far is that when you identify yourself on the web, you are exposing your identity to the whole world, not just wacco. When someone googles your name, they see everything you have ever written on the web unless your name isn't associated with it.

All my customers know me by name, I personally provide a sometimes expensive service to people who are often emotionally distraught. I have no doubt that my politics (for instance, I think Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes) would repel my more mainstream or conservative customers.

Or, to give another example, I wrote a parody here a while back titled "Wise man in his fifties seeks established, generous, beautiful woman in 30's". Although several people in the thread pointed out to outraged respondents that it was a parody, I received several very angry emails telling me what's wrong with me. If my name were associated with that parody, whenever a prospective customer googles my name, they'd see it, and I can't afford the risk of turning off customers.

And finally, most businesses reserve the right to refuse service to rude, obnoxious and antagonistic customers, only trolls will call Barry a dictator for doing the same.

>>Wouldn't work for me Barry, because I have a local business and I'm afraid that my sometimes controversial positions here would have a negative impact on it.

That's surely a valid concern. Anyone have any clear answers to that?

Do you mean that you're identified closely with your business -- that is, a significant number of your customers know you by name -- and that if they knew your opinions on certain things they wouldn't patronize you? Do you avoid expressing these opinions in other social contexts where you might be known?

>>For a variety of reasons I agree with Mad Miles that moderating the hell out of the few rude and antagonistic posters you have here would be the best solution.

Yes, it's the best solution to the problem of flames & trolls, even though it's not been hugely effective up to this point. I'm quite sure that if Barry becomes more proactive in stomping down the offenders, he'll get blindsided with flames as a dictator.

My other question is to several who expressed concern that their privacy might be violated. Do you mean just your name, or other information about you?-- no one's suggested listing addresses, posting photos, etc. People have been writing letters to editors for decades, and these generally require a name. Is there a reason the Internet should be different?

I don't want to get maneuvered into being more of an advocate here than what I've already stated, so with these several questions I'll leave the floor to others.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[deejayjfx]

Rules. Unfortunately there has to be rules. History has proven time and time again that without rules or ethics civilization reverts to chaos and eventually to certain demise.

Imagine if we didn't bother to stop at stop signs or if we ran red lights.

The same applies here in Wacco - land.

We must have rules of conduct. Without them the board would become a cluster f**k of useless dribble and no one would want to participate.

Personally, I don't want to be subjected to participants who rant and rave and steer off topic. It defeats the purpose of the bulletin board.

The stop sign and red light here at Wacco is Barry's moderating. The rules of conduct are set and if they are broken there are certain consequences. It's important to enforce the rules so participants know if they don't abide by them, they will not be allowed to engage.

A few bad apples can certainly spoil it for the rest of the bunch.

Cheers! JFX

[Tars]

Unfortunately there has to be rules. History has proven time and time again that without rules or ethics civilization reverts to chaos and eventually to certain demise.

What? Because one opts to not make their identity public, civilization will crumble? Just the tiniest bit overstated, don't you think?

I'm a supporter of having the choice of online anonymity. I believe that moderation is the answer. I at least scan the posts here daily; I haven't seen an undue problem with trolling. Trolls here tend to get verbally stomped on, and/or sent to the Siberia of " Censored & Un-censored", where nobody reads them anyway, except the other pathetic conversationally-challenged.

As with others here I'm a local business owner, and to a lesser extent, involved with various types of global interactions. I like being able to post here without having negative impact on my life anywhere else. For me, no anonymity, no participation.

[MsTerry]

Wouldn't work for me Barry, because I have a local business and I'm afraid that my sometimes controversial positions here would have a negative impact on it.

Edward wants to publish everybody's name that supports prop 8.
Are you worried about something like that?

I have seen him/her squelch myriad discussions here in the last couple of years,

How odd Skook, you joined 2 months ago...............

and what should be a community of vibrant discussions has been paired down to a handful of participants with thick skins as a result.

Barry claims over 9000 members, but only one percent will post.
Do you really think one person is preventing all those other people from posting?

[MsTerry]

Or, to give another example, I wrote a parody here a while back titled "Wise man in his fifties seeks established, generous, beautiful woman in 30's". Although several people in the thread pointed out to outraged respondents that it was a parody, I received several very angry emails telling me what's wrong with me. If my name were associated with that parody, whenever a prospective customer googles my name, they'd see it, and I can't afford the risk of turning off customers.
.

Your example perfectlyillustrates the point I have been making all along.
Even though it was pointed out repeatedly (I forget who pointed it out first), some people continued to read into the post what they wanted to read into it.
People will get upset about some thing that doesn't bother others no matter what you say, even if you show that the opposite is true.

[jitterbug]

This thread is really thought provoking. Here's another thought. Is Wacco an online community or an online forum for an actual community with "place?"

I think the answer may be different for different people. For me, I view it as a communication tool that connects a real-live, real-people community. I like that I can buy and sell used items through these forums and tend to trust Wacco members more than a relatively anonymous craigslist user.

I do give weight to the comments of long-time members and frequent posters. I feel that these criteria provide a sense of credibility.

On the other hand, there are a number of very good reasons why some people may want to remain anonymous on these boards.

Perhaps a solution may be to have user validation as a voluntary option. This would allow the reader to make his or her own decision about which posts / posters to believe and how much weight to give them. If someone felt very strongly about not reading posts by unvalidated users, perhaps there could be an option to "ignore" any posts by unvalidated user, even by category. I think there is already an option to ignore individual posters, isn't there?

[nurturetruth]

This is not too relevant to the discussion at large , but i have to wonder why this thread is still in "General Community" and not now in "wacco talk" where things are discussed and debated about?

I noticed Sabrina had purposely posted her "announcement" in the category General Community and not Wacco talk. I am imagining her intent was to offer information and request support, not to debate about it.

I feel that for members starting a thread in General Community..that it might be helpful when posting, if they had the option of deciding whether or not they were open to public responses or not.

As far as requiring true identity to post on Waccobb as an idea to help control unwelcome behavior patterns, I feel that it wouldn't achieve the desired results.
I have been active in reading some newspaper articles and submitting public comments. The system of editing works as such:

* the community of registered members are the ones who hold the option of either "recommending" a member's post (similar to the gratitude button) OR they have the option of "flagging" a a member post.

* When a member "flag's" or reports a particular post , a small box w/a list of community guidelines pops up for the 'flagger' to choose which guideline was not met and why they are reporting/flagging the post.

* Usually, if enough people (more than 1 person) flag/report a particular member's post, the "editor"/"moderator" pays closer attention and then edits the flagged post to automatically read: "this comment has been removed b/c it did not meet community guidelines".

This way, the community as a whole gets to contribute and have their input and not just one man behind the business or community.

[MsTerry]

This is not too relevant to the discussion at large , but i have to wonder why this thread is still in "General Community" and not now in "wacco talk" where things are discussed and debated about?

Psst NT
(in soft voice) it was the barry man who started it in this section

I have been active in reading some newspaper articles and submitting public comments. The system of editing works as such:

* the community of registered members are the ones who hold the option of either "recommending" a member's post (similar to the gratitude button) OR they have the option of "flagging" a a member post.

* When a member "flag's" or reports a particular post , a small box w/a list of community guidelines pops up for the 'flagger' to choose which guideline was not met and why they are reporting/flagging the post.

* Usually, if enough people (more than 1 person) flag/report a particular member's post, the "editor"/"moderator" pays closer attention and then edits the flagged post to automatically read: "this comment has been flagged b/c it did not meet community guidelines".

This way, the community as a whole get to contribute and have their input and not just one man behind the business or community.

we basically already have this in place.
we have the gratitude button, the barry button and the censored section.
the flagging has proven to be problematic on CL. people gang up on certain posters and flag to prevent others from speaking.
Not because they don't like the message but because they don't like the person.

"this comment has been flagged b/c it did not meet community guidelines".

Are you saying this is in addition or instead of the offending post

[C Tut]

This is just my opinion, but having to identify myself does not make me feel any more secure or safer from trolls. In fact, it seems like having my true name and identity could be just another piece of ammunition for those who are already more than willing to be be unkind. Not that I really mind personally, as I am not terribly sensitive when it comes to the opinions of others, and I really don't feel that trolls and the like deserve much attention or energy fed into their twisted form of ammusment. There are plenty of a-holes out there in the world, and I'm pretty sure that disclosure of identities, or lack thereof, has very little to do with this behavior. It is a baseline personality characteristic. Unfortunately we cannot force people to play nice. We cannot control the actions of others, only how we react to them. I am uncertain about countering an inflammitory problem with an inflammitory solution.

[bugl3t]

...

If there were some way for you to verify identity, but only the information a participant wants to have made publicly available is posted, then that might be the beginning of a solution.

Of course, anyone with a modicum of technical sophistication can create a completely fictitious identity that appears to be "real". (i.e. factual, whatever that means. See below for the beginning of an explanation of what I mean here.)...

However, an IP address can be recorded and associated with the user's identity. Banning IP addresses of bad users would at least make it much harder for someone to keep posting using another identity.

[alanora]

I am searching my mind for the joke I know is so close with "vouchsafe" "vouchers" and "vouchees" along with the party of the first part! The question of how one's status would change from vouching for someone who then turned out to flame is interesting and amusing as well. Of course it only has to do with them being who they claim to be...kinda like a notary...some clever soul has a whole new field now of cybernotarizing......

I think this is a good idea.

I have a concern with #2 "existing members vouch for them. If a vouched for member gets banned (after a warning) the they "vouchers" would no longer be able to vouch for future members."

If someone vouches for a member, validating their identity & then that new person gets banned for inappropriate behavior, why is the "voucher" then not able to vouch for future members? I don't like the idea of being held responsible, in a way, for another member's behavior. As long as that person is really the person they say they are, the voucher did their job.

It seems a little harsh to forever ban someone from vouching.

It's a different story if someone vouches for a new member who then turns out NOT to be who they said they were. But how could that be determined?

[Yubajeff]

Time Out! I think we are close to gelding the lily here. The dialog that I perceive goes on here is well within the bounds of civilized discourse. It is a bit draconian to propose anything that would dampen freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is the most precious thing we have here.