Why Not?

[RichardGraham]

Hey Folks,

I continue to be impressed by the postings of people who attach their names and identities to their posts. Those anonymous posters? Not so much.

Isn't it time to require people to disclose their identities if they're going to post on Inline Hockey Central?

Sure, there are problems -- people can pretend (for a while) to be someone that they're not. But eventually (probably sooner than later), they'll be found out.

If I can get the support of IHC's readers for this new policy, I'd love to try to implement it. Why should people who may have personal agendas be able to influence the debate about all things important in our sport if they don't have the personal courage and integrity to sign their posts?

Frankly, it won't harm IHC at all if I have to ban hundreds (or even thousands) of posters who won't stand up in public for their beliefs. In fact, it can only help, as many past and potential advertisers have avoided IHC because of the negative and even hateful postings by anonymous readers of this site.

If you've got a legitimate beef about someone or something in this sport (heaven knows I do), then send me a private message asking me to look into it. If your idea has merit, I'll follow it up. I'm not afraid to report the truth, but I certainly do not intend to be used by people to further their own agendas.

Yes, there are people in power in this sport who are blinded by greed, ego, hypocrisy and selfishness. I'd love to use the "power of the pen" to poke at them, and I will. But I'll sign my name to those articles when I do.

It seems only fair that you sign your names to your posts, too.

[rhhof]

......Amen

[PGHhockey]

I decided to adhere to this policy because I really want to see some new banners when I login. Nothing against Inline Warehouse, SlapShot Energy, etc. ;)

On that note, Richard, I'd love to read a post in which you rip into someone/something...I've seen nothing but pristine, unbiased journalism up to this point. It'd be fun.

[showtime89]

Makes sense to me.

[NC Mustangs]

Richard - I agree with your position on this and support you 100%. If we are all here to discuss and better the sport let's make sure we know who is speaking and when.

[SWAMPDONKEYS29]

I would not be opposed to this.

[minutemen]

Richard I 100% agree.

[inferno98]

Richard - Great Idea

[Doug Jones]

Hey Folks,

I continue to be impressed by the postings of people who attach their names and identities to their posts. Those anonymous posters? Not so much.

Isn't it time to require people to disclose their identities if they're going to post on Inline Hockey Central?

Sure, there are problems -- people can pretend (for a while) to be someone that they're not. But eventually (probably sooner than later), they'll be found out.

If I can get the support of IHC's readers for this new policy, I'd love to try to implement it. Why should people who may have personal agendas be able to influence the debate about all things important in our sport if they don't have the personal courage and integrity to sign their posts?

Frankly, it won't harm IHC at all if I have to ban hundreds (or even thousands) of posters who won't stand up in public for their beliefs. In fact, it can only help, as many past and potential advertisers have avoided IHC because of the negative and even hateful postings by anonymous readers of this site.

If you've got a legitimate beef about someone or something in this sport (heaven knows I do), then send me a private message asking me to look into it. If your idea has merit, I'll follow it up. I'm not afraid to report the truth, but I certainly do not intend to be used by people to further their own agendas.

Yes, there are people in power in this sport who are blinded by greed, ego, hypocrisy and selfishness. I'd love to use the "power of the pen" to poke at them, and I will. But I'll sign my name to those articles when I do.

It seems only fair that you sign your names to your posts, too.

Bravo! Rich! Bravo!

I've always said if your going to attack and or have a personal agenda, stand behind your words. Sealweenies always allowed one person (who shall go nameless) to have 5 - 6 names and he would attack and agree with himself using those names.

I think it's only fair, if your going to call someone out or speak poorly of anything, it should be your words, not those of some nameless anonymous person. If you believe in what you say, then put your name to it...

Doug

[HiddenMickey]

Bravo! Rich! Bravo!

I've always said if your going to attack and or have a personal agenda, stand behind your words. Sealweenies always allowed one person (who shall go nameless) to have 5 - 6 names and he would attack and agree with himself using those names.

I think it's only fair, if your going to call someone out or speak poorly of anything, it should be your words, not those of some nameless anonymous person. If you believe in what you say, then put your name to it...

Doug


Why, who ever could you be speaking of?

[thebenchman]

Doug


You pulling Mark out into this? WOW!!
lol!!
:D

Roy Warren

[Leaferguy]

I don't think I would do it.

[growl89]

actually about 4-5 years ago i was a poster who would not disclose as i was unhappy with PIHA, XIHL and MLRH at that time.... but i have grown up and have no problem stating my name and what im happy and unhappy with. And you can either, agree or not agree. It doesn't bother me. But i like the idea of having everyone being mandated to post thier names. There have been problems posted about the leagues by all kinds of people involved. players, coaches, owners. Look at Todd Wiley and Doug Jones. Two owners, niether afraid to voice their positive or negative opinions on the league that they play in. So if they can do that, shouldnt everyone be able to do that?

[rback]

Sounds like the right thing to me.

[email protected]
Rich Gurbacki
Director, Buffalo In-line Hockey Group

[zipyaj]

If first it is your intent to do ill-will, think twice - be nice! Be true to your words.

Richard,
Count my vote as YES.

Thanks!
Jay

[NHouser]

All For It.

But can we expose a few we've 'found out' on our own in the past? hahaha Hard to believe I actually just hit them up telling them to shut up or Everyone would be made aware. We never heard from them again...and I never said another word.
Still, every once and a while I still get that little twinge!

Alright, alright. I'll continue to try to act like an adult.
Darn it.

[RichardGraham]

Hi Folks,

Thanks for the support for this idea. I have thought about it for years, and now I think it's finally time to implement.

For now, if people wish to remain anonymous and post questions about what kind of skates to buy, where to play, etc., that shouldn't be a problem. I don't want IHC readers to jump all over newbies who aren't aware of the new rule.

The goal is to eliminate posts by users who have axes to grind or wish to stir up controversy anonymously. Grind your axe and stir up controversy -- but have the courage to attach your name!

Thanks again, folks.

[Doug Jones]

Doug


You pulling Mark out into this? WOW!!
lol!!
:D

Roy Warren

NEGATIVE... I am not pulling Mark out, it was Mark who helped me expose a certain husband and wife in Huntington Beach who would post at home, then go to work and post, then use another computer somewhere else to post and argue points making it look like 5 - 6 different identities.

If you really want to know who they are, PM me, I'll be happy to share.

Irish was gracious and even posted their IP addresses for everyone to see it was the same two people hiding behind six names...it was hilarious!

[quick_dry]

Axes to grind, lies, etc are one thing - but, should people pay more attention to an idea because it comes from some 'named' person, or because it is a good/bad idea?

besides, can you really prove I am who I say I am? (or that I'm not also someone else on here? I'm not, but its not like it isn't trivial to do so)

[NHouser]

Same deal here...at the time it would have been ultimately gratifying but it wasn't worth expending the negative energy.

Just patiently waited while one dug their own grave and the other just learned a valuable lesson. Let's keep the focus on exposing our sport in a more positive manner. Those who do hide for contentious "fun" or monetary gain are always 'found out' eventually anyway.

[RichardGraham]

Hi quick_dry,

Though it's not foolproof, it certainly makes sense to me to try and cut down on the negative posts by anonymous people. There are tools that can easily determine whether a poster is sending his message from New York or California, for instance. I'm sure some people will try to cheat, but most of them will eventually get caught and banned.

This site was created to promote the great sport of inline hockey. That we're even having this conversation blows my mind.

There are great things about the Internet. Being able to attack others anonymously ain't one of 'em.

[quick_dry]

I agree on all those points, but if I'm the sort to make bogus sign-ups - why pretend to be someone from another state? or area?

I could be John Smith from Sydney Australia, or I could be Steven Adams from Australia, its only because we've had actual dealings that you know the latter is my real name (and anyone could join the dots from stuff I've said about my playing history if they cared).

Its not that I want the crap on the board, it was annoying when people were drinking the PIHA kool-aid, now that isn't the flavour du jour, baseless bashing of PIHA is annoying.

All this does is add one more thing for a moderator to look for - if a post is a baseless bashing post, then it is a baseless bashing post. You've still got to determine that whether I sign with my own name, no name, or a fake name (and how would you determine between real and fake?)

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but... I'm just not sure it'll make a difference to the problem people.

[thebenchman]

Doug

I was making an attempt to be funny. I apparently didnt succeed. Mark would do that from time to time and it was hilarious too.

If you bash, you have to apply your name. That should give some real thought BEFORE you open your mouth.

Nanette, we did have some fun in those days knowing who was who by how they typed and use of the english language. Or HOw they SPelled. Too funny.

Quick Dry.... we need to talk. My wife is from Elonora Heights NSW. Love me some Colloroy beach.....

Roy

[NLane]

I'm all for it, too. It's a shame that you/we need to do this but I don't like to see bashing posts unsigned either. Disagree with all you want but flinging dirt with venom spraying (nice image,eh?) just isn't called for on the boards. I know I've written several times & erased just as many after giving it some thought but never hit the submit button before I had a chance to read over it and decide if that was really the way to say what I wanted to say. Do what you need to do, Richard.

[hockeyseed]

Just keep in mind that this is a two-way street. Sure, you want people to look you in the eye (well, at least sign their names) when they speak their minds. But you also have to be civil when people state their opinions - respect what they have to say, respect their passion when they say it, even when you disagree.

So, yes, definitely sign your name. But don't jump on people who disagree with you.

[RichardGraham]

Hi Quick_Dry,

I see what you were trying to say. There's no perfect system to keep the message board on the up and up.

However, what will be different is this: I will use tools that I've had at my disposal more frequently.

If a post is bashing and baseless, I'll delete the post. If the behavior continues, I'll ban the reader.

So, whether you post your name or not, if a post is over the line, it will be deleted.

The goal is to make the Forums section more civilized and constructive. If I can do that, and bring back past advertisers and sign up new ones, IHC will survive. If I can't, it won't.

[DblJ44]

Richard,

I am all for it, especially if it help the site build its own revenue through possible sponsors.

[RichardGraham]

Hi John,

Thank you! I appreciate your support.

[William Bourque]

I don't know how i missed this until now, but i am all for it.

[RichardGraham]

Hi Cheri,

Are you out of your #)*#E$ mind? Just kidding. Excellent point.

[Doug Jones]

ok, bullet number one who is Mephisto?

[CUDangled]

Richard,

I agree with you 95% of the time...people should stand behind their words and identify themselves. HOWEVER, in some instances, you might be a poster that is associated with a team/business and you do not want your opinion to be linked to your organization.

Lets say you were a member of a PIHA team from last year and you were involved in the heated PIHA vs AIHL debate. You wanted to express your PERSONAL opinions rather than opinions of the organization. Even if you said "this is my opninion" people will still associate that to the team.

Also, I think a great thing about forums IS that they are anonymous. I like to go on these boards and share my opinion without regard to the political/financial implications on the organizations I am associated with.

I think this might just be a catch 22 situation.

[RichardGraham]

Hi CU Dangled,

You have a point, but tell me how your argument helps IHC? It doesn't. It only helps a few readers who, as you say, "might be a poster that is associated with a team/business and you do not want your opinion to be linked to your organization."

Unfortunately, what happens is that people post their negative opinions anonymously and without personal consequence, and IHC loses. The Catch-22 in your scenario is for IHC, not those anonymous readers, as far as I can see.

[Jon Niola]

Sounds like good policy Rich.

[CUDangled]

Posts are based on true feelings. The IHC community needs to hear the true feelings. Sometimes, you don't want to be linked to your true feelings. But if you can logon an post them anonymously, then they can be expressed. This is no different then when companies give their employees the opportunity to evaulate their supervisors (anonymously). This gives the employees the chance to voice their opinion without the risk of getting fired, mis-treated, etc.

Yes this opens the door for some negative posts, but overall I think it also puts a lot of important conversations on the table that would not otherwise be heard.

I am a member of serveral online discussion forms (most much bigger than IHC - not hockey related) and this is constantly an issue. It may require more time to moderate the board...but I think if you make people post with their REAL name, you will lose a lot of posts on IHC. And then IHC does lose. People don't post on boards that have very little activity.

If someone is just being an ass...then ban them. Whether they have their name attached to the post or not. If someone is simply stating their opinion in a professional way and it just happens to not be very popular...what is the problem? Like right now for example my opinion seems to be in the minority...fine. I can accept that. But I don't think I am being disrespectful in my post. So what is the harm?

Finally...I have seen some fairly nasty posts on here with people's REAL NAME attached, so that doesn't seem to solve the issue.

[ACCCT2]

Hi Richard,

I understand your inclination to 'out' (or 'off'?) certain cowardly or impolite or 'flamethrowing' posters, especially those whose vitriolic venting have nothing insightful or productive to offer (except maybe a good argument for better birth control and societal genetic engineering?). I also know that a positive, progressive, polite and respectful board (and site) is an imperative for IHC landing potential sponsors and their vital ad buys. All things considered however, in my own opinion I have to say that I'm with "CUDangled" on this one -- you'll definitely lose posters who for whatever reason like or choose their 'anonymity' when participating in the discussions. And this could lead to IHC possibly becoming a kind of 'virtual milquetoast' of nonconfrontational "political correctness" and (sickening?) "syrupy-sweetness", and hence, "good intentions" aside ("the road to Hades"?), banal, belittled and inevitably, boring...

And "boring" leads all too quickly to the boonies of anything.

IHC is an important force (and resource) in international inline hockey because of its being unafraid to allow even the the most "passionate" and polar-opposite points of view and extremely frank discussions to be engaged -- change its proven format simply to suit what might be possible in terms of that ever-elusive sponsorship and you might lose a vital core audience (the very thing those potential sponsors are counting on). I know -- it's a heckuva' quandry, but I think that your readers should come first (easy for me to say, right?).

Maybe you could "out" (or "off"?) those whose rudeness, crudeness or unconscionable 'nuking' of the English language and/or common decency is evidenced as an everpresent constant in their posts (we all know who they are, right?). Give them 3 warnings and if they don't behave, "off" them for good -- or ban them for a short spell (and "spell-check" session/lesson?) in IHC "puck-posting-purgatory". Should they try to re-enter or re-sign up on IHC, it's then you could require these repeat offenders to disclose their real names.

GEEZ, if you wanted to, you could even force 'over-formatters' (like ME?) to tone it down a bit, eh...!?!

Just MY 2-cents worth.;)

[RINKRAT]

HUH???:confused:

[Stampede#11]

He was doing so well ... what a way to spoil it!?!

I think he actually makes a decent point .... but could have done so in around 95% less words.

[BourneRoller]

I disagree quite strongly with this. While I respect the intention of bringing some credibility to all IHC posts, I myself make it a pretty simple policy not to release personal information (name included) on the internet unless necessary. I understand that people may not be quite as paranoid as I, non-the-less I would be pulling out if attaching more than a nickname was a requirement. I think the only way I would change my mind on this is if IHC could provide the same kind of security as Facebook or better. If you want to eliminate anonymity, then why wouldn't we abandon IHC altogether and make this all a FB group. (just saying this to make a point Richard, I certainly would want this to happen.)
While I consider it unwise, in todays age, to release your name online, I do respect the posts with names attached more than those that don't. I understand this when I post. I could be Wayne Greztky or I could be Mike Mikeson, you don't know. With this, I understand that my posts carry less weight than anyone who releases their name. Having said that, I don't slag people on here either. I can relate to those of you who pour your heart out on here only to be bashed by some anonymous masked idiot. I wouldn't be happy either. However, I think putting a major limit on IHC forums would damage a sport that can't afford it. IHC is a very central part of Inline Hockey culture, in my opinion, and if it is going to continue that roll it is going to have to be tougher. While sh*t posts can stir up emotion, intelligent or positive posts (anonymous or not) are what this is all about. Take the good with the bad.
Mike Mikeson......wait.....Wayne Gretzky....no wait...

[Drexel63]

Alliteration aside, I feel that ACCT2 does make a good point. However, I'd like to offer this opinion to counter it...

My opinion... I'll reiterate that... MY OPINION, is that this resource should be configured to the best interests of Richard, not the inline hockey community. While Richard has been a valuable asset to the inline hockey community for, well... ever, he has done so at his own personal and financial sacrifice. I feel that it is the responsibility of the rest of the inline hockey community to step up, and if this new policy here on IHC is enacted, fill the void by acting in a responsible and appropriate manner for public communications.

If you are worried about identity theft, opt out of the conversation. If you cannot translate "unhappy feelings", as Bill (growl89) put them, to a conversation without flaming or stirring the pot, keep your thoughts to yourself. If you cannot react to another member of the community voicing an opposing opinion, and engage in a intelligent and civilized debate without getting upset, then don't. And finally, if you thought you could do all of these things and be a mature contributing member to the inline hockey community, and your posts prove otherwise repeatedly, then accept the punishment of the people in charge of that communication medium...

So, in summation, it is MY OPINION, that everyone who contributes in this forum community providing their identity is a good thing for IHC. In that interest, it should be done. Following that interest, it is in OUR best interest as the inline hockey community to use this resource maturely.

[ACCCT2]

Alliteration aside, I feel that ACCT2 does make a good point. However, I'd like to offer this opinion to counter it...

My opinion... I'll reiterate that... MY OPINION, is that this resource should be configured to the best interests of Richard, not the inline hockey community. While Richard has been a valuable asset to the inline hockey community for, well... ever, he has done so at his own personal and financial sacrifice. I feel that it is the responsibility of the rest of the inline hockey community to step up, and if this new policy here on IHC is enacted, fill the void by acting in a responsible and appropriate manner for public communications.

If you are worried about identity theft, opt out of the conversation. If you cannot translate "unhappy feelings", as Bill (growl89) put them, to a conversation without flaming or stirring the pot, keep your thoughts to yourself. If you cannot react to another member of the community voicing an opposing opinion, and engage in a intelligent and civilized debate without getting upset, then don't. And finally, if you thought you could do all of these things and be a mature contributing member to the inline hockey community, and your posts prove otherwise repeatedly, then accept the punishment of the people in charge of that communication medium...

So, in summation, it is MY OPINION, that everyone who contributes in this forum community providing their identity is a good thing for IHC. In that interest, it should be done. Following that interest, it is in OUR best interest as the inline hockey community to use this resource maturely.

GEEZ, I didn't know that we'd be getting graded on this one...!?!

Anyway, all "Drexel63's" points well taken, they actually don't differ one iota from what I stated, as with posters behaving as per the way "Drexel63" advises they should, there is no real reason or logic why anyone should have to disclose anything that they otherwise don't want to. So, "in summation", in MY opinion, while "Drexel63" points are very well said and should be IHC posting-gospel, they also work just fine without identity disclosure. Again, just MY OPINION.:)

[Doug Jones]

Just to point this out, what's the big deal with who anyone is? If you want to post and are scared of having your name tied to the weight of the possible repercussions, then DONT post.

I don't get it. Obviously, it's like being in a crowd. I can shout out things anonymously at a speaker and keep my identity safe. Or, I can post my thoughts and feelings in a way where people can respond to me with their opinions.

I don't agree. Hide and post and in my opinion(note I said my opinion) your words have no weight. Anonymous posting is not acceptable and I don't agree with the defense of it.

If you can't be who you are and stand behind your words, then your opinion(s) don't matter. Anyone can have a screen name and say anything they like anonymously with no accountability. Losing that anonymity creates the IHC member to have to be held accountable for what they say.

So, maybe Rich can start an anonymous forum for people who wish to post and keep their identities safe. Then those who put their names to their words can have theirs. I guarantee none of the fighting, arguing and attacks would happen in the named forum. While the anonymous one would continue to excel in allowing the banter that we all have to unfortunately listen to.

Go Big, Be yourself, stand behind your words.

Again, just my opinion.

[RichardGraham]

Hi Folks,

Thanks for the continued debate and suggestions on this topic. I'm taking everything I'm reading into consideration. I wrote up a long rant last night, but want to read it in the bright light of day, and perhaps reconsider. ;)

[Drexel63]

At risk of getting tied into a long-winded competition with ACCT2, here it goes....

I tend to agree that in an ideal world, if EVERYONE followed the advice of me earlier post, then no names would be necessary. However, no ideal world exists, and people (a) get upset, (b) post too fast, and (c) don't proof read what they ramble... So, forcing people to post their name helps deter those unwanted, but natural human tendencies...

If we assumed an ideal world, and all members of IHC chose to be adults when discussing sore or controversial topics, then we would have to assume that the entire membership could curb those human tendencies on their own.

If we don't assume an ideal world and ask people to identify themselves, as well as ask them to be adults anyway, we have a way of identifying the shortcomings of the community, and hopefully improving everything over the course of time...

[CUDangled]

I think you should just ban the "Trash Talkers" if they become an issue. Require e-mail confirmation for registration. This is a feature built into vbulletin. True, people could just create a new e-mail address and register again, but they would have to be fairly motivated to go through the hassle. And if they are THAT motivated, they would be difficult to stop anyway. Plus, even if a user were forced to use his/her "real" name, how would you know it was their REAL NAME?

I have also seen in several instances trash talking on a board escalate BECAUSE real names are involved...then that "rage" is transferred to the floor. YES it does/did happen. Nothing is more rediculous than watching young men (or even kids) fight over words that were said on a message board.

Have we already forgot what led to the downfall of the NCRHA board?

If someone attacks you using your screen name, it might upset you for a minute, but that is all. If they attack your real name...it is more personal. Other boards that are much bigger, and cover MUCH more controversial subjects survive AND thrive using alias screen names and they have no problems attracting sponsorships.

Maybe an alternative is to have a category that is just for heated debate and this category is only accesible to a certain usergroup. To be in that usergroup you MUST have a real name for a user name?

[ACCCT2]

At risk of getting tied into a long-winded competition with ACCT2, here it goes....

I tend to agree that in an ideal world, if EVERYONE followed the advice of me earlier post, then no names would be necessary. However, no ideal world exists, and people (a) get upset, (b) post too fast, and (c) don't proof read what they ramble... So, forcing people to post their name helps deter those unwanted, but natural human tendencies...

If we assumed an ideal world, and all members of IHC chose to be adults when discussing sore or controversial topics, then we would have to assume that the entire membership could curb those human tendencies on their own.

If we don't assume an ideal world and ask people to identify themselves, as well as ask them to be adults anyway, we have a way of identifying the shortcomings of the community, and hopefully improving everything over the course of time...

Don't worry, I'm definitely NOt worried about "getting tied into a long-winded competition" with anyone.;)

Actually, those of us who pontificate on what others should do really should just keep it to ourselves. Just behave and mind our own "p and q's", so to speak. Personally, I don't want to be punished or made to do something -- or forced to give up participating in a forum I actually enjoy -- simply because some other nitwits can't properly behave themselves. Attempting to reform "flamers" is inevitably like "conditionally" giving an alcoholic the keys to the liquor cabinet and telling them to try and behave -- sooner or later, with the excuse of enough temptation or provocation or just simply "thirst" being just enough cause, they'll invariably imbibe and inevitably cause Richard to threaten or execute yet another "intervention" (especially the case with an alcoholic who doesn't believe in "AA"). Requiring others who don't irresponsibly "imbibe" to essentially register at "AA" because of what probably won't happen with us "non-imbibers" is not the way to solve the irresponsible "imbibing" problem, now is it?:confused: