Poster Anonymity - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 15, 2005

Poster Anonymity

Date: Aug 15, 2005

Twenty-two, not twenty, were made under the poster's real name. (Judd 20, Folse 1, Lares 1).

Date: Aug 15, 2005

Post Toasties wrote:

An examination of the most recent five threads posted on the message board shows that 198 posts were made anonymously and 20 were made under the poster's real name (Judd posted 20, Lares posted 1, and Fose posted 1). An examination of the most recent five entire threads of posts shows that all threads but 2 were initiated by anonymous posters. This information might be of value when the merits of anonymous postings are being discussed. If I can find the time I'll go back to earlier threads and see if this pattern has changed over time. Meanwhile, draw your own conclusions.

There are different types of anonymous posters. For example, some like myself post often and have established track records of speaking the truth, being courteous most of the time and never trolling. Then there are trolls who may post under one name for a week or two and then disappear forever or reappear under as a different troll. Some reply to their own post in nasty ways in order to claim people on this board are not fair or won't listen to new ideas. Finally there are those who post with startling news under names never before seen here. They try to generate some excite with bogus news and then disappear. I don't list these as trolls. They are just bored by the lack of news. If you stay a while you will see this pattern repeated time and again.

Date: Aug 15, 2005

Reporter wrote:

For example, some like myself post often and have established track records of speaking the truth, being courteous most of the time and never trolling. Then there are trolls who may post under one name for a week or two and then disappear forever or reappear under as a different troll. Some reply to their own post in nasty ways in order to claim people on this board are not fair or won't listen to new ideas. Finally there are those who post with startling news under names never before seen here. They try to generate some excite with bogus news and then disappear. I don't list these as trolls. They are just bored by the lack of news. If you stay a while you will see this pattern repeated time and again.

I didn't look at consistency of posting under the same assumed name. I was surprised how few post under their real name. That must tell us something but I don't know what. I was only presenting what I considered to be interesting information not previously noted.

Date: Aug 15, 2005

Reporter wrote:

There are different types of anonymous posters. For example, some like myself post often and have established track records of speaking the truth, being courteous most of the time and never trolling. Then there are trolls who may post under one name for a week or two and then disappear forever or reappear under as a different troll..Finally there are those who post with startling news under names never before seen here. They try to generate some excite with bogus news and then disappear.

You named three types of anonymous posters, but you neglected to mention the most important posters of all: the many one-time anonymous posters who made significant contributions since the board's inception. All one-time anonymous posters have not been trolls.

Date: Aug 15, 2005

Reporter wrote:

There are different types of anonymous posters. For example, some like myself post often and have established track records of speaking the truth, being courteous most of the time and never trolling.

Some of us post under multiple names specific to individual topics and manage to control both the internal consistency of each board personality and the umbrella theme that all names fall under. That theme for me is that the university has been mismanaged under Shelby Thames' reign. If I am being considered an offender, then a message on this board from either the Webmaster or the AAUP president is all it would take for me to cease and desist my polyonymic postings.

Date: Aug 15, 2005

I would also back out like greased lightening. I wouldn't want to crash a party to which I was not welcome.

Date: Aug 15, 2005

They used to give awards for the most clever and inisghtful posting names? That was part of the fun in a way, to summarize a whole view or comment succinctly with a creative name.

Gosh, we seem to lose our sense of humor and adventure quickly.

In an open and free environment, you are going to get garbage now and then. So what?

Now regular posters are demanding consistency? I prefer a postmodern posting universe. We're all smart enough to be skeptical of any post, especially where anonymous postings occur. How many writes have written under pseudonyms because allowed more freedom?

I got into academics because I thought it would be an open and free place. There is no "ideal speech situation" as Habermas says. Even in the virtual world. Oh well.

Date: Aug 15, 2005

Reporter wrote:

Finally there are those who post with startling news under names never before seen here. They try to generate some excite with bogus news and then disappear. I don't list these as trolls. They are just bored by the lack of news. If you stay a while you will see this pattern repeated time and again.

I've noticed this too, but I don't think they are bored. I believe that these "startling news" posters are really just trying to generate a series of quasi-truthful or baseless responses to their news, with the end result that readers of this board begin to believe there is a pattern of bad behavior or mismangement in a Dean/College/etc.

I truly believe that these "rumor" posters are consciously trying to create a perception within the reader, namely that "x" person or place is screwed up or about the "blow up". With no facts, the thread takes a life of its own, and the rants about "x" unfold.

It is predictable how these "heard from an insider" threads develop.

Count

Date: Aug 15, 2005

My thanks to Count.

I don't want to seem like a joyless cyber cop but once upon a time enough folks used the board with some degree of self-restraint and . . . generally, the humor was self evident enough to read for what it was (or what was the point?)

Too many recent posters are, as I have said in a previous post, of the shout fire in a crowded theatre variety of poster. It seems to me as though the humor some of these folks derive is entirely private and not intended to be shared with the rest of the board . . . . private because only they get the pleasure of enjoying a "discussion" in which one side uses anonymity to spread rumor and whip up angst and anger. And note that when these "I heard a rumor" folks get a response in the form of a question, they almost never followup. Conversation that ensues is often between one or two repeat and known posters and several new and unknown posters with IDs never before seen -- and never seen after that.

I understand the reasons for anonymity and I support them. But there are at least some people on the board these days who do not need the anonymity for self protection -- they manipulate it as a form of deception in order to sew havoc. I don't know how to label this behavior . . . . I'm probably tempted to go back to Big Daddy's citation of . . . "Mendacity" as one of the more grievous sins that can be committed (HE should certainly have known). In a community where the ability to shift IDs is something that can be liberating and yet also invites abuse, mendacity is the proverbial game killer . . . like taking the football home. The danger of the abuse is that that creates mistrust among members . . . . making open discussion increasingly difficult as trust declines.

If you are not among these then I apologize -- but then I assume that you are also not people who use serial ID's in order to create the illusion that there is a hot issue that many people on the board are just dying to discuss or worse yet, add scurrilous and unfounded rumors to.

Maybe times change and that calls for a different way of looking at the board. Or maybe I'm just getting old. I apologize for my crankiness on this.

Date: Aug 15, 2005

Don't real initials count?

Date: Aug 15, 2005

LVN wrote:

Don't real initials count?

Of course . . . .

Date: Aug 15, 2005

and are relatively new poster to be shot?

Date: Aug 15, 2005

correction...
and are relatively new posterS to be shot?

Date: Aug 15, 2005

Shot? No, but sometimes the fur flies pretty thick. Some of the best fights have been amonst regular posters, and usually about important and substantive issues.

Date: Aug 15, 2005

amonst????? i now it was an sj

Date: Aug 15, 2005

It's too late, stephen judd. You already sound like a joyless cybercop.

There is an immediate distrust for "new" posters that emanates from the posts of the "regulars."

I will only add to others' comments about posters who remain anonymous or who use different board names. Imagine working in the Dome or in close proximity to Dana Thames or any of the other "in crowd" and wanting to post and participate in this forum. Would you use your real name if you were an "at will" employee? I think not. How about an untenured assistant professor? Again, probably not.

This immediate distrust discourages participation. Yes, you will get some jokesters, attention seekers, rumor mongers, etc. You will also get a good deal of truth, and there has been plenty of both since this board's inception. If you (the "regulars") continue to act in this overzealous manner, the AAUP message board will be little more than an online cafe for the "regulars" who are worthy enough to be included or who are secure enough in their employment to use their real names. Might as well shut it down and just move it to JavaWerks. You could probably patch LVN and truth4USM/AH in by cell phone.

Date: Aug 16, 2005

You could probably patch LVN and truth4USM/AH in by cell phone.

Huh? If we're all going to JavaWerks, I'll be there in person, thank you. Make that a tall medium roast, no milk please. And a banana nut muffin. Let's raise a toast AMONGST friends -- to better days.

Date: Aug 16, 2005

I post a lot but under different names. Call it paranoia.

Date: Aug 16, 2005

LVN wrote:

You could probably patch LVN and truth4USM/AH in by cell phone.

Huh? If we're all going to JavaWerks, I'll be there in person, thank you. Make that a tall medium roast, no milk please. And a banana nut muffin. Let's raise a toast AMONGST friends -- to better days.

You could patch *me* in by cell phone. It's the only way I could be there these days, unfortunately.

Or you could all drive up to Nashville and we could go to the Pancake Pantry. Judge Cooley's Risk Manager's Assistant and I had a grand time there last year...

Truth

Date: Aug 16, 2005

Disk Q:

I think the answer is consistency. You come to trust posters who maintain a consistent ID because the personality behind the ID begins to come through and you get a sense of an identity and intent. That is what other posters come to trust -- people who shift IDs constantly so that you never come to know them are hardly engaging in an activity which is certainly suspicious, if not downright provocative.

I have not advocated that everyone should out themselves -- I have lamented that there are unscupulous people who seem intent on using the freedom of anonymity to wreak havoc on the board, and perhaps offered the possibility that activities that were once funny may now, in that context, not be so funny since it has increasingly become difficult to tell the funloving tricksters from those whose objectives are destructive.

I'd also say that back in the Fire Shelby days and the early days of this board there was a lot less distrust -- the current level of distrust has arisen in direct relationship to these many phony posts and shifting identities on the board. You (whose ID I have not seen before) appear to want to make the distrust a characteristic endemic to those who consitently post on the board rather than a reaction to those who abuse it.

I also don't agree that new posters are automatically distrusted -- it has as much to do with how the new poster enters the conversation than that they are new. Once upon a time I think the convention was that the conferecne of trust was fairly automatic. Now, given the climate and and the abuse, I think most of the regular posters operate on a not unjustifiable sense of caution. Lurkers who are following the conversations are probably aware of that and hence, if they do not have maleovolent intent, are probably reasonably sensitive to the enviornment when they choose to enter the conversation. I'm extremely inclined to distrust first timers who simply jump in with wild statements, accusations, spewing out rumors, and generally treating me as an old comrade who should simply extend my trust because they have chosen to post, thoughthey have not introduced themselves.

Date: Aug 16, 2005

Disk Q:

I noticed that you actually have several other posts which I have now read, on some of the other threads. I retract my earlier reference to being unaware of your nom with an apology . . .

Date: Aug 16, 2005

I suggest that posts be taken at face value and judged on their content and not on the nom of the poster.

Date: Aug 16, 2005

Possum wrote:

I suggest that posts be taken at face value and judged on their content and not on the nom of the poster.

The reason I say this is because of the halo effect. Some regular posters can say nothing wrong.

Date: Aug 16, 2005

Possum:

Well, I think that is what we used to do. But recently, I think we have discovered that taking a poster at face value (i.e. assuming the information they put out is accurate, and that their intentions are sincere) can produce problems by feeding rumor mills, by providing inaccurate and perhaps hurtful imformation about colleagues or other individuals, and by generally adding to the "clutter" that makes discussion difficult. We have at times, to our embarrassment, allowed these rumors not only to assume a life as a though they had some truth, but we have then discovered that our own inquiry into these rumors, or our repeating of them, have then allowed the credibility of the Board to be attacked (and, more damaging from my point of view, the AAUP which sponsors the board but does not control it.).

Speech isn't an abstract nor is it literal. It needs to be contextualized. Part of contexturalization is knowing something about the speaker. Deprived of that, the speech not only can mean many things, but can only be regarded as credible as its source. In other words, there is no provenance to help me gauge the genuineless of the utterance.

Date: Aug 16, 2005

Possum wrote:

Possum wrote: I suggest that posts be taken at face value and judged on their content and not on the nom of the poster. The reason I say this is because of the halo effect. Some regular posters can say nothing wrong.

I'm a regular poster, and I got the author of a song wrong!! It didn't hurt my feelings at all! AE knew the facts better although Jerry Jeff Walker shur did sang dat song really good when I heard him sing it at some club in Amarillo back in the 70's (I think that's the right decade)

Date: Aug 16, 2005

Emma wrote:

I'm a regular poster, and I got the author of a song wrong!! It didn't hurt my feelings at all! AE knew the facts better although Jerry Jeff Walker shur did sang dat song really good when I heard him sing it at some club in Amarillo back in the 70's (I think that's the right decade)

That's not quite the type of "wrong" I meant. Your posts have all been marvelously insightful.

Date: Aug 16, 2005

Why thank you Possum. Yours have been too. My post was a feeble attempt at levity. I have this feeling that things are about to truly heat up at USM again, and that's really because school is starting and accreditation visits etc. are looming.

Date: Aug 16, 2005

Emma wrote:

I'm a regular poster, and I got the author of a song wrong!! It didn't hurt my feelings at all! AE knew the facts better although Jerry Jeff Walker shur did sang dat song really good when I heard him sing it at some club in Amarillo back in the 70's (I think that's the right decade)

Emma,

You were in Amarillo in the 70's? I sorta grew up there, was in those parts until '71. Hmmm, if I'd stayed, I'd be Amarillo Eagle. I'm pretty sure Jerry Jeff's emergence and Amarillo appearance occurred after I left. He lives here and I see him around Austin pretty regularly. Unfortunately he hasn't aged well.

By the way, this is the 35th anniversary of the founding of the Armadillo World Headquarters (http://www.capitol-city.com/indexarmdilo.html), where Dr. Invictus and I used to hang out back in the day. It was bulldozed in the early 80's to make way for a bank, which later failed. There's a week of activities planned at Threadgills, where Janis Joplin jump-started her career while a student at UT. I bring this up not to bore the message boarders, but to tell you that Gary P. Nunn is still with us and in town this week. He'll kick off the festivities tomorrow by performing our favorite "London Homesick Blues." Rumor has it Willie and Jerry Jeff will make surprise guest appearances as well. I plan to tank up on Shiner and catch the act. Nothing like being able to lurch through a time warp, eh?

AE

Date: Aug 16, 2005

Austin Eagle wrote:

Emma wrote: I'm a regular poster, and I got the author of a song wrong!! It didn't hurt my feelings at all! AE knew the facts better although Jerry Jeff Walker shur did sang dat song really good when I heard him sing it at some club in Amarillo back in the 70's (I think that's the right decade) Emma, You were in Amarillo in the 70's? I sorta grew up there, was in those parts until '71. Hmmm, if I'd stayed, I'd be Amarillo Eagle. I'm pretty sure Jerry Jeff's emergence and Amarillo appearance occurred after I left. He lives here and I see him around Austin pretty regularly. Unfortunately he hasn't aged well. By the way, this is the 35th anniversary of the founding of the Armadillo World Headquarters (http://www.capitol-city.com/indexarmdilo.html), where Dr. Invictus and I used to hang out back in the day. It was bulldozed in the early 80's to make way for a bank, which later failed. There's a week of activities planned at Threadgills, where Janis Joplin jump-started her career while a student at UT. I bring this up not to bore the message boarders, but to tell you that Gary P. Nunn is still with us and in town this week. He'll kick off the festivities tomorrow by performing our favorite "London Homesick Blues." Rumor has it Willie and Jerry Jeff will make surprise guest appearances as well. I plan to tank up on Shiner and catch the act. Nothing like being able to lurch through a time warp, eh? AE

Sorry -- but not suprised that JJ hasn't aged well. I've got (well, actually, I have split with my ex) a pretty good collection of vinyls from the way back days . . . course what can you expect from someone who wrote "I'm Headed for the OD Corral"?