Just wondering about the real name policy and Multiple accounts

AbiRasheedAbiRasheed Posts: 223
Your changelog says at the very bottom [Real name policy has been removed]. A pretty big change in policy that it should be included in the [READ THIS FIRST] post no?  Does this mean people can use random aliases now? I thought a lot of us liked and even got used to the idea of using real names because of accountability. 

Regarding multiple accounts, does this mean they can open 5 different accounts so long as they're not breaking any rules its okay? Say if someone uses 5 accounts and decides to use 3 of them in the same discussion using random aliases( no real name policy anymore so why not ) this should be okay then?

Comments

  • Yes, the real names policy is gone.

    I suppose if someone wanted to have a conversation with themselves in a thread they could; it was done so someone could have a personal account and a business account (for job postings, type releases, events, etc.) 

    If someone registered 5 accounts and used them to harass or attack a member or the forum, they would be in violation of the rules and would be punished.

    Things can always change if they are abused.
  • AbiRasheedAbiRasheed Posts: 223
    edited June 23
    You mind telling us why the real name policy is gone? I feel like this brings up a lot of doubt when real names aren't attached. 

    Yes, the real names policy is gone.

    I suppose if someone wanted to have a conversation with themselves in a thread they could; it was done so someone could have a personal account and a business account (for job postings, type releases, events, etc.) 

    If someone registered 5 accounts and used them to harass or attack a member or the forum, they would be in violation of the rules and would be punished.

    Things can always change if they are abused.
    They don't necessarily have to be talking to themselves. I think you missed the point there or maybe I didn't explain myself well. The person with multiple accounts could be talking in a discussion not started by them using 3 different accounts, this visually to me or another OP comes off as 3 different people addressing my problem in the discussion. Worst case, the multiple account user can go around manipulating the agree and insightful reaction in the same discussion. This throws off the whole discussion. Reactions are there for a reason right to give you a quick idea of what is acceptable? But with multiple accounts it can be abused I believe.
  • We can play what if with every decision forever; at some point a choice has to be made. If things go poorly, I’ll catch it as early as I can and we will change back. 

    A lot of professional type designers don’t feel comfortable asking questions with their real name (as it could show up in a google search, for example). It’s worth trying to help those people instead of worrying about what might happen. 
  • AbiRasheedAbiRasheed Posts: 223
    edited June 23
    Were these the same "professional type designers" who also voted for the real name policy in the first place that some of us weren't comfortable with but decided to budge anyways for the sake of type? I'm starting to think this place caters to the prolific and not everyone. Even the way you responded it's almost condescending. You don't have to play a goddamn thing. It was a simple question. Moving on. 
  • I apologize if I came off as rude. I don’t remember the entire real names process but I believe most of the people who advocated for it have left. I’m trying to move the forum in a direction that caters to everyone.
  • Eris AlarEris Alar Posts: 319
    I noticed yesterday that Facebook now has an anonymous posting option in groups. The users identity is still available to the moderations and admins, but the general public cannot see it. This is great IMO as is allows people the freedom to talk about personal or business things without some of the risks associated to using real names. 



    Regarding changing policy, I think it's natural that things change, not only are we all learning and growing, but the community is too (hopefully). What made sense in the context of TD's foundation in 2012 may not make sense in 2021. I agree better transparency around policy changes would be good, but this is a process issue and I don't think James made the changes with any harmful intention. 
  • AbiRasheedAbiRasheed Posts: 223
    edited June 23
    @James Hultquist-Todd It's all good, sorry if I came off a bit rude too, kinda late here and just tired. Either way whatever works for you guys in the long run but removing the real name policy is disappointing at least for me. 
  • It’s alright. The problem with making changes is everyone can’t be 100% happy. We still have an application process for new members; hopefully that, along with an increase in moderation effort will keep things under control and, if not, it can always be reinstated.
  • AbiRasheedAbiRasheed Posts: 223
    edited June 24
    The real names policy may not keep out impersonators or trolls or spam but it had some weight to it. I only mentioned the way it can be abused as a secondary thing, if people wanted to abuse they will, might take a 100 tor nodes or proxies or whatever but it will happen, it's just the way it is I guess these days. I for one benefited from the policy because I saw veterans in the industry hanging out here and thought its the best place to get some feedback on your work and sure enough I did get a shitton of it. Over the yrs I mentioned this place to more people because the real name policy made it possible to justify coming here. I imagine there's tons of people like myself who joined because of the policy. Without the real name policy I'm pretty sure atleast I'd have just ignored this place. So there is a lot of benefits to having the real name policy, it sets the record straight, that it's a legit place where veterans and upcoming designers hangout. Also, I did come across tons of unknown designers in the industry  in here because of the real name policy. If they were allowed to use random aliases with some obscure info for their profile page like your new rules allow, there's no way we'd have learnt of them or their work unless their made the choice to use their real name. Like I said earlier, whatever works for you guys I guess. I'm not familiar with the new membership application  but maybe that'll sort things out. 
  • Eris AlarEris Alar Posts: 319
    Maybe there is a middle ground? It is encouraged to use your real name or company name, but not a hard requirement? 
  • The introductory message has been updated to encourage but not mandate real names (and explain why.)
  • I just like to file my scepticism about the membership may get splitted in two halfs by the new policy, the real and the non-real. If in doubt, my own preferences for conversation are probably quite clear. To speak openly to somebody with a face mask is not my cup of tea.

  • Paul van der LaanPaul van der Laan Posts: 209
    edited June 25
    @Andreas Stötzner I don’t think you can compare this with face masks (especially since it draws unwanted parallels with the current pandemic).

    Instead I think the new name policy is more akin to sitting at a big table in a restaurant with a lot of strangers where some people introduce themselves by their full name, and some only by their first name. As long as the discussions are interesting, on topic and polite – what does it matter? Don’t you talk to strangers in real life?
  • … Don’t you talk to strangers in real life?
    I do, but a real in depth-conversation I think I conduct only with people I know (to some extend at least, a name is basics). The point I’m trying to make: the distinction will establish an assymmetry in the conversation, which will influence participants. It is not the same as a talk at eye level.
    – Just for the records.
  • Sure – I acknowlegde the asymmetry in conversation this change in policy might create. But that is the price that people who prefer to stay anonymous will pay.

    This is a public forum so all conversations are visible to everyone anyway.
  • … But that is the price that people who prefer to stay anonymous will pay.


    that is a rather short-sighted reasoning. What if the no-names do pay that price and the named people won’t?
  • Eris AlarEris Alar Posts: 319
    I see one member has changed their profile to be fairly anonymous. At first I found it jarring, given the rest of the thread I saw them has real names. I don’t know if there is any solution that protects people who feel unsafe, and also lives up to the heritage of this place being a professional forum using real names. 

    I wonder if ‘professional name’ would be a compromise? So the user picks a name, ideally the same name they use on public social media like Twitter, or similar. For many of us, this will be the name we use in everyday life, it for those who use something different it still works. 

    It does not solve the gender bias issues, nor general privacy concerns, so may be effectively the same as a ‘real names’ policy. 
  • Chris LozosChris Lozos Posts: 1,364
    Perhaps the admins only could have real names coded to the screen name?
  • DrawcardDrawcard Posts: 31
    edited June 28
    I like the current system of a) your real name, or b) verifiable business name (eg. submitting a link to your website, social media, etc upon application). I wonder if option c) any moniker you feel like, makes it a bit too easy for sock puppet accounts & trolls to spring up.

    Both a) & b) provide that level of security some like about this place, while also being flexible enough to let the account holder decide how they want to be viewed on the Internet.
Sign In or Register to comment.