pangloss

<a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/lesson_cre_ethics_rr.htm" target="_blank">http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/lesson_cre_ethics_rr.htm</a>

KC

From the article:
So Williams and ReMine hijack a board so they can control the debate behind the scenes as anonymous moderators. Pathetic only begins to describe it.

Cheers,

KC

Principia

Heavy-handed moderation has become the hallmark of Creationist websites. Their IDiot kins have fared no better. The reason should be obvious to those 98% lurkers... The evidence is crippling to them.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

RufusAtticus

How the heck do you have a hostile takeover of an internet BB? Why did it take the owner so long to fix the problem?

KC

Has anyone noticed that an obsession with anonymous screen names has become the latest cause du jour in Creationist/ID/HIQ circles?

Cheers,

KC

pz

I have to agree with them, though. I'm totally against those cryptic, unpronounceable, anonymous screen names. Those that are just bizarre strings of consonants are absolutely the worst.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]</p>

KC

Consider the possible consequences of revealing one's identity:

Cheers,

KC

Principia

Hiding behind pseudonyms, imo, betrays their insecurity, highlights their intellectual dishonesty, permits them to avoid having any personal accountability, and gives them an excuse to play the persecuted (how very Christian!) intellectual. The give-away is when I read them whine about personal attacks or stereotypes or whatever even though no one has a clue who they are (yet!) and they themselves engage in plenty of the same rhetoric. It only makes sense though that these people would be holding out for some false hope that, by some miracle, if their pseudoscientific ideas become accepted, they ould 'out' themselves with some shred of dignity.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

DrLao

Someone should use that in their signature. It sends me into a fit of giggles every time I see it.

theyeti

I agree about the unpronouncable pseudonyms. Those are irritating. In general though, I don't get what the creationist/IDist obsession is with pseudonyms, other than the fact that they've run out of anything legitimate to complain about.

First of all, there are lots of reasons to use a pseudonym other than trolling. Simple privacy and avoidance of harrasment are reason enough. Lots of people wouldn't participate in BB discussions at all if they couldn't use a pseudonym, and since encouraging wide participation is a primary goal of most BBs, it's a bad idea to ban them. You will end up removing lots of congenial participants for what is really nothing more than a minor nuisance to determined trolls.

Secondly, I don't see how getting rid of pseudonyms will get rid of trolls. Plenty of people exhibit highly trollish behavior while using their real names. Chris Langan and Genie are perfect examples. And then there are lots of people who use pseudonyms that never exhibit trollish behavior. While I suspect that many people who are intentionally trollish are going to use pseudonyms, these people will find a way around any rules.

And finally, trying to ban pseudonyms is unenforcable. There is no non-invasive way to make sure that someone really is who they say they are. I could call myself Joe Johnson and no one would know if my name really was Joe Johnson, or which of the thousands of Joe Johnsons out there I might be.

It would be far wiser to moderate behavior rather than people's names. I don't see how the name someone uses relates to the quality of that person's arguments, nor does is it any kind of guarantee to reduce trolling.

theyeti