If you want to say something on a public forum then OWN IT ! All these PEN NAMES do my head in !! Why record an ascent or give an opinion if we don't know who the hell you are ?!
Because the organisation I work for has a very strict social media policy and i occasionally say things that are politically sensitive or related to my job.
Because normal conversation does not have an undeletable public record. I certainly try to never say anything on here I would not say face to face and my identity is not 'secret'. But no I do not want my online activity preserved forever next to my name the same as I wouldn't want somebody following me around and transcribing and publishing my every conversation in real life.
Maybe its because I've been on internet forums since 1995 when it was rare to use a real name so it's become a habit, but why should I share private details of myself with a bunch of strangers? I'm not aggressive, I don't troll or threaten people and most of my life is largely irrelevant to many of the discussions on here. If I gave you my real name, it wouldn't make my opinion more or less valid. You still wouldn't know me so I don't see what you would gain.
A bit of detective work would soon find out who I am IRL so I'm not really hiding, just not volunteering extra info. If I committed a crime online I wouldn't get away with it for long.
I actually find it odd when people do use real names on this forum.
Totally agree with you John Smith.
Because the world is full of nutters and many websites including this one don't have a great data security history. The less trace you leave, the better. So slightly different usernames, passwords, date of births etc. are stand practice for me.
Somebody could soon start to tie your name, email address here, date of birth from Facebook, maybe you stated your mother's maiden name or pet in one of those stupid questions on there..... before you know it a criminal has everything they need.
I guess the answer is to try and avoid saying anything libellous or incriminating. I tend to side with Rob on this one, but see that with some people's jobs they prefer to remain anonymous. Probably because they're meant to be getting on with their work and not chatting on the internet! I'm freelance, so that problem doesn't arise. ... Except I must get on with my work now ....
> I guess the answer is to try and avoid saying anything libellous or incriminating.
It's not really the legal side, some folk get quite nasty on here about the sort of thing you'd normally just accept as a difference of opinion in a face to face chat; politics, football, brexit, covid, indef2, lockdowns etc...
There is no requirement for a forum that's already had data breaches to be holding any personal data on anybody.
To some extent using my real name stops me joining in with some of the topics, like diet, vaccines, politics and hence saves wasting even more time on the forums. I like knowing who I am replying to (do you remember me and Mick from Yosemite 1975?) but after a while the pseudonyms can become friends, and it might make troll detection a little easier!
A couple of reasons:
1. Just because someone's user name looks like a real name, it doesn't mean that it is their real name. Calling yourself robmatheson is no more meaningful than "randomClimber" , unless you want UKC to check ID for users?
2. Using your real name on a public searchable forum is naive and risky IMO. There are a couple of people out there who I don't want to know where I live. I like to chat on here and I don't want these people putting my name into Google and coming up with all my UKC posts.
I don't have a problem with other UKC users knowing my name, it's the general public that I have a problem with. A while ago there was a thread posted by a woman to say thanks after some climbers rescued her from the Ben. She used her real name. The gutter press found the thread and used it to write some utter shite, which I'm sure she could have done without.
> Why [...] give an opinion if we don't know who the hell you are ?!
Who I am should have no bearing on my opinions and on how others view it.
Either my opinion can be supported by facts and evidence from the public domain or it's worth naff all, regardless of if I attach my name and credentials to it or not.
My real life identity tends to be one reasonable private message away from posters with an established history on the site.
> Why record an ascent or give an opinion if we don't know who the hell you are ?!
I record them to keep track of them. I don't believe that I share them though. Don't want people seeing that I won't climb on grit, my credibility would be right out the window. Can't even have an opinion on 3PS.
Why do you need to know who we are?
> 2. Using your real name on a public searchable forum is naive and risky IMO. There are a couple of people out there who I don't want to know where I live. I like to chat on here and I don't want these people putting my name into Google and coming up with all my UKC posts.
Yeah, absolutely this. Having to filter what you post for "is there a plausible situation where someone might be Googling my name and I wouldn't want them to find this" is a much higher bar than "is this a reasonable and nice thing to say". I don't try to hide who I am on here, and plenty of IRL friends know who I am, but "real name policies" seem like a really terrible way of making online spaces more dangerous for a lot of people or shutting them out altogether, and have also typically never been shown to do much for the standard of people's behaviour (just look at Facebook...)
For instance, I have a fairly boring life and I can think of a few situations that would cause me to think twice - do I want to filter everything to make it suitable for a future employer to read? What if I got involved in a court case and someone wanted out-of-context quotes to put me in a bad light? And there are a lot of people for whom it'll be a lot worse - mental health professionals and social workers often have reason to avoid being too easily findable, for instance, or LGBTQ people who aren't out to all of their social and professional groups, or anyone with an abusive ex-partner, or anyone involved in politics or generally in the public eye.
Fantastic Pete - you guys did Triple Direct ! Now if I had been using a pseudonym you wouldn't know who I was !! Please get in touch for a private conversation.
> Is it always best to bow down to bullies that hide behind pseudonyms?
Is there something you want to get off your chest?
I'm aware I've disagreed strongly with your take on a certain contemporary event but I've always taken the time to explain my view and evidence it where appropriate, and tried to keep the discussion about the situation and not you or I. I don't extend that same respect to someone who must have by now signed up for over 50 different accounts to pedal lies and misinformation.
I might point out that you hide behind a name so common that a quick google returns "about 395,000,000 results". Are you going to reply to this post in public with your full contact details? No? Then you're just as anonymous to me as I am to you, so I suggest you are being quite disingenuous to complain about pseudonyms.
> It's not really the legal side, some folk get quite nasty on here about the sort of thing you'd normally just accept as a difference of opinion in a face to face chat; politics, football, brexit, covid, indef2, lockdowns etc...
Why allow those people to blatantly hide behind pseudonyms. If they can be nasty in order to poush their own opinions they should have the backbone to be opne about their identiity.
I am Spartacus!
> If you want to say something on a public forum then OWN IT ! All these PEN NAMES do my head in !! Why record an ascent or give an opinion if we don't know who the hell you are ?!
1. How are planning on UKC verifying that the names given are actually the person's "real" name. Why should I believe you are really called "Rob Matheson".
2. What about the, not especially uncommon, occurrence of the same name belonging to several people.
3. Even if you are called "Rob Matheson" - which I don't believe you are, then I still don't know "who the hell" you are. It conveys no more information about you than if you said you were called "Mr Blobby the pie eating lord of pink tights, the Third". The only persons that it might convey useful information to are those that actually know you, which I'm thinking is probably a small subset of the 118k users registered with the website.
4. Why do you care so much that it "does your head in"?
5. Google for a Greek to English translation of my "pen-name" for further instructions.
I'm Brian.
> Why allow those people to blatantly hide behind pseudonyms.
Would you prefer them to sneakily hide behind pseudonyms? If someone wants to use a pseudonym, I think it's far more honest to be blatant about it.
I also wonder if anyone who posts regularly is actually anonymous. Like on here there are at least 5 people (that post ranging from occasionally to regularly) who know who I am in real life, and I know who they are despite never explicitly being told what their username is.
> Would you prefer them to sneakily hide behind pseudonyms? If someone wants to use a pseudonym, I think it's far more honest to be blatant about it.
Blatant or sneaky, the question is should they be allowed to get away with it.
> Why allow those people to blatantly hide behind pseudonyms. If they can be nasty in order to poush their own opinions they should have the backbone to be opne about their identiity.
As others have already stated, it’s not that simple. What if you work for an organisation with a very strict social media policy. What if your name is easily found on a professional register? What if you regularly find yourself working in prisons and police custody suites? What if it’s a fairly common to find yourself giving evidence in coroner’s court? What if you regularly treat people with mental health issues like (in the case of one regular) borderline personality disorder, violent tendencies and poor impulse control?
what if all of the above?
Would you want your political opinions, wayward sense of humour and every passing post shift midnight vent open to scrutiny and misrepresentation with just a quick search on Google?
I keep my Facebook anodyne and apolitical but I often come on here for open discussion, release a bit of pressure and to chew things over and examine what I really think. Without a pseudonym I could do none of those things.
Would you allow a pseudonym to protect the identity of someone who has escaped physical abuse?
Would you allow a pseudonym to protect the identity of someone who may be persecuted for their opinion?
Would you allow a pseudonym to protect the identity of someone who may be discriminated against for their lifestyle?
Would you allow a pseudonym to protect the identity of someone who may suffer at work because of opinions expressed in private?
Would you allow a pseudonym to protect the identity of someone who doesnt want to be swept up in global surveillance by governments or corporations?
It's hardly anonymous posting on here, the climbing community is pretty small. I was chatting to someone not long ago about Southern Sandstone issues, and they said "are you Hooo by any chance?".
Anyone who I climb with who logs on here will know who I am, because they'll see I logged the same route as them.
It would be surprising if all of the people using pseudonyms on here are doing so for professional reasons.
please provide a mugshot in your profile so we know who you really are. OWN IT
I'm afraid that like it or not, they are going to get away with it. How do you suggest we stop them?
> It would be surprising if all of the people using pseudonyms on here are doing so for professional reasons.
And what about those of us that are? Do we get a free pass or should we just bugger off?
No-one should have to bugger off but maybe those who don't have good reason should be less shadey?
> No-one should have to bugger off but maybe those who don't have good reason should be less shadey?
I think your position is no more defensible. You post from a name so common that it has close to half a billion hits on Google.
You and I are equally anonymous on here. Unless you post your actual identity you're being a total hypocrite IMO to call others out for not using their real name when, unlike you, it may be instantly identifiable.
> No-one should have to bugger off but maybe those who don't have good reason should be less shadey?
So you want UKC to adopt a vetting process now?
> So you want UKC to adopt a vetting process now?
No, I just wish that more people would be a little more open in life and willing to put their name to their views.
> You and I are equally anonymous on here. Unless you post your actual identity you're being a total hypocrite IMO to call others out for not using their real name when, unlike you, it may be instantly identifiable.
I'm perfectly happy to put my name to my views to anyone in person. I'm just not willing to do it for Google.
> Plenty of people have managed to identify me when we have met in real life. The strange thing is that some of them have refused to reveal their UKC name when I have confirmed my identity.
That is different to the issue under discussion on here.
Here you are calling for posters to have to give their real names - which in some cases strips all anonymity for literally the whole world to see - while you comfortably hide behind a name that can in no way be used to identify you in real life.
I think the overuse of capitals IS MUCH MORE WORRYING.
Job done ! - Didn't realise it wasn't there.
> No, I just wish that more people would be a little more open in life and willing to put their name to their views.
You want open? My profile has my picture and location. On here I’ve variously posted what I do for a living, how much I’m paid, where I holiday, what sort of house I live in, what I read, watch and listen to, my marital status, age and gender if my kids, what pets live with me (plus photos) and what my mental state has been at any given time.
My name is the least of it.
just for clarity, are you Tim Jones the university professor, the singer, the film composer or the multiple child murderer? (Or are you one of the other 156,000 Tim Jones’s?)
edit: I note your own plea for openness over identity doesn’t extend to including mugshot or location in your profile
And why is THIS THREAD in rocktalk?
> That is different to the issue under discussion on here.
> Here you are calling for posters to have to give their real names - which in some cases strips all anonymity for literally the whole world to see - while you comfortably hide behind a name that can in no way be used to identify you in real life.
In that case HTH have so many people managed to ID me in real life you muppet
> In that case HTH have so many people managed to ID me in real life you muppet
You complain about bullying, and here you are calling another poster "you muppet". I award you the hypocritic trio award.
We are not talking about people meeting in real life. I expect if we met at a climbing event we'd have good odds of IDing each other.
We are talking about people Googling ones identity from a website, and that for many posters using their names makes them instantly identifiable, whilst for you it does not.
Consider your own actions over the last 12 months before calling others hypocritical.
Replying to my own post, but the flip side of this is that plenty of people will have experienced abuse online based on their gender or ethnicity, and would be happier to sign up to a forum where they don't have to use a "real name" that might put them in line for more of the same.
I would really hope that that won't be a problem in practice for a forum like UKC, but it seems simpler to just not create a situation where people have to take that on trust before they sign up...
> Don't want people seeing that I won't climb on grit, my credibility would be right out the window. Can't even have an opinion on 3PS.
Just for the record, I feel I must point out that not climbing on grit does NOT disqualify you from having an opinion on 3PS 😁
I'm pretty relaxed about this. I post under my real name, and if anyone wanted to work out who I was and where I can be found, it would be trivial. I apply a very simple policy of never saying anything on here that I wouldn't say in front of my family, my clients or my spiritual advisor, and I don't find that too hard to stick to because if I couldn't say it in front of them then I probably don't want to say it to anyone.
But, I recognise that I am in a privileged position in that regard - most obviously that I have no employer who could sack me, and I wouldn't want to work with any client who wouldn't take me on because of the views I might hold. And as far as I know, there's no-one looking for me. Others might not have these freedoms, so I'm fine with them using pseudonyms. And to be honest, it doesn't really change how I think of any particular person anyway; I don't feel I know or trust wintertree or Hooo any more or less than I know or trust timjones, or Gordon Stainforth for that matter.
> Consider your own actions over the last 12 months before calling others hypocritical.
Come on, you're being a total and utter hypocrite. Over these two threads, you're calling for others to reveal their identities whilst hiding behind a name so prevalent your identity is secure, and you're accusing my of stifling debate (I have not) whilst calling for people to have to use real names, which as several posters have explained to you would stifle their contribution to debate. It would I note particularly stifle input from medical professionals.
Where should I send your "hypocritic trio" award? I tried Googling your real name but it didn't help me.
> please provide a mugshot in your profile so we know who you really are. OWN IT
If the OP weren't the real Rob Matheson then they'd have to be pretty stupid to pretend they were because Rob Matheson is a well known climber and the duplicity would be easily exposed.
If somebody used your or my real name then it might be more difficult to spot the sham. I am assuming that you're not a well known climber behind your username - if you are then I humbly apologise.
I have a public online presence and a private online presence. To me, this is like being down the pub. I can comment on things (with the view that I shouldn't say anything that I would be ashamed to have my name against) but don't want that associated with my wider public online presence.
Because that's what interests me !
We never call him Rob. He's better known as Murdoch's wee bairn.
I don't have a problem with people using pseudonyms etc, especially if they can't have their real name exposed online.
But as you might have guessed, my preference is for people to use their real names if possible. Maybe I'm lucky (or just naïve) that I'm not in a situation where I have to hide my name, and I don't post abusive stuff so I don't feel any need to not reveal myself on that account.
don't you think that some of us might imagine that we're not particularly deserving of note and thus quite happy to stay in the shadows. If I thought myself interesting enough to exhibit I'd have a Facebook account. But I'm simply not.
If I used my real name on UKC the fuzz would be on to me like flies round a cow's @rse. My cannabis farms and money launderette would be shut down and then where would I be?
PS I'm also a new route pioneer: Dow Crag
Do you really believe that a mere accident of birth can make someone a hypocrit?
Would you judge me to be more sincere if I changed my real name to something really unusual and adopted a pseudonym online?
> Do you really believe that a mere accident of birth can make someone a hypocrit?
No.
I believe that you demanding others take action which you know will make them readily identifiable, whilst being fully aware that you won't be, makes you a hypocrite.
If you were demanding that posters had to have a verified real life identity tagged on to their profile, that would not be hypocritical.
Don't tell him Pike!
The Kremlin, as per the terms of my contract, say I can't use my real name.
I post under a pseudonym, Jim isn't on my birth certificate. Is Tim your real name?
Personally it’s because I’m famous
We've been through this argument dozens of times before.
What the 'must use real name' brigade repeatedly fail to recognise is that we have no proof that they are who they claim to be. So 'real name' or pseudonym, we're all essentially anonymous. UKC does absolutely no ID verification when creating an account. I don't know of any forum that does.
I really don't see why it matters so much to people; it seems utterly irrational.
says someone who has never been hounded by internet nutjobs.
> Why allow those people to blatantly hide behind pseudonyms. If they can be nasty in order to poush their own opinions they should have the backbone to be opne about their identiity.
Because without a national online ID system, you wouldn't know if it was their real name anyway.
Which is the nub of the issue TBH.
For all Rob and Tim's moaning, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to make the forum the way they would like it, not without completely destroying it.
Why allow people to disturb the peace by SHOUTING?
I'm surprised your post wasn't written in green ink.
T.
> Job done ! - Didn't realise it wasn't there.
touché
And a very good mugshot at that!
OK, from now on I shall post with my real name, Hugh Janus. I promise that is my real name, honestly!
What am I supposed to do then? My name is also Hugh Janus, and we can't both have the same username.
That’s Mick McCarthy! He’s been trolling us!
> What am I supposed to do then? My name is also Hugh Janus, and we can't both have the same username.
I thought you were Brian?
Scoundrel.
> What am I supposed to do then? My name is also Hugh Janus, and we can't both have the same username.
Can I suggest one of you changes your name by deed poll?
How about Hugh Jarse?
I can’t see what difference it would make if you knew my full name. I’m a nobody, what does it matter if you know my surname or not (it doesn’t even begin with a P if I’m honest with you).
I like the anonymity offered by not having my full name on here, and there’s also a security issue. If people are posting on here dates they’re away on a trip, and have where they’re based and what wall they climb at etc, it wouldn’t take that much research to figure out their address and go and burgle their house whilst you know they’re away…
My wife was Brian as well, so I changed my name.
> I really don't see why it matters so much to people; it seems utterly irrational.
I don't really agree. if someone sent me a letter or e mail and signed it with an obvious nom de plume I would react differently to one signed with a bona fide name. You can call it irrational but that's how I see it.
And I notice that on the few occasions that I've messaged people on UKC they've been polite enough to use their real names when replying so they're obviously not scared that I'm going to burgle them or sell their kids to a paedophile ring.
Yes and if someone introduced themselves to me with a bullshit name then I’d feel the same.
But this isn’t a letter or a real life meeting, it’s an Internet forum. The original home of bullshit!
> I don't really agree. if someone sent me a letter or e mail and signed it with an obvious nom de plume I would react differently to one signed with a bona fide name. You can call it irrational but that's how I see it.
Seems fair. Can I forward you some emails detailing investment opportunities from a member of the Nigerian royal family? Looks legit, got their name, title and even an official crest!
So bullshitters are the ones most keen on keeping their anonimity?
I can see the sense in that
Not sure that’s what I said.
However I’d guess the worst bullshitters are the ones that create multiple bullshit profiles so that they can post bullshit under a bullshit profile name that’s different from their normal bullshit profile name (that’s not aimed at you, btw!)
But that's exactly the point we're making. All of us with made up usernames are happy to use our real names in private communication, it's the putting it in public that we're wary about.
So the worst bullshitters operate under various pseudonyms rather than use their own names?
I can see the sense in that.
Nail on head. This is a publicly available forum that you don’t need to register, or even log on to read. Any internet security advisor would advise against posting personal details here…
I'm not particularly active these days on any internet forums let alone UKC, I've not got a problem with people using pseudonyms, but when you meet up in person with these people through the forum and they want to be called by their real names, I just can't get my head around it.
I suppose you build up a remote relationship between keyboard warriors and when you meet in person they try to disconnect themselves from their online identity.
So an entry in the local phone book is a risky proposition?
Hang on a sec... You're on the real names side right? So what makes Tom V any more acceptable as a username than iamgregp? You both have a first name an initial of a surname as your username.
You OK hun?
Because I'm Steve Clark, but not the other Steve Clark.
Although I'm a builder and have 1000+ mobile numbers in my phone. Internet anonymity is not high on my list of concerns.
Is your name really Robmat Heson?
If people want to post on a public forum they should have the decency to provide their full name. address, bank details and a scan of their passport and birth certificate. If they don't, what are they trying to hide...
PS Clarence is my real name but being a lion, I don't have to worry.
> Because I'm Steve Clark, but not the other Steve Clark.
> Although I'm a builder and have 1000+ mobile numbers in my phone. Internet anonymity is not high on my list of concerns.
Well, most builders don't give a shit about anything really other than early cash payments.
Well it would be if the local phone book also listed what dates I was going to be on holiday.
I’m not in the local phone book anyway, we don’t have a landline…
> No, I just wish that more people would be a little more open in life and willing to put their name to their views.
Ok. You've rumbled me
I am Boris Johnson, address, 10 Downing Street
Now you know why I use a pseudonym
Sorry, got to run. Got to tell someone to feed the baby
because invariably, if I try and sign up to something with my real name or a derivative of it, I am told that that name is already in use, then I get offered something shit instead.
And even if you did know my real name, it would be unlikely that you would find me because I share it with a number of more famous people. So I use the nickname that the misses gives me, which loosely translates to "handsome monkey". Used in an ironic sense, of course.
If you emailed me you would know who I really was but still to be honest still be none the wiser.
Does any of this make my opinions less valid? I don't know who you are, most likely never will, but treat you the same way if your username was RM1972, robba, pink_turtle or fat_mary. Bothered not
I'm not on any side. I just prefer interacting with people whose names I know.
For what it's worth, in a previous discussion on a similar vein I published my full name, address and post code. This time out of idleness I'll limit it to my full name: Tom Valentine. I use the abbreviated form as just that: an abbreviation rather than as a cryptic version of the full thing.
> but when you meet up in person with these people through the forum and they want to be called by their real names, I just can't get my head around it.
You can call me by either my pseudonym, or my real name. I've been meeting up with people from UKC since 2001. Both names are used. I'm fine with that.
This topic has been banging around so long that my profile details, entered when profiles were added in, what, 2001? allude to it. That's more than 20 years. Can we just get over it?
>what dates I was going to be on holiday.
I tend not to do this even though I am happy for people to have my name, address and post code. Common sense, really.
> Now you know why I use a pseudonym
Yeah; you wouldn't want to admit being called Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, would you...? People would take the piss mercilessly...
> I use the abbreviated form as just that: an abbreviation rather than as a cryptic version of the full thing.
If you think you're so special that you expect people to remember that you once posted your full surname on obscure thread, think again. If you want to 'interact with people whose names you know', then you'd better change your username, or be accused of hypocrisy.
I don't think I'm special. I was simply pointing out that I am prepared to use my real name online and have done so. Will be operating under my full name as soon as the mods have approved the change.
> I was simply pointing out that I am prepared to use my real name online and have done so.
And I'm simply pointing out that your username is not your real name, so you can't complain about other people not using their real name; we cannot be expected to remember your real name from the rare occasions when you use it.
No problem, soon be sorted hopefully.
> No problem, soon be sorted hopefully.
I really don't care what you call yourself, but if it makes you more comfortable...
> No problem, soon be sorted hopefully.
Tom or Thomas is no more memorable than captain paranoia, Wintertree, girlymonkey or 1000 other names here. People who create sock puppet accounts are usually found out because they have consistent ideas and personalities and that is what matters.
Changing your name makes you more anonymous to people on here compared to people with consistent pseudonyms because a lot of people won't make the connection, however obvious.
Real names are helpful for doxxing, or defrauding people but don't do anything for me on an internet forum. The vast majority of pseudonymous people on here are as well or better behaved than those using their 'real names'.
I started using internet forums and pseudonyms from being a child. There have literally been people killed from stupid pranks such as phoning the police to get them to raid someone's house for a joke.
At the end of the day, I'm a human being, and I get to change my views and I'm not necessarily the same person that made a post 10 years ago. I can't be bothered second guessing how something I say now may affect me in the future like we've seen a million times with people foraging through historic celebrity tweets for generate controversy.
As stated by numerous people, hardly anybody cares because whatever 'real' name you use we still have to take it on trust that it is actually true. Even then, so what? I'm not suddenly going to think of you differently because you've given me the name of a person. In fact I think many of the forum nicknames on here are more memorable (and therefore more useful for tracking conversation participation) than any real name.
If you were out climbing and joined up with another group of strangers and someone introduced themselves to you by only their nickname, I'm fairly certain you wouldn't demand to know their full name before you engaged with them.
And finally, as others have said repeatedly, anyone who knows the first thing about staying safe online knows not to post personally identifiable information online and especially somewhere that is only a Google search away.
As a white, hetero, Anglo saxon middle class male with a name that more or less reflects that I'm immensely fortunate that I don't have any direct experience of discrimination but there's tonnes of evidence for instance of people's CVs being excluded from consideration if they have names that indicate they're from certain ethnic minorities, gender, or social groups.
If all your life you've been treated differently because of the implicit biases of the people you interact with it's understandable that on a site that is ostensibly about the free exchange of ideas based around a shared passion, you would prefer that people reading your posts didn't make assumptions based on what they consider to be your age, sex, religion, ethnic background or country of origin given away by your name.
You can't see why women might not want to give their actual identification? Or maybe you simply think they shouldn't be allowed a voice?
I suspect that Blanche DuBois might not be your real name. But that's OK, because it looks like a real name and that's what matters innit.
Personally I need to be a little cautious about my personal life, for professional reasons (no Facebook etc etc), so a pseudonym is helpful. Since there are tools like Maltego around (some a fair bit more powerful) the casual pseudonym use is only protection against ordinary internet users.
However my own personal distinction is when people have >1 username on a site. Other than trolling or some form of dishonesty I can't imagine legitimate use cases for multiple identities like that
I understand the work reasons for anonymity (although I think they may often be overstated) but my take on it is that using my real name keeps in check any impulse to get angry or insulting.
If I know I theoretically could be called upon to justify anything I say on here (or anywhere else online) then I'll think that much more carefully before rising to the bait of trolls or people just spoiling for a fight. I think the online space would be a very much more pleasant place to be were everyone to think that way, but seeing as arguments are the fuel of online advertising, I don't see that happening any time soon.
> Tom or Thomas is no more memorable than captain paranoia, Wintertree, girlymonkey or 1000 other names
Nonsense! I think you'll find it's more memorable because it's the finest and classiest name someone could have
> However my own personal distinction is when people have >1 username on a site. Other than trolling or some form of dishonesty I can't imagine legitimate use cases for multiple identities like that
Almost total agreement there. The abuse of multiple accounts is maddening. It also creates an increasingly skeptical environment for genuine new posters when you have someone coming up with a clutch of new accounts every few weeks and posting from more then one of them.
But… I’ve seen a few posts that open with “I am not posting from my normal account, because [reasons]”. This doesn’t bother me because it’s not deceitful and the reasons have always been clear and easy to understand. As you say, our anonymity isn’t so great, so if someone wants advice on a sensitive subject, I can see why they’d wish to dissociate and don’t begrudge them. There’s quite a small window where asking anonymously on here is the appropriate option rather than going to solicitors or other specialised services, but I think I’ve seen the forum genuinely help people 4-5 times this way, which is a positive IMO.
> Well, most builders don't give a shit about anything really other than early cash payments.
People reinforcing the stereotype that building isn’t a proper ‘profession’ is the primary reason the industry doesn’t have many talented kids joining it.
My dad was a decent builder and proud of it. Hence, I’m a decent builder and proud of it.
I spend most of my life installing heavy things that hang permanently above children’s heads in schools, universities & hospitals. Despite what you may think, I do actually give a shit about getting it right.
It's not a case of me feeling more comfortable, more one of responding to claims of hypocrisy made against me.
> I'm not on any side. I just prefer interacting with people whose names I know.
Do you object to nicknames in real life then? I know several people who never use their real name with friends, only for official purposes.
Are you OK with a username like Blanche DuBois? Probably not their real name, but could be. Will you treat them with suspicion, just because their name sounds like it might be a pseudonym?
You can change your username to Tom Valentine, and if that makes you feel better then fine. But it makes no difference to anyone else if you change it to to Tom Jones. We have no way of knowing if either is your real name.
Several UKC people have interacted with me in real life, enough to verify that I am genuine, if it ever became an issue.
The point made that it was hypocritical of me to be pro real name while operating under a shortened version of my own may have had some validity so I think it's better to straighten things out on that score.
Same with me. What difference does that make?
It means that ., unless you think my ex- climbing partners and a few people I've sold stuff to are all part of a big conspiracy, I am who I say I am and they can vouch for me.
But that's the same for me. My climbing partners will vouch for me. You don't need to have your real name on display to the entire world to be verifiable.
if we really wanted to hide we'd use daily changing callsigns
You’re missing the point Tom. Apart from a vocal minority nobody cares what your real name is. I’ve never heard of Tom Valentine so it really makes no difference to me if you post under that, Tom V or ChunkyLover53.
If it makes you feel more validated by posting under your full, correct name then great, go right ahead, but to the majority of us can’t see the point.
Do what you like, but just because something makes you feel more comfortable, don’t assume that you need to encourage everyone else to do the same.
If you want to know my name, feel free to email me and I’ll tell you, If it makes you feel better, but I’m not changing my username!
it's not really a big issue for me at all. I only got involved when someone said it was irrational of people to prefer real names to pseudonyms and I posted to say that I disagreed with that comment. I don't think I've actually gone as far as telling people they are wrong to use pseudonyms and my posts haven't had the same bridling tone as the OP.
As for changing my own user name, I only came up with that because I was accused of hypocrisy and decided to remove any cause for such an accusation.
It's not my thread originally and none of it is a worry to me: I'd much rather see accountability for like/dislike buttons but that's another area where people probably value their anonymity more than I do.
> If you want to say something on a public forum then OWN IT ! All these PEN NAMES do my head in !! Why record an ascent or give an opinion if we don't know who the hell you are ?!
Rob,
From another Lakes climber.
Love your routes and your photos, esp. the new ones as an old gadgy.
In answer to the question, some people have a very prominent internet presence from other parts of their lives, often in business, and they may wish to limit the amount of material on the net.
For some people, climbing is a tiny (but important, and often private) part of their lives, hence they wish to keep it separate from the other possibly more important parts.
Hence the pseudonyms or nom de plumes.
DC
> I only came up with that because I was accused of hypocrisy
My use of 'hypocrisy' was a rhetorical device; to point out the inconsistency in your argument. I really don't care what you call yourself (provided you maintain a consistent persona), so don't go changing your username on my account.
Fair play, that all sounds pretty reasonable to me!
> using my real name keeps in check any impulse to get angry or insulting
My desire not to be offensive does that. And, whatever name I use, it's still me, and that anger or insult will still be attached to me, via my username. I couldn't escape that association without changing my username, or creating a new account.
As above, a consistent persona is far more important to me than the use of a 'real name'.
Why do you care?
> my take on it is that using my real name keeps in check any impulse to get angry or insulting.
I once called out a moderately well known climber on here for using a screen name to post insulting/trolling comments and their real name for serious stuff. I'd just happened to notice the same comment appearing under both names with one rapidly being deleted. As they were being an arse in persona two I thought it only fair to blow their cover, which I did in light-hearted fashion. They emailed me and admitted to having one log in for business and one for 'fun' but we're still indignant that I'd exposed them!
And no, I won't reveal the name.
Andy Kirkpatrick, at a guess!
I know for a fact he lurks on here still…
Not expecting confirmation or not, by the way!
I think posting under multiple user names is already banned here. (Well, it goes against the guidelines anyway.) Unlike the use of 'anonymous' user names, I doubt it's a practice that anyone much would defend, except in those occasional instances where people have openly posted under a different username about something particularly sensitive.
The fact that so many posters have been rumbled running 'sockpuppet' accounts probably just goes to show how pointless a rule that says you have to use your real name as your username would actually be, unless UKC were going to start insisting on some sort of proof of id to register.
In John's case I think it's a bit of a moot point - if he had always posted under the same username, whatever that username might be, many of us would know from his posts that it's him. I think that would be the case for any well known climber posting openly and honestly under just the one username. (As opposed to running a second profile specifically for trolling.)
I get the impression Andy Kirkpatrick is perfectly happy to post some pretty contentious stuff under his real name. I hate to think what would be so extreme that he'd feel it would have to be posted under a pseudonym!
> No, I just wish that more people would be a little more open in life and willing to put their name to their views.
Me too. That's why I always post under my real name
> Me too. That's why I always post under my real name
That made me laugh. Cheered me up
> A couple of reasons:
> 1. Just because someone's user name looks like a real name, it doesn't mean that it is their real name. Calling yourself robmatheson is no more meaningful than "randomClimber" , unless you want UKC to check ID for users?
Except that for a climber of my generation Rob Matheson is a well known name with a very solid reputation. A quick check on the photo on his profile page will confirm that it is indeed he.
I'm in the minority that uses my real name on here but I will continue to do so. I do contribute to controversial UKC debates but strive to say nothing that I'm not prepared to put my name to and say openly to anyone. Following that policy I see no reason to hide behind a pseudonym.
Martin
I’d have agreed with you till recently, but he’s thrown his toys out of the pram and quit all social media so I don’t think he posts contentious stuff under any name these days…
I’d happily put my name to absolutely anything I’ve said on here too. Just because I’m not using my full name as a username it doesn’t mean I’m hiding anything.
Using a pseudonym and integrity are not mutually exclusive.
I didn't know that Rob was well known, but that just means I chose a poor example. It is a bit different for people like Rob Matheson, Andy Kirkpatrick and Gordon Stainforth. Their name has a reputation which will add weight to their posts. My point still stands. 99% of UKC users could use any made up name and no one would be any the wiser.
> I’d happily put my name to absolutely anything I’ve said on here too. Just because I’m not using my full name as a username it doesn’t mean I’m hiding anything.
> Using a pseudonym and integrity are not mutually exclusive.
That's true, but in my experience, gratuitously insulting or offensive posts on here are too prevalent and almost never accompanied by a real name. I accept there are valid reasons for pseudonyms, but the general standard of debate, and especially the level of respect shown to other posters, would in my view be significantly improved if we were required to use identifiable user-names.
I'm not expecting that to happen, by the way.
Martin
My name's Rob and I'm from Crewe. What more would you like - a comprehensive genome? Where does this madness end??
Yes, I’d agree with you that insulting and offensive posts on here are too prevalent, and you may indeed have a point that they generally come from an account with a pseudonym. But then given that a great deal of accounts on here, perhaps the majority, use a pseudonym would we not expect this. Are abusive posts overrepresented by pseudonyms or is the ratio what we’d expect?
Genuine questions those, that I’d be interested to find out the answers too, perhaps as I studied psychology this kind of thing is of interest to me?
I agree with you though, would love to see a rise in the standard of debate here (not saying I’m not guilty of some pretty low brow posting myself btw!) not sure if introducing a real name policy would be workable (as you mentioned!) or as effective as we’d hope.
Martin, do you think that we should provide UKC with ID to register, maybe a copy of a driving license and utility bill?
Because without some sort of identity check, as others have pointed out, people could still use pseudonyms, as long as they looked like a “real” name.
On the other hand, i think most people would find the idea of having to provide that level of personal information to access the forums of a climbing site to be overly intrusive.
and from time spent on various forums over the years, i think ukc is on the whole remarkably civil, and a place for genuine debate. I don’t think that enforcing “real” identity disclosure would enhance that at all- just go to quora, where they do expect a “real” name to register and post, to see how well that works at making people play nice…
> That's true, but in my experience, gratuitously insulting or offensive posts on here are too prevalent
I suppose it could be better but for the most part I think UKC is pretty good and when I see negative comments about the standard of debate on here I wonder what other fora users are frequenting, anywhere else I visit on the interweb is no better and often far, far worse.
> the level of respect shown to other posters, would in my view be significantly improved if we were required to use identifiable user-names.
My experience of Facebook says otherwise!
Are abusive posts overrepresented by pseudonyms or is the ratio what we’d expect?
Point taken. If 90% of posters use unidentifiable pseudonyms then we would expect, on balance, 90% of abusive posts to be from those posters. But I'm not sure I've seen any abusive or disrespectful posts from real name posters. Have you? (I might well have missed some, of course, I don't follow every thread).
Martin
> Point taken. If 90% of posters use unidentifiable pseudonyms then we would expect, on balance, 90% of abusive posts to be from those posters. But I'm not sure I've seen any abusive or disrespectful posts from real name posters. Have you? (I might well have missed some, of course, I don't follow every thread).
Have you followed this thread? The only abuse I've spotted on this one was a "real name" poster calling someone else a muppet.
Can't say I've noticed the level of debate, curtesy, logic or expertise exhibited on here has any link to whether the poster's handle looks genuine or not.
> Martin, do you think that we should provide UKC with ID to register, maybe a copy of a driving license and utility bill?
I'm not suggesting, and neither I think was Rob M in his original post, that it should be compulsory to use your real name on here. I'd just like to encourage more people to do so as I think it might improve the quality of debate. What info people provide is entirely up to them. I use my correct name, and there's enough on my profile to give a fair bit of background about me, both climbing and other stuff. A quick internet search would turn up a lot more if anyone was that interested, though certainly not my driving licence number.
I participate in this forum partly because climbing has been my passion for 50 years, but also because the quality of debate is normally high. I'm genuinely interested in what fellow climbers have to say on political issues, but these topics are all too frequently hijacked by unidentifiable posters with little respect for those with different views and usually no profile detail to indicate that they have any interest in climbing at all. UKC would be a better place without them in my view.
Martin
> If you want to say something on a public forum then OWN IT ! All these PEN NAMES do my head in !! Why record an ascent or give an opinion if we don't know who the hell you are ?!
Totally agree. Ban them all.
There is a problem with two groups of posters-
- a small number of people that use multiple accounts to get round repeated bans - stroppygob and romthebear in various incarnations come to mind
- recently, several new posters who seem to be ‘bad faith’ agitators with no connection to climbing who consistently push an agenda based around COVID disinformation
Insisting these people use a “real name” will make no difference- the only way to stop this would be ID checks on registration.
And I don’t think the evidence suggests that would make any difference to other posters- the rest of social media shows that having to attach your real name to your postings doesn’t stop people behaving like arses; and “real name” posters here have been banned…
> Andy Kirkpatrick, at a guess!
> I know for a fact he lurks on here still…
> Not expecting confirmation or not, by the way!
In the interests of not incriminating an innocent party I'll break silence and confirm it wasn't AK.
In defence of the status quo, UKC is the best forum I've been on, and the reason I spend my time here is not only for my interest in climbing, but because the standard is better than anywhere else I've been. Sure there is a load of junk, some pointless arguments and some complete dickheads, but there is lots of very intelligent discussion if you're willing to skip over the crap.
Rather than trying to realise an impossible feat like getting everyone to post under their real name, we should be focusing on making it not worthwhile for arseholes to post. And the way to do that is to ignore them. Every time that knobhead creates a new sockpuppet account to spread Covid misinformation, click Report and ignore them. If we all did that then they'd soon give up. When Stroppygob first appeared I took one look at the username and decided to ignore all their posts, and the same with their later incarnations as soon as I realised who it was ( which didn't take long). If nobody bites, the trollers move on to other waters.
If people want to be anonymous/use a pseudonym/fake name then there is nothing to stop them, but I think I do tend, rightly or wrongly, to show more respect to people who aren't hiding behind a false identity. I think that, if I didn't use my real name, I might be more careless about what I said, so I see using my real name as a positive thing.
Ah, but how do you know who is hiding behind a false identity? While it's a reasonable assumption that Hooo is not my real name, you have no assurance that timjones for example is using his real identity. Does he deserve more respect than me, just because his username looks like a real name? Because one thing I can be sure of, the scammers and properly dishonest people won't be using obvious pen names, they'll be using a name that looks like a real name.
> Ah, but how do you know who is hiding behind a false identity?
Obviously I don't always know, so not ideal, but a lot of people I've heard of in real life and most fake names are obviously fake.
You can't possibly know that most fake names look fake! If it's someone you know in real life then their username is irrelevant, you know who they are. If you don't know them, then any name can be fake, and the really dishonest people will have a realistic sounding name.
> You can't possibly know that most fake names look fake!
Not for certain, but I'd put money on it.
> The really dishonest people will have a realistic sounding name.
Yes, the people trying to scam selling stuff and so on, but I suspect the mere f***wits just use daft names.
Simple answer - start your own forum and apply all the vetting you like.
Crying about the rules of a forum you are free to use (or not), because you don't like them seems a little pointless.
> Not for certain, but I'd put money on it.
Really? How about a wager then. I'll give you a bunch of usernames and you say if they are the person's real name or not.
Spoiler alert, should you accept the wager I would just create a bunch of usernames like DaveWatson or whatever and they would look no different from a genuine name.
The point I'm trying to make is that the feeling of security you get from seeing a proper name as a username is an illusion. It's like a cam behind a wobbly flake, you look down at it and it gives you confidence, but the confidence isn't justified. It's a false sense of security. By using a username that is clearly not my real name I am being honest, I'm not encouraging this false sense of security.
> and most fake names are obviously fake
I don't know that your name is any more real then Hooo's. I don't really care.
My name is in my profile. Does that help you tell if I'm 'real' or not? Do you have any more assurance that it is my real name? Any more than I have any assurance your name is 'real'?
> By using a username that is clearly not my real name I am being honest, I'm not encouraging this false sense of security.
I am being more honest than you by using my real name. It's not my fault that some people are downright dishonest.
> I don't know that your name is any more real then Hooo's. I don't really care.
Well it is. And more real than yours. If you don't believe me then that is your problem, but I just feel more comfortable being open, honest, authentic and accountable.
You are not being more honest than me. I am being totally upfront here. I am making it absolutely clear that Hooo is not my real name. How is that dishonest?
> the feeling of security you get from seeing a proper name as a username is an illusion.
Exactly.
> In reply to Robert Durran
> You are not being more honest than me. I am being totally upfront here. I am making it absolutely clear that Hooo is not my real name. How is that dishonest?
Because you are hiding behind a pseudonym but I am not. Maybe "open" rather than "honest" is a better word?
> Well it is.
You would say that.
> And more real than yours.
Check my profile. My name is as real as yours. Neither name provides any proof of authenticity.
Open is a better word, I accept that your approach is more open than mine. As per my first post on this thread, I maintain that being open about your identity on a public internet forum is naive and dangerous, and I'm not going to do it.
> > Well it is.
> You would say that.
Yes, because I am honest.
> Check my profile. My name is as real as yours.
I believe you.
But why use a fake username then?
Such a strange debate this to me, when I've always regarded complete openness and honesty as absolutely central to all decent behaviour, good manners and professionalism. Any kind of indirectness, fakery, dissemblance, and 'mealy-mouthed' behaviour always makes me uncomfortable and certainly less inclined to take the respondent seriously. The warning antennae go up immediately. It also begs the question: why are people so lacking in courage, or maybe just in the courage of their own convictions? Distinctly odd. Just why this need to hide, to be able to spout anonymously with immunity? In the end, it just seems such a strange thing to want to do: spend a lot of time spouting anonymously into the ether. What's this time-wasting ritual all about? What is its merit or value? What must be obvious by now from what I've said is I don't quite get it.
> Because you are hiding behind a pseudonym but I am not. Maybe "open" rather than "honest" is a better word?
OK then, exactly how "open" are you?
What's your job? What do you earn? How many kids? What ages? Ever done drugs? What sort of house do you live in? Ever f*cked up at work? How badly? What car do you drive? What's your marital status? Is your wife smarter than you?
A name is just a name. It tells me sod all about you as a person and in the context of UKC it's almost entirely meaningless unless you're known to me personally or unless, for whatever reason, I'm interested in trawling data on you.
Edit: just for clarity, I've answered all the above questions on here because I'm keen on open and honest debate, I'm just not that keen on The Fail, The Scum or some psycho I've had professional dealings with having the opportunity to misrepresent and manipulate that information if I should ever be unlucky enough to warrant such attentions.
> Such a strange debate this to me, when I've always regarded complete openness and honesty as absolutely central to all decent behaviour, good manners and professionalism. Any kind of indirectness, fakery, dissemblance, and 'mealy-mouthed' behaviour always makes me uncomfortable and certainly less inclined to take the respondent seriously. The warning antennae go up immediately. It also begs the question: why are people so lacking in courage, or maybe just in the courage of their own convictions? Distinctly odd. Just why this need to hide, to be able to spout anonymously with immunity? In the end, it just seems such a strange thing to want to do: spend a lot of time spouting anonymously into the ether. What's this time-wasting ritual all about? What is its merit or value? What must be obvious by now from what I've said is I don't quite get it.
I take you've entirely skipped over the multitude of valid reasons I, amongst many others, have put forward for preserving a degree of anonymity?
> Open is a better word, I accept that your approach is more open than mine. As per my first post on this thread, I maintain that being open about your identity on a public internet forum is naive and dangerous, and I'm not going to do it.
I used to post under my real name and wished I hadn’t. TBH, it still feels weird using a false name. But during one heated debate some of what I said got manipulated and I was concerned how this would come across to the ‘outside world’. The experience really stressed me out and actually has stopped me joining in certain debates.
You've clearly been lucky enough to not have had any brushes with the dark side of the internet. This is not real life. In real life you see people face to face and integrity matters. On a public forum the entire world can interact with you, and there are some utter scum out there, people you would never have the misfortune to come across in real life.
I've been bothered in this way. I take precautions now.
> My name is as real as yours. Neither name provides any proof of authenticity.
Sorry, sorry, sorry. This makes me quite cross because it's so daft. Just how can 'Captain Paranoia' be as real as Robert Durran? Whom I take to be a real person. If someone were pretending to be him, I'm sure he'd report them to Alan and the faker would be banned immediately from this website. So, I've assumed that Robert Durran is a real person and that means that I can look him up on the internet, and find a lot of great interest. Whereas with you, I can find out nothing.
I remember your posts under your previous username and it was immediately clear willgrigs was the same person. You post some great stuff, keep it up!
I made the mistake of using my real name a very long time ago, and I'm well used to using a username now. Due to my domestic circumstances my household has a total ban on using real names anywhere that could be searched, so if this forum was to enforce it I would be out. If anyone has less respect for me because of my username than frankly they can keep their respect.
A huge amount of my life is spent on the internet (outside UKC) in different ways: primarily via my website and on Twitter, but lots of other things too. Yes, I've had some shit - not much - but all that's just so easily blocked. Overall it's wonderful for talking to other creative, interesting people around the world.
> I take you've entirely skipped over the multitude of valid reasons I, amongst many others, have put forward for preserving a degree of anonymity?
That was all well discussed yesterday or the day before. Yes, there are quite a few sound professional reasons that I accept completely (and said so.) But I'm now talking about this kind of 'anonymity for the comfortable sake of it'.
> OK then, exactly how "open" are you?
> What's your job? What do you earn? How many kids? What ages? Ever done drugs? What sort of house do you live in? Ever f*cked up at work? How badly? What car do you drive? What's your marital status? Is your wife smarter than you?
If you really want me too, I'd tell you the answer to all those questions.
> A name is just a name. It tells me sod all about you as a person.
But you could Google my name and, no doubt, find out quite a lot about me.
> Edit: just for clarity, I've answered all the above questions on here because I'm keen on open and honest debate.
But by not linking those answers to your real name, you are not being entirely open.
That sounds great. But I assume you've never been in the position where there is someone out there who if they knew where you lived would be a serious threat to your family? Because if you had, you'd be a bit more wary about being open on a public forum.
> Sorry, sorry, sorry. This makes me quite cross because it's so daft. Just how can 'Captain Paranoia' be as real as Robert Durran? Whom I take to be a real person. If someone were pretending to be him, I'm sure he'd report them to Alan and the faker would be banned immediately from this website. So, I've assumed that Robert Durran is a real person and that means that I can look him up on the internet, and find a lot of great interest. Whereas with you, I can find out nothing.
That is spectacularly naive! I could change my username to Robert Dunstan and you'd find that more respectable than Hooo? There is no real Robert Dunstan who would report me to Alan. It would look like a genuine name and you would be none the wiser. I say it again, any reassurance you get from seeing a real-looking name as a username is purely illusory.
> That sounds great. But I assume you've never been in the position where there is someone out there who if they knew where you lived would be a serious threat to your family? Because if you did, you'd be a bit more wary about being open on the public internet.
No, and I think that is, relative to the numbers of people using the internet, still quite rare and definitely in the realms of crime. Of course, in those circumstances I would be a lot less open on the internet. I think it's now quite difficult for people to find out where I live, anyway.
> That is spectacularly naive! I could change my username to Robert Dunstan and you'd find that more respectable than Hooo?
No I wouldn't immediately because it doesn't ring any bells as a real climber I've ever heard of. Not that that's relevant, because the first thing I'd do is a Google, and find no reference to such a person with climbing interests, and would immediately assume he was a fake.
> If you really want me too, I'd tell you the answer to all those questions.
Cool. In the interest of openness and all that, go ahead.
> But you could Google my name and, no doubt, find out quite a lot about me.
Sorry to burst your bubble Robert but I looked and the first two pages were entirely taken up with Roberto Duran. Now if I had the answers to those questions I'm sure I could narrow it down considerably.
> But by not linking those answers to your real name, you are not being entirely open.
My name is meaningless in this context, it's just a label and as countless posters have pointed out, without vetting it's worthless. Here, I'll help you out...my "real name" is John Smith. You any the wiser? Really?
It might be rare, but it describes my situation. No crime has been committed, nor will be, as long as they don't find us...
To be honest the risk has diminished over the years and I'm not particularly worried any more, but it has firmly entrenched in me the idea that putting my name in a publicly accessible forum is a bad idea.
You have not been in this situation, yet... There are all sorts of situations that could occur in your life that would make you regret being so open in the past. Once your details are out there, you will never be able to remove them.
You'd realise a name was fake because it doesn't ring any bells? My real name wouldn't ring any bells, because I've done nothing noteworthy in climbing. Just like 99% of climbers.
If you searched my real name you wouldn't find any reference to a person with climbing interests. The only climbing references to me online are on this site.
If you searched timjones (sorry to keep using you as an example Tim) you would struggle to find any references to climbing, you'd be swamped by results from all the other Tim's.
You have no way of knowing if a username is a real person's name or just a made up name.
OK, I understand all that completely. 15 years ago I got in a terrible situation when (nothing to do with the internet) a certain 'artistic establishment' in London tried to destroy me over a certain foolish incident. Fortunately what they said was all based on a pack of lies. So, no, I'm lucky to fear nothing from my past. Cheers and good night.
> Sorry to burst your bubble Robert but I looked and the first two pages were entirely taken up with Roberto Duran. Now if I had the answers to those questions I'm sure I could narrow it down considerably.
This is just so daft. Don't you know how to Google? I just put '"Robert Durran" climber' and he came up immediately on multiple websites. You need to put the name in quotes. Surely you must know this.
> This is just so daft. Don't you know how to Google? I just put '"Robert Durran" climber' and he came up immediately on multiple websites. You need to put the name in quotes. Surely you must know this.
Read between the lines Gordon. Put that search term in and you'll get a lot of hits about climbing. That's great if I want to know what grade he climbs but tells me nothing about him as a person. That isn't true openness. True openness means opening up about the actual life you live, not just your hobby.
What's your job? What do you earn? How many kids? What ages? Ever done drugs? What sort of house do you live in? Ever f*cked up at work? How badly? What car do you drive? What's your marital status? Is your wife smarter than you?
...you get the idea?
> Sorry, sorry, sorry. This makes me quite cross because it's so daft.
Read my profile, Gordon. Not just my user name; my profile. Scroll to the bottom.
You still won't have any better proof of who I am than 'captain paranoia' gives you. Or Robert Durran.
I'm assuming that you are the Gordon Stainforth I have met at UKC events a couple of times.
> So, I've assumed that Robert Durran is a real person and that means that I can look him up on the internet,
Try looking up Tim Jones. Does Google help you?
Now Google 'captain paranoia'. You'll get a lot fewer hits. A lot of them will be me. On here. On a few other forums. Over a period of more than 20 years. If you Google my real name, you won't find much, because I'm nondescript.
However, you are still missing the point that whatever name is given here, it has no authenticity at all. There is nothing to prove that 'Robert Durran' is Robert Durran, or that 'Gordon Stainforth' is Gordon Stainforth. Or that 'Kevin Beeden' is Kevin Beeden.
We can't even prove that a particular user account is just one person; there have been notable examples of collaborative accounts in the past, for comedic effect.
And we certainly can't prove that multiple accounts are not used by one person (we absolutely know that they are).
Why should I want to be learning more about him as a person? This is UKC, and I'm only really interested in him as a climber. But ... from those links I can learn quite a lot about the person, actually. I'm not wanting to pry into his personal life, you may be puzzled to learn.
Goodnight.
> Why should I want to be learning more about him as a person? This is UKC, and I'm only really interested in him as a climber. But ... from those links I can learn quite a lot about the person, actually. I'm not wanting to pry into his personal life, you may be puzzled to learn.
So why on Earth are you so hung up on knowing a poster's name???
As I said before, the simple reason why people don't fake the names of real climbers here is that when the real person spotted them they'd report them to the moderator and they'd be struck off immediately.
Not a hang up at all. We've already discussed this in detail. There are several good professional and other reasons why it is wise for some posters to remain anonymous. I explained my overall position quite clearly, I hope, at 00:05. It wasn't a strong argument, more an expression of puzzlement. I've got nothing to add to it. Goodnight.
> because the first thing I'd do is a Google, and find no reference to such a person with climbing interests,
If you Google 'captain paranoia', you'll find references to a person with climbing interests... on UKC...
You won't find much outside UKC, because that's about the scope of my very mediocre climbing interests.
> As I said before, the simple reason why people don't fake the names of real climbers here is that when the real person spotted them they'd report them to the moderator and they'd be struck off immediately.
You're perhaps being deliberately obtuse.
Firstly, 99.9% of us on here aren't famous or even moderately well known climbers. We're just punters, weekend warriors or (in my own case) ex low grade climbers who still like a scramble, a bit of Winter stuff and the odd climb when a mate drags us out. Our climbing exploits aren't going to generate any google hits.
Secondly, this is Off Belay. Sod all about climbing. Entirely about other stuff.
> the simple reason why people don't fake the names of real climbers here is that when the real person spotted them they'd report them to the moderator and they'd be struck off immediately.
Not all 'real climbers' have anything to do with UKC.
What on earth is a 'real climber'? Not all 'real climbers' have documented ascents or any evidential trail you can find on Google.
You're living on a fantasy world, where the only 'real climbers' are some sort of climbing personalities. The reality is that most of us are just nameless punters. But we're still 'real climbers'.
This thread is saddening to me, but I don’t matter, what with my use of a pseudonym. What matters is this: Are you happy with it, robmatheson? Did it achieve what you wanted, and please and satisfy you?
> I used to post under my real name and wished I hadn’t. TBH, it still feels weird using a false name. But during one heated debate some of what I said got manipulated and I was concerned how this would come across to the ‘outside world’. The experience really stressed me out and actually has stopped me joining in certain debates.
Yes, I remember you getting very heated about whipping the slaves in your pie factory. I think you just need to accept that things are different outside of Wigan.
> Sorry to burst your bubble Robert but I looked and the first two pages were entirely taken up with Roberto Duran. Now if I had the answers to those questions I'm sure I could narrow it down considerably.
Ok, I admit it; that's my real name. I only post on here as a climber as Robert Durran out of modesty about my boxing past.
I think you will probably concede that the circumstances you outline, threats to the family etc, are pretty extreme and that the average Joe doesn't need to lead his life as if he's under a witness protection program. So simply having your name and address in a phonebook or on a professional craftsman's register as I did until recently is not a serious security risk to most people.
I use a real nickname given me by someone close
In 1998 I signed up with Compuserve never having used the internet before (though having seen a demo at an evening class in Durham in the early 80s).
I completed the sign in process and immediatel a dialogue informed me that I needed to enter my details and credit card details again as there had been a problem.
I was on the point of doing this when all of the old stuff I'd learned about radio security, taking no one at face value kicked in and I realised this was almost certainly a fraud.
I carry this attitude with me now and couldn't give a damn about names - they are just labels for an unknown variable and I judge posters by what I know of them over time, building up a pattern of knowledge and background, irrespective of callsign.
I believe there are certain exceptions I can make which should be obvious to everyone but nothing in the ether/unisphere can be believed in absolutely without authentication.
So where are you going with this one, Tom? Perhaps people wishing to use a pseudonym should submit an account of their reasons for wishing to preserve some degree of separation between their online presence and this living circumstances to a panel? Maybe consisting of yourself, Robert and Gordon- and you can decide whether the “threat” you think we face merits our getting to use the pseudonym..?
I’m not really sure I buy the argument that people posting under (what they say is) their real name are better behaved than the ‘anonymous’ posters, as they say they wouldn’t post something they wouldn’t say to they person’s face.
An analogy to the forums would be going to a cafe or bar where there’s a conversation going on among people who aren’t all close friends but have just joined in. Some people have met before, others are people you haven’t spoken to in other contexts, but recognise as a regular in the bar/cafe. I start talking to you, and you know I go by the nickname “eggsy”. Would you demand to know my real name, and then announce to everyone that people with nicknames are less honest and might have something to hide?
That would seem a bit rude to me. Yet some people appear to be effectively saying that here.
If you read the rest of my posts you will see that i have been fairly low key about all this and have never said people should stop using pseudonyms - this was acknowledged at 13.31 yesterday.
I only rejoined the discussion because some pretty extreme scenarios were being used as a reason for not divulging your real name and I tried to point out that those extreme scenarios don't apply to most people and that having your name and address in a phone book, for instance, is not a reckless breach of personal security.
As to your "eggsy " analogy, my honest reaction would simply be to wonder what you didn't like about your given name to such an extent that you prefer to be addressed by a nickname like "eggsy". though I would be much too polite to vocalise my thoughts
You would maybe be surprised how many people do not want to be located. I personally know three. All of them hiding owing to domestic violence and an ex partner who has made threats.
With regard to your phone book comments, I can demonstrate why having your first name in the public domain for 50% of the population, is not always wise. Many many years ago, before the internet existed, OK the late 1980s, when pervy gits had to restrict their activities to dirty phone-calls and peeping tomming, my flat-mate started her own business as a mobile hairdresser. As mobile phones weren’t a thing either she took out a small advert in out local newspapers with our landline number. Our rate of household dirty phone calls increased overnight from a base of one or two random ones a year to several a week, and they knew her name. We also had the regulars - yuk.
With regard to using my own name on forums - when I first joined up on here, I used my real first name and last initial as did many other female posters, and there were far more of us then. Over the years, I have toned down my internet presence, take far more care over what I say, who has access to it and how identifiable I am. This is due to a variety of factors. The perv effect, yep, even middle-aged, boring, grey-haired old wifes like me get them, I’ve had to block a couple of weird strangers on Facebook and Strava lately and review my Strava security because almost all my runs etc start or finish from my house. Have also had a local weirdo I’ve had to hide from, god knows where he popped up from.
Work wise, my employers have a very strict policy regarding employees saying anything online which might be regarded as offensive or bring them into disrepute and this includes in our personal lives. Also, I’m well aware that when applying for jobs/renting accommodation etc, my name will be googled, not that I tend to be controversial anyway.
So, using a pseudonym for many people is not being dishonest, it’s being careful and prudent.
> No I wouldn't immediately because it doesn't ring any bells as a real climber I've ever heard of. Not that that's relevant, because the first thing I'd do is a Google, and find no reference to such a person with climbing interests, and would immediately assume he was a fake.
That's probably not quite true. If someone posted here on UKC as "Robert Dunstan" when that was not his (or her) real name you would probably find that if you Googled "Robert Dunstan climber" you would find a reference related to his/her UKC posts.
In fact I've just googled "'Hooo' climber" and immediately found several references to his (or her) posts on here.
Martin
> So, no, I'm lucky to fear nothing from my past.
You don't know that you have nothing to fear from your future though, none of us do. Information you post about yourself on a forum such as this is basically out there forever.
I've had a few worrying emails following interaction with strangers on forums over the years, if I attract the attention of a proper loony next week it could be a real worry that I'd shared my name and address a few years back.
I don't currently have the kind of job where anything I might put out on 'social media' could be a problem, but I don't know for sure I won't have that kind of job in the future.
I don't live my life like I'm under a witness protection program. I just take sensible steps to avoid giving out personal information to absolutely anyone who Googles my name. There are several of us on this thread who have given good reasons why we want to remain anonymous on here. There are more who haven't given the reasons, and there's no reason why they should. Remaining anonymous on a publicly searchable forum is a perfectly reasonable and sensible way to behave.
This, exactly. Just because someone has no reason to be anonymous now, it doesn't mean they will always be so lucky. Anyone could come to regret all the stuff they put out there, back when they had no reason to hide.
I know who Blanche DuBois is! That's why I assumed it was probably made up. But it might not be. If the person really is called Blanche DuBois then they are going to accused of using a false name, and be distrusted unfairly. I can think of a few people I know of who would be in a similar situation. These are all genuine names of real people: Brent Cross, Theresa Green, Ramit Deep, Fook Yu. (Although for some reason Fook Yu changed his name shortly after arriving in England).
> You would maybe be surprised how many people do not want to be located. I personally know three.
> So, using a pseudonym for many people is not being dishonest, it’s being careful and prudent.
I think this nicely sums up the argument for pseudonyms. It is a hard one to overcome.
OK so if you are at risk of violence by having your name public then take appropriate action. I still maintain that you are talking about a very small minority of people and that ordinary folk don't need to feel vulnerable simply by someone knowing their name , address or phone number. For most people the biggest problem will be cold callers or junk mail, not violent thugs or sexual predators.
Cold callers and junk mail are a good enough reason to stay anonymous. Why make the problem worse unnecessarily?
No. I am an ordinary person (or do you only include men in this). I have had hassle from complete strangers online, including very recently as mentioned above, on Strava, which was worrying as, by looking at my activities, anybody could see where I live and my habits - ie that I habitually run alone in some fairly isolated locations. I have since remedied this by making all my activities private, which unfortunately means I can’t take part in some of the challenges and fun stuff that particular site.
Perhaps I was being naive in feeling safe that nobody would be interested or looking at my activities on there but, nope, up pops some creepy bloke watching where I’m going and commenting on it.
This is not at all uncommon. Just because it hasn’t happened to you personally doesn’t mean it is in any way rare.
If cold callers and junk mail are the extent of the security risks that are being discussed then fair enough.
Publishing your activities on Strava is a bit different from having your name in a phone book. I don't see where sex/gender comes into this.
I can't believe this thread is still running. When you go to create an account, the signup page asks you to create a username. This must be unique and not a commercial or business name. So real names are impossible as we'll soon get duplicates.
> Remaining anonymous on a publicly searchable forum is a perfectly reasonable and sensible way to behave.
^^This should be pinned to the top of the forum - its good advice. People like Gordon who essentially have a 'public brand' with his books and whatnot I can kind of understand. Many others are being naive and I think they're simply clinging to the fact they've already made their decision and are post-rationalising.
I've been on the forum now for nearly two decades under the same username. It says a little bit about me (eg, where I'm from), and I only really come here now for non-climbing debate because although I don't climb anymore I still identify with many of the values of people on here (as opposed to a completely random selection of the public).
I also notice most pro-real name posters on this thread are (presumably) white males. As I mentioned in my previous post the lived experience of many people outside this demographic is to be discriminated against, have their ideas denigrated or simply be taken less seriously. I can imagine for many it is empowering to be able to converse just on the value (or otherwise) of your words without sex, skin colour, sexual orientation, social status etc being held against you (or at the very least colouring the way people consider the value of your opinion). To me this has always been one of the great things about online forums.
Oh for goodness sake - I’m now remembering why I don’t usually bother posting on this forum.
Having your name in the phone book and recording your activities on Strava both have something very much in common. They show your name and, in case of the phone book, your address and phone number. In the case of Strava, where you run/cycle/walk or whatever, where and when, which in most cases, identifies where you live unless you set it up not to.
Sex comes into it, unfortunately because of pervy tw*ts who think women with any sort of presence in the world are fair game.
I can, and now have, set Strava and FB accounts to private so am not searchable and can’t be watched unless I ok it. This is a public forum so cannot be controlled in that way. I choose not to use my real name. I really do not see why anyone would have a problem with that.
Years ago, on an early cycling forum there was a series of bike thiefs linked to the forum, early days and most people were naive, so it was easy to find out who had the nice bikes, where they lived even their security arrangements!! So I always use a pseudonym now. I don't do Twitter, Instagram etc. Apart from a passive Facebook account this is my main public social media account and happy to keep it partly anonymous.
This is turning into a repeat of the legendary airplane on a treadmill thread. The argument was unequivocally settled in the first few posts, but some people just will not give in.
I really don't have a problem with you using a pseudonym. I have said this repeatedly but it's not sinking in. I am simply disagreeing about the level of security risk which using your real name poses.
> I have said this repeatedly but it's not sinking in. I am simply disagreeing about the level of security risk which using your real name poses.
I think it’s best to let individuals assess their own risk, and not to make such assumptions on behalf of anonymous others.
As I’ve said before, the anonymity on here from most regular posters is pretty shallow - we have real life identities, and many of us have shared them with many others from this site in various ways. We’re not very anonymous, and we have to be prepared to stand behind what we say.
> I am simply disagreeing about the level of security risk which using your real name poses.
With all due respect... What do you know about the security risk posed to Sealwife? You are in no position to make a judgement on this.
>I don't see where sex/gender comes into this.
Despite sealwife’s detailed explanation why.🙄
> I don't see where sex/gender comes into this.
Like you, I don't personally experience the sort of constant low-level creepy attention that Sealwife is describing. It's a kind of privilege, really, that you & I have the option of choosing to believe it isn't a problem for anybody else either.
> I really don't have a problem with you using a pseudonym. I have said this repeatedly but it's not sinking in. I am simply disagreeing about the level of security risk which using your real name poses.
That really depends who you are. Some face a greater security risk through their sex or ethnicity which can often be easily determined by name. Some face greater risks through their jobs. Others have issues with employers. That others of us either don't face such issues or are so exposed through the nature of our work that being named on ukc is not a major concern doesn't mean that the dangers outlined by Sealwife are exaggerated.