Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

The Battle.Net RealID Poll & Discussion.

145791028

Comments

  • generals3generals3 MehPosts: 3,307Member

    Originally posted by Munki

    Im personally excited for the changes this will bring forward...

    When it works for them, who knows who else will adopt it. Maybe having your name on the internet will mean something and people will think twice about their opinions.

    I know if I was posting with my full name, I might think twice before taking a break and slippin in a few insults for the hell of it.

    Could be the next big thing; and Im always excited when there is a huge progressive shift in anything.

     

    Troll who actually cares: Might indeed troll less or stop

    "Special" people trolling: This won't stop them .

    Tbh there are more potential downsides and positive effects . First it will greatly reduce the use of forums which often is a great source of info (just ignore the trolls) . Second , no matter how you want twist it , it does increase the risk of abuses (harrasment and such. Just today i saw a video on youtube about a girl complaining about it because basically , everytime people get to know she's a girl => 12y olds harrassing her . And with her name showing on teh forums , try to hide it . And i'm pretty sure there are also some racist people out there and you can go on. And since those are mostly "special" people they belong to the category of trolls who won't stop trolling.) And while you might minimise the increase in risk the increase is there and is inevitable and tbh i don't think a 25% troll reduction is worth all the potential threats this adds . Even if it's only a 0.1% increase in abuses it's still 0.1% too much.

    Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
    Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.

  • MalcanisMalcanis LondonPosts: 3,191Member

    Reposted from another site:

     

    This post WILL get deleted, Im just trying to get this information out so other people will realize how much Blizzard is screwing us over.



    After a long talk with a few Blizzard phone reps, it turns out BLUES will NOT have their real names posted in the forums due to "Security Concerns." Blues are free to hide from the nightmare RealID will turn these forums into, and yet we, the paying customers, will be forced into it?



    Thats right everyone, YOU will have to reveal your real name in order to post on these forums. Blues, on the other hand "Cannot risk having their personal lives compromised by in-game issues" (Thanks, Josh with no last name - thats a gem).



    I have already canceled my account and filed a complaint with the ESRB about all of this, I suggest you do the same.

     

    Can anyone seriously defend this now?

    Give me liberty or give me lasers

  • noquarternoquarter Vancouver, WAPosts: 1,170Member


    Originally posted by Treekodar


    Originally posted by Malcanis
    You're unbelievable. You dont see how giving out real names facilitates this? Have you literally ignored every post that says things you dont like about how a real name does, in fact, give a malicious person a huge starting advantage? Did you not read about what happened to the very Blizzard CM who did give his name out? How do you think those childred were "talked to" in the first place?
    And saying "People will be stupid, thats not Blizzards responsibilty." when you're faced with the evidence that you denied existed, that child abusers and rapists are only too willing to spend time and cross long distances? You seriously blame the children? You're a piece of work. For God's sake, stop and think a moment, take a look at where your insistence on not being wrong has carried you. Is this really a position you want to hold?
    What the hell is wrong with you man? I'm not trolling you. I dont care about scoring points off you on this matter. I'm not going to follow you round going "nah nah nah nah I was right you were wrong". This is really serious, and rather than admit you were wrong about something you're calling children "stupid" for being abused.

    The guy they found wasn't Bashiok.

    It wasn't, but Bashiok's real info was found after that and posted, and promptly deleted. It's harder to find it but his real address and number are cached on google still. I'm sure the wrong Micah got way more harassment but the right Micah still was harassed. Either person getting harassed is more than should exist though, so why give names out.

  • TealaTeala SomewherePosts: 7,430Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Malcanis

    Reposted from another site:

     

    This post WILL get deleted, Im just trying to get this information out so other people will realize how much Blizzard is screwing us over.



    After a long talk with a few Blizzard phone reps, it turns out BLUES will NOT have their real names posted in the forums due to "Security Concerns." Blues are free to hide from the nightmare RealID will turn these forums into, and yet we, the paying customers, will be forced into it?



    Thats right everyone, YOU will have to reveal your real name in order to post on these forums. Blues, on the other hand "Cannot risk having their personal lives compromised by in-game issues" (Thanks, Josh with no last name - thats a gem).



    I have already canceled my account and filed a complaint with the ESRB about all of this, I suggest you do the same.

     

    Can anyone seriously defend this now?

     Provide a link to an official announment regarding this.   Because the original rules still state that, "With this change, you’ll see blue posters (i.e. Blizzard employees) posting by their real first and last names on our forums as well."  They have not been changed.



     

    image
  • MunkiMunki Vancouver, BCPosts: 2,128Member

    Originally posted by generals3

    Originally posted by Munki

    Im personally excited for the changes this will bring forward...

    When it works for them, who knows who else will adopt it. Maybe having your name on the internet will mean something and people will think twice about their opinions.

    I know if I was posting with my full name, I might think twice before taking a break and slippin in a few insults for the hell of it.

    Could be the next big thing; and Im always excited when there is a huge progressive shift in anything.

     

    Troll who actually cares: Might indeed troll less or stop

    "Special" people trolling: This won't stop them .

    Tbh there are more potential downsides and positive effects . First it will greatly reduce the use of forums which often is a great source of info (just ignore the trolls) . Second , no matter how you want twist it , it does increase the risk of abuses (harrasment and such. Just today i saw a video on youtube about a girl complaining about it because basically , everytime people get to know she's a girl => 12y olds harrassing her . And with her name showing on teh forums , try to hide it . And i'm pretty sure there are also some racist people out there and you can go on. And since those are mostly "special" people they belong to the category of trolls who won't stop trolling.) And while you might minimise the increase in risk the increase is there and is inevitable and tbh i don't think a 25% troll reduction is worth all the potential threats this adds . Even if it's only a 0.1% increase in abuses it's still 0.1% too much.

    Here is the problem with what you say.

     You have 0 evidence.

    NOBODY has done this before, so there is absolutly no way you can claim that it will greatly reduces the use of the forums. For all we know it could GREATLY increase the quality of the posts slowly leading to an increase in posters, creating an overall gain.

    We don't know.

    Secondly you say its not worth it if there is a 0.1% increase in harassment, so you again assuming that harassment will increase, when infact people might smarten up; The trouble people out of fear of Google retribution via their work may choose not to make those mean comments.

    This "positive atmosphere" may then encourage people who never posted before to post, creating a positive and productive forum.

    The fact is we don't know, and pulling stuff out of your ass like this contributes nothing to the discussion. This is one of those things where it will happen and we'll see, but predicting obvious doom when something like this has never been done before is illogical.

    image
    after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...

  • mklinicmklinic Pottstown, PAPosts: 1,435Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Zarcob

    Personally I don't think the internet itself should be anonymous.  Logging it at all should connect your computer with your identity.  If a person wishes to use an anonymous service, the administrators should still be aware of the real person's data at all times even if other users are not.  Everything one does online should be tagged with your data, making scams and hackers stick out like sore thumbs.  If this could be linked to hardware, perhaps a finger-print login tool, all the better.  Somewhere along the way we seem to have cultivated the delusion that anonymity is a right of the internet age.

     

    The Supreme Court seems to disagree with you:

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse.


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . .


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . .


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . .


    at the hand of an intolerant society.


     


    Aside from that, there are various Whistleblower laws at the state level that would likely make a "non-anonymous" internet problematic.


     


    Naturally, all this is only really relevant for US gamers.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:



    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. 


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . 


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . 


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . 


    at the hand of an intolerant society.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

    -mklinic

    "There's a point I think we're missing.
    It's in the air we raise our fists in."
    -from Behind Closed Doors by Rise Against

  • bastionixbastionix xxxxxxxxxxPosts: 547Member

    Originally posted by Teala

    Originally posted by Malcanis

    Reposted from another site:

     

    This post WILL get deleted, Im just trying to get this information out so other people will realize how much Blizzard is screwing us over.



    After a long talk with a few Blizzard phone reps, it turns out BLUES will NOT have their real names posted in the forums due to "Security Concerns." Blues are free to hide from the nightmare RealID will turn these forums into, and yet we, the paying customers, will be forced into it?



    Thats right everyone, YOU will have to reveal your real name in order to post on these forums. Blues, on the other hand "Cannot risk having their personal lives compromised by in-game issues" (Thanks, Josh with no last name - thats a gem).



    I have already canceled my account and filed a complaint with the ESRB about all of this, I suggest you do the same.

     

    Can anyone seriously defend this now?

     Provide a link to an official announment regarding this.   Because the original rules still state that, "With this change, you’ll see blue posters (i.e. Blizzard employees) posting by their real first and last names on our forums as well."  They have not been changed.



     

    It's not true, the blue posters will still have their RL name shown.

    They just said so in: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25833934170&sid=1

  • NytakitoNytakito Westminster, COPosts: 381Member

    Originally posted by mklinic

    Originally posted by Zarcob

    Personally I don't think the internet itself should be anonymous.  Logging it at all should connect your computer with your identity.  If a person wishes to use an anonymous service, the administrators should still be aware of the real person's data at all times even if other users are not.  Everything one does online should be tagged with your data, making scams and hackers stick out like sore thumbs.  If this could be linked to hardware, perhaps a finger-print login tool, all the better.  Somewhere along the way we seem to have cultivated the delusion that anonymity is a right of the internet age.

     

    The Supreme Court seems to disagree with you:

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse.


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . .


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . .


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . .


    at the hand of an intolerant society.


     


    Aside from that, there are various Whistleblower laws at the state level that would likely make a "non-anonymous" internet problematic.


     


    Naturally, all this is only really relevant for US gamers.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:



    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. 


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . 


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . 


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . 


    at the hand of an intolerant society.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     There's a word you need to familiarize yourself with.. Context.

    The 1st ammendment does not apply to private corporate forums.

    "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford

  • japojapo Sedona, AZPosts: 306Member

    Originally posted by mklinic

    Originally posted by Zarcob

    Personally I don't think the internet itself should be anonymous.  Logging it at all should connect your computer with your identity.  If a person wishes to use an anonymous service, the administrators should still be aware of the real person's data at all times even if other users are not.  Everything one does online should be tagged with your data, making scams and hackers stick out like sore thumbs.  If this could be linked to hardware, perhaps a finger-print login tool, all the better.  Somewhere along the way we seem to have cultivated the delusion that anonymity is a right of the internet age.

     

    The Supreme Court seems to disagree with you:

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse.


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . .


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . .


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . .


    at the hand of an intolerant society.


     


    Aside from that, there are various Whistleblower laws at the state level that would likely make a "non-anonymous" internet problematic.


     


    Naturally, all this is only really relevant for US gamers.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:



    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. 


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . 


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . 


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . 


    at the hand of an intolerant society.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     

     

     

     

     Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with a privately owned gaming forums....so....your post was a waste of time.

    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

  • generals3generals3 MehPosts: 3,307Member

    "Here is the problem with what you say.

     You have 0 evidence.

    NOBODY has done this before, so there is absolutly no way you can claim that it will greatly reduces the use of the forums. For all we know it could GREATLY increase the quality of the posts slowly leading to an increase in posters, creating an overall gain.

    We don't know.

    Secondly you say its not worth it if there is a 0.1% increase in harassment, so you again assuming that harassment will increase, when infact people might smarten up; The trouble people out of fear of Google retribution via their work may choose not to make those mean comments.

    This "positive atmosphere" may then encourage people who never posted before to post, creating a positive and productive forum.

    The fact is we don't know, and pulling stuff out of your ass like this contributes nothing to the discussion. This is one of those things where it will happen and we'll see, but predicting obvious doom when something like this has never been done before is illogical."

     

    Well , the reduce in use of forums is not a claim. Just look at all the people on WoW saying they will stop using the forums , even highly respected guild leaders who used to share valuable raid info said they'll stop using it once the Real ID thing starts. And i know i won't use forums that show my name . Not because i have anything to hide but because , how to put it , i'm the guy who has 4 anti malware programs on his pc and runs at least 1 full scan a day . (you could call me paranoid but i always say: rather safe than sorry).

    So i think we can all safely assume with a very very low chance of being wrong that the use of forums who force you to show your name will decrease and lose valuable members. 

    And about the increase in griefing/abuse/etc... its common sense actually , you could argue that wearing a shirt on which is written "WHITE POWER" won't increase the chances of you getting beaten up while walking into unsafe getho's where 99% of the inhabitants are imigrants but common sense tells you it will and no one would simply test it out because it's so logical .

    There are bad people all around this world , in games , on forums , etc... And giving them more info about yourself is simply asking for trouble . The only way around this is believing there are no griefers around .

    Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
    Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.

  • mklinicmklinic Pottstown, PAPosts: 1,435Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Nytakito

    Originally posted by mklinic


    Originally posted by Zarcob

    Personally I don't think the internet itself should be anonymous.  Logging it at all should connect your computer with your identity.  If a person wishes to use an anonymous service, the administrators should still be aware of the real person's data at all times even if other users are not.  Everything one does online should be tagged with your data, making scams and hackers stick out like sore thumbs.  If this could be linked to hardware, perhaps a finger-print login tool, all the better.  Somewhere along the way we seem to have cultivated the delusion that anonymity is a right of the internet age.

     

    The Supreme Court seems to disagree with you:

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse.


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . .


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . .


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . .


    at the hand of an intolerant society.


     


    Aside from that, there are various Whistleblower laws at the state level that would likely make a "non-anonymous" internet problematic.


     


    Naturally, all this is only really relevant for US gamers.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:



    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. 


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . 


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . 


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . 


    at the hand of an intolerant society.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     There's a word you need to familiarize yourself with.. Context.

    The 1st ammendment does not apply to private corporate forums.

    hey, speaking of context you should read the quoted part I was responding to where the person stated all internet traffic should be tagged to the real ID (not to be confused with RealID) of the originator. Crazy eh?

    -mklinic

    "There's a point I think we're missing.
    It's in the air we raise our fists in."
    -from Behind Closed Doors by Rise Against

  • noquarternoquarter Vancouver, WAPosts: 1,170Member


    Originally posted by Munki

    Secondly you say its not worth it if there is a 0.1% increase in harassment, so you again assuming that harassment will increase, when infact people might smarten up; The trouble people out of fear of Google retribution via their work may choose not to make those mean comments.


    See this I disagree with, the idea of reciprocated RL trolling being a proper deterrent to poor forum conduct. It's not. That's vigilante "justice". Who determines how much trolling a troll should get? Only one entity should be handling moderating the posters of the forums and that's the moderators, and their only course of action should be within the realm of their jurisdiction - access.


    No one has the right or authority to take the harassment to RL, even if you feel justified in counter-harassing. Even if it shames trolls from not acting mean on the forums that actually provides them with only one outlet to troll you - your real name - while maintaining anonymity themselves by not posting.

  • TealaTeala SomewherePosts: 7,430Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by bastionix

    Originally posted by Teala

    Originally posted by Malcanis

    Reposted from another site:

     

    This post WILL get deleted, Im just trying to get this information out so other people will realize how much Blizzard is screwing us over.



    After a long talk with a few Blizzard phone reps, it turns out BLUES will NOT have their real names posted in the forums due to "Security Concerns." Blues are free to hide from the nightmare RealID will turn these forums into, and yet we, the paying customers, will be forced into it?



    Thats right everyone, YOU will have to reveal your real name in order to post on these forums. Blues, on the other hand "Cannot risk having their personal lives compromised by in-game issues" (Thanks, Josh with no last name - thats a gem).



    I have already canceled my account and filed a complaint with the ESRB about all of this, I suggest you do the same.

     

    Can anyone seriously defend this now?

     Provide a link to an official announment regarding this.   Because the original rules still state that, "With this change, you’ll see blue posters (i.e. Blizzard employees) posting by their real first and last names on our forums as well."  They have not been changed.



     

    It's not true, the blue posters will still have their RL name shown.

    They just said so in: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25833934170&sid=1

     Yep, just verified it myself.  No change to blue's having their names posted.   So what does Malcanis have to say about it now I wonder?

    image
  • bastionixbastionix xxxxxxxxxxPosts: 547Member

    Originally posted by Nytakit


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:



    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. 


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . 


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . 


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . 


    at the hand of an intolerant society.



    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     There's a word you need to familiarize yourself with.. Context.

    The 1st ammendment does not apply to private corporate forums.

     There's a million and one laws that deal with privacy, you don't need the 1st ammendment for that.

  • mklinicmklinic Pottstown, PAPosts: 1,435Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by japo

    Originally posted by mklinic


    Originally posted by Zarcob

    Personally I don't think the internet itself should be anonymous.  Logging it at all should connect your computer with your identity.  If a person wishes to use an anonymous service, the administrators should still be aware of the real person's data at all times even if other users are not.  Everything one does online should be tagged with your data, making scams and hackers stick out like sore thumbs.  If this could be linked to hardware, perhaps a finger-print login tool, all the better.  Somewhere along the way we seem to have cultivated the delusion that anonymity is a right of the internet age.

     

    The Supreme Court seems to disagree with you:

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse.


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . .


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . .


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . .


    at the hand of an intolerant society.


     


    Aside from that, there are various Whistleblower laws at the state level that would likely make a "non-anonymous" internet problematic.


     


    Naturally, all this is only really relevant for US gamers.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:



    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. 


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . 


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . 


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . 


    at the hand of an intolerant society.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with a privately owned gaming forums....so....your post was a waste of time.


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

    So eager to respond without looking at the context of the response. Read what I quoted and my response and let me know what that has to do with private gaming forums? 

    -mklinic

    "There's a point I think we're missing.
    It's in the air we raise our fists in."
    -from Behind Closed Doors by Rise Against

  • NytakitoNytakito Westminster, COPosts: 381Member

    Originally posted by bastionix

    Originally posted by Nytakit


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:



    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. 


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . 


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . 


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . 


    at the hand of an intolerant society.



    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     There's a word you need to familiarize yourself with.. Context.

    The 1st ammendment does not apply to private corporate forums.

     There's a million and one laws that deal with privacy, you don't need the 1st ammendment for that.

     Again the word CONTEXT comes into play as my response was directly related to another post regarding free speech, and his presentation of free speech.

    Quit trolling and read before you post and make yourself look stupid.

    "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford

  • mklinicmklinic Pottstown, PAPosts: 1,435Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Nytakito

    Originally posted by bastionix


    Originally posted by Nytakit


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:



    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. 


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . 


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . 


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . 


    at the hand of an intolerant society.



    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     There's a word you need to familiarize yourself with.. Context.

    The 1st ammendment does not apply to private corporate forums.

     There's a million and one laws that deal with privacy, you don't need the 1st ammendment for that.

     Again the word CONTEXT comes into play as my response was directly related to another post regarding free speech, and his presentation of free speech.

    Quit trolling and read before you post and make yourself look stupid.

    and still you neglect the context of my response while telling someone else to read before they post...irony....

    -mklinic

    "There's a point I think we're missing.
    It's in the air we raise our fists in."
    -from Behind Closed Doors by Rise Against

  • bastionixbastionix xxxxxxxxxxPosts: 547Member

    Originally posted by Nytakito

    Originally posted by bastionix


    Originally posted by Nytakit


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:



    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. 


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . 


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . 


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . 


    at the hand of an intolerant society.



    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     There's a word you need to familiarize yourself with.. Context.

    The 1st ammendment does not apply to private corporate forums.

     There's a million and one laws that deal with privacy, you don't need the 1st ammendment for that.

     Again the word CONTEXT comes into play as my response was directly related to another post regarding free speech, and his presentation of free speech.

    Quit trolling and read before you post and make yourself look stupid.

    meany

  • MunkiMunki Vancouver, BCPosts: 2,128Member

    Originally posted by generals3

    Well , the reduce in use of forums is not a claim. Just look at all the people on WoW saying they will stop using the forums , even highly respected guild leaders who used to share valuable raid info said they'll stop using it once the Real ID thing starts. And i know i won't use forums that show my name . Not because i have anything to hide but because , how to put it , i'm the guy who has 4 anti malware programs on his pc and runs at least 1 full scan a day . (you could call me paranoid but i always say: rather safe than sorry).

    So i think we can all safely assume with a very very low chance of being wrong that the use of forums who force you to show your name will decrease and lose valuable members. 

    And about the increase in griefing/abuse/etc... its common sense actually , you could argue that wearing a shirt on which is written "WHITE POWER" won't increase the chances of you getting beaten up while walking into unsafe getho's where 99% of the inhabitants are imigrants but common sense tells you it will and no one would simply test it out because it's so logical .

    There are bad people all around this world , in games , on forums , etc... And giving them more info about yourself is simply asking for trouble . The only way around this is believing there are no griefers around .

    I've heard everything on the WoW forum; Every major patch was the patch that would destroy WoW, every expansion pack would destroy the game. The vocal minority is not something that should be valued.

    No, we can't safely assume that valued posters will leave. Your straw man argument about the t-shirt isn't even worth adressing.

    There are bad people everywhere, why do you even bother leaving the house, there is a chance you will get mugged, why not just play it safe and stay home... Just hope you don't get broken into! People don't care what your name is, it does nothing for them.

    image
    after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...

  • MunkiMunki Vancouver, BCPosts: 2,128Member

    Originally posted by noquarter

     




    Originally posted by Munki

    Secondly you say its not worth it if there is a 0.1% increase in harassment, so you again assuming that harassment will increase, when infact people might smarten up; The trouble people out of fear of Google retribution via their work may choose not to make those mean comments.



    See this I disagree with, the idea of reciprocated RL trolling being a proper deterrent to poor forum conduct. It's not. That's vigilante "justice". Who determines how much trolling a troll should get? Only one entity should be handling moderating the posters of the forums and that's the moderators, and their only course of action should be within the realm of their jurisdiction - access.



    No one has the right or authority to take the harassment to RL, even if you feel justified in counter-harassing. Even if it shames trolls from not acting mean on the forums that actually provides them with only one outlet to troll you - your real name - while maintaining anonymity themselves by not posting.

    In real life we aren't assholes because we don't want to be treated poorly back; Is that unfair? If I see a guy in a bar fight, Im probably not gona hire him; thats life. Its not vigilanty justice to have to deal with the conciquence of your actions.

    image
    after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...

  • noquarternoquarter Vancouver, WAPosts: 1,170Member


    Originally posted by Munki


    Originally posted by noquarter
     



    Originally posted by Munki
    Secondly you say its not worth it if there is a 0.1% increase in harassment, so you again assuming that harassment will increase, when infact people might smarten up; The trouble people out of fear of Google retribution via their work may choose not to make those mean comments.


    See this I disagree with, the idea of reciprocated RL trolling being a proper deterrent to poor forum conduct. It's not. That's vigilante "justice". Who determines how much trolling a troll should get? Only one entity should be handling moderating the posters of the forums and that's the moderators, and their only course of action should be within the realm of their jurisdiction - access.

    No one has the right or authority to take the harassment to RL, even if you feel justified in counter-harassing. Even if it shames trolls from not acting mean on the forums that actually provides them with only one outlet to troll you - your real name - while maintaining anonymity themselves by not posting.

    In real life we aren't assholes because we don't want to be treated poorly back; Is that unfair? If I see a guy in a bar fight, Im probably not gona hire him; thats life. Its not vigilanty justice to have to deal with the conciquence of your actions.

    I'm not talking about just being treated poorly back, I'm talking about it being taken too far. The idea is people won't be assholes on the forum if they know people know their real name, as though there's some sort of accountability. What exactly does this accountability mean? What consequence lies in wait for someone who is an asshole while their real name is known?


    Well, it can only mean one thing really - the community trolls the user back using his real name. Now who decides how much trolling needs to be dolled out. Do you just prank call him once? Have a pizza sent to his house? Do you get on Facebook and tell his wife he's cheating on her? Call his work and tell them he's stealing from them? Somehow get a credit card in his name and fuck his credit up?


    How many people get to troll him and how do they decide when to stop? Before or after they've ruined his life completely?


    None of these are proper retaliation for trolling in a forum so providing even a troll's real name is not something I want to see. It's the moderator's job to deal with it. No one elses. Especially on a pay-for-use forum like Blizzard's.

  • generals3generals3 MehPosts: 3,307Member

    Originally posted by Munki

    Originally posted by generals3



    Well , the reduce in use of forums is not a claim. Just look at all the people on WoW saying they will stop using the forums , even highly respected guild leaders who used to share valuable raid info said they'll stop using it once the Real ID thing starts. And i know i won't use forums that show my name . Not because i have anything to hide but because , how to put it , i'm the guy who has 4 anti malware programs on his pc and runs at least 1 full scan a day . (you could call me paranoid but i always say: rather safe than sorry).

    So i think we can all safely assume with a very very low chance of being wrong that the use of forums who force you to show your name will decrease and lose valuable members. 

    And about the increase in griefing/abuse/etc... its common sense actually , you could argue that wearing a shirt on which is written "WHITE POWER" won't increase the chances of you getting beaten up while walking into unsafe getho's where 99% of the inhabitants are imigrants but common sense tells you it will and no one would simply test it out because it's so logical .

    There are bad people all around this world , in games , on forums , etc... And giving them more info about yourself is simply asking for trouble . The only way around this is believing there are no griefers around .

    I've heard everything on the WoW forum; Every major patch was the patch that would destroy WoW, every expansion pack would destroy the game. The vocal minority is not something that should be valued.

    No, we can't safely assume that valued posters will leave. Your straw man argument about the t-shirt isn't even worth adressing.

    There are bad people everywhere, why do you even bother leaving the house, there is a chance you will get mugged, why not just play it safe and stay home... Just hope you don't get broken into! People don't care what your name is, it does nothing for them.

    Well yes they say a lot but look at the forums and tell me if you see a difference with the usual whining and doom preeching. I can definately see it . I have seen the same argument as yours used about Command and conquer 4 on their forums , yet ironically they were right the game was a flop and is now played even less than C&C3 , its all a matter of magnitude of the amount of people telling their discontempt about it. And it  exceeds the usual amount of false preechers of the end . Which is never a good sign.

     

    And while you bring it up about going outside: because i have to. Believe me if it was legal i'd walk around with a gun for self defence , i've already been mugged on the streets so i know the dangers . But there is no way around it so i'm forced to live with it.

    And the analogy with the t-shirt, while maybe not really one of the brightest but it is correct. Just imagine the T-shirt being your real name shown on the forums . It's exactly the same , both feed the ones with bad intentions. When i go outside i don't do anything to provoce bad things and showing real names on forums is exactly that: making it easier for people with bad intentions to get to you. Why increase the odds?

    Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
    Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.

  • OtiroOtiro Salem, ORPosts: 205Member

    This is just a bad idea.

    We all run around anonymous in real life.

    I know your thinking that I'm wrong. but think about it. You go shopping, do you wear a name tag? You go to the club for a few drinks or dancing do you wear a name tag? Or just about anything you do in real life outside of  your friends and family and work is pretty much nameless. Yes you do have to show your ID (licence or credit card) from time to time. But you don't show it to everyone do you? Why is that? Nor do you tell everyone you come across your name. Why not?

    Chances are that you won't troll or flame so to speak in real life, although there are plenty that do, I'm sure you have seen some. But you won't for a variety of reasons. Your shy, Or your respectful, or your afraid to get punched in the face or for any other reason you may think of. But it has nothing to do with your name. Chances are no one knows your name in most puplic places. So there is no chance for harrasment if you were to be rude anyways. People just can't come up to you and ask for your ID. Well they could, but I doubt that you would give them it unless it was for some official reason. See we are anonymous even if you don't think so.

    So why should the forums or internet be any different. It is pretty much like real life. Companies you do business with online know your ID/address/ssn etc. Just like in real life. But that chat room (Think bar/club) does not. Except those you want to know. just like in real life. Same goes for games.

    It is very easy for Blizzard to curb the trolling and flame wars. Start banning offenders. Every Forum name as it stands now is still attached to an account. You have an offender, ban the account. No need to show players real names.Showing your name won't cure the trolling that much. Just ban the accounts.

    The ones that will suffer the most are the shy type of people that are afraid to speak in real life but can chat online on less chance to communicate their thoughts,ideas and feelings. I feel for them.

    Players on this site complain that the communities are not like they used to be, close knit, and very social. Well this will only make that worse, not better.

    Sorry for the wall of text.

  • NytakitoNytakito Westminster, COPosts: 381Member

    I'd really like to know how alot of you would fare in the world I grew up in.  A world before the internet, where there was no "veil of anonimity" covering a means for predators to stalk their prey.

    When I grew up, EVERYTHING we did was associated with our REAL NAME, and our FACE.. If we got caught doing something bad, and gave a fake name to the police, it got logged to all law enforcement agencies as a "known alias"..

    You all act like you are somehow constituitonally guaranteed the right to say and do things under a pseudonym, and the simple fact is you are not.  The internet has been a thorn in the side of law enforcement since its initial rise to mainstream popularity only what.. 10 years ago??? 

    Things are not changing for the worse, things are changing back to more how they used to be, where accountability for ones words and actions actually means something, because eventually, there will be no way to escape what you said, or did, under some anonymouse veil.

    All it takes is one company like Blizzard to look at their community and say "Enough is enough" to get the ball rolling.

    I applaud Blizzard for this move, and hope other companies will follow suit.

    "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse." - Henry Ford

  • japojapo Sedona, AZPosts: 306Member

    Originally posted by mklinic

    Originally posted by japo


    Originally posted by mklinic


    Originally posted by Zarcob

    Personally I don't think the internet itself should be anonymous.  Logging it at all should connect your computer with your identity.  If a person wishes to use an anonymous service, the administrators should still be aware of the real person's data at all times even if other users are not.  Everything one does online should be tagged with your data, making scams and hackers stick out like sore thumbs.  If this could be linked to hardware, perhaps a finger-print login tool, all the better.  Somewhere along the way we seem to have cultivated the delusion that anonymity is a right of the internet age.

     

    The Supreme Court seems to disagree with you:

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse.


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . .


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . .


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . .


    at the hand of an intolerant society.


     


    Aside from that, there are various Whistleblower laws at the state level that would likely make a "non-anonymous" internet problematic.


     


    Naturally, all this is only really relevant for US gamers.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:



    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. 


    Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . 


    Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . 


    It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . 


    at the hand of an intolerant society.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with a privately owned gaming forums....so....your post was a waste of time.


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

     


    McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:


     


    Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

    So eager to respond without looking at the context of the response. Read what I quoted and my response and let me know what that has to do with private gaming forums? 

     

    Ummm...read my post. 

    It says that your post has NOTHING to do with private gaming forums....which is what this thread is about....which means your post, which has NOTHING to do with what this discussion is about, is therfore a waste of time.

145791028
Sign In or Register to comment.