Graham Banks wrote:
If you're prepared to reveal your real name when posting under an alias, then what's the point of using an alias?
ChrisW gave some reason as to why he doesn't want to use an alias,Ed too.
you must respect their decision to remain anonymous and value more of their participation(which is what we want, and more important of all),old rules allow such issues and was peaceful than the new one.
Regards.
Well for what it's worth my vote is against the use of aliases.
Graham Banks wrote:If you're prepared to reveal your real name when posting under an alias, then what's the point of using an alias?
I know that the reasoning is faulty, if many people here are allowed to use an alias, why not let others use an alias if they wish to? You have seen the list made by Thorsten, out of that list everyone except ray uses an alias. They should be given the same treatment that Gaston Levabre received.
Graham Banks wrote:If you're prepared to reveal your real name when posting under an alias, then what's the point of using an alias?
I know that the reasoning is faulty, if many people here are allowed to use an alias, why not let others use an alias if they wish to? You have seen the list made by Thorsten, out of that list everyone except ray uses an alias. They should be given the same treatment that Gaston Levabre received.
The list provided has several "real" members and the fact that two have been pointed out already points to the foolishness of making such a list.
All it can do is offend those "real" members and make yourself look bad.
Graham Banks wrote:
If you're prepared to reveal your real name when posting under an alias, then what's the point of using an alias?
ChrisW gave some reason as to why he doesn't want to use an alias,Ed too.
you must respect their decision to remain anonymous and value more of their participation(which is what we want, and more important of all),old rules allow such issues and was peaceful than the new one.
Regards.
Well for what it's worth my vote is against the use of aliases.
Regards, Graham.
I respect your opinion and I respect your work as a moderator,Graham, but in this case I hope the members think twice before voting, instead of noting down your popularity and voting based on the influence
I don't agree with Thorsten about his campaign about Sam,and other stuffs.I just think "use your real name" policy is unfair and flawed that caused Ed and ChrisW leave the forum.
swami wrote:
I respect your opinion and I respect your work as a moderator,Graham, but in this case I hope the members think twice before voting, instead of noting down your popularity and voting based on the influence
I wouldn't worry about that Swami. All the members here are intelligent people who can make up their own mind.
swami wrote:
I respect your opinion and I respect your work as a moderator,Graham, but in this case I hope the members think twice before voting, instead of noting down your popularity and voting based on the influence
I wouldn't worry about that Swami. All the members here are intelligent people who can make up their own mind.
Graham Banks wrote:If you're prepared to reveal your real name when posting under an alias, then what's the point of using an alias?
I know that the reasoning is faulty, if many people here are allowed to use an alias, why not let others use an alias if they wish to? You have seen the list made by Thorsten, out of that list everyone except ray uses an alias. They should be given the same treatment that Gaston Levabre received.
The list provided has several "real" members and the fact that two have been pointed out already points to the foolishness of making such a list.
All it can do is offend those "real" members and make yourself look bad.
Regards, Graham.
Gaston's name looked more real than the names on that list. Ofcourse, the list isnt devoid of errors. After all we are humans. I dont have the skill to sell sand in Sahara over the net, but I know how to sell water in the middle of a desert.
The list is invalid because it has two real members.
So if we remove those two real members then the list is good right?
swami wrote:
I respect your opinion and I respect your work as a moderator,Graham, but in this case I hope the members think twice before voting, instead of noting down your popularity and voting based on the influence
I wouldn't worry about that Swami. All the members here are intelligent people who can make up their own mind.
Regards, Graham.
Yes,Graham. I hope so.
Regards.
Never trust an adult with a posse. Graham won the election by a landslide over the other mods, the second closest was almost 40 votes behind.
Graham Banks wrote:If you're prepared to reveal your real name when posting under an alias, then what's the point of using an alias?
I know that the reasoning is faulty, if many people here are allowed to use an alias, why not let others use an alias if they wish to? You have seen the list made by Thorsten, out of that list everyone except ray uses an alias. They should be given the same treatment that Gaston Levabre received.
The list provided has several "real" members and the fact that two have been pointed out already points to the foolishness of making such a list.
All it can do is offend those "real" members and make yourself look bad.
Regards, Graham.
Gaston's name looked more real than the names on that list. Ofcourse, the list isnt devoid of errors. After all we are humans. I dont have the skill to sell sand in Sahara over the net, but I know how to sell water in the middle of a desert.
The list is invalid because it has two real members.
So if we remove those two real members then the list is good right?
Not necessarily no, because there could be others on the list that are also "real" members.
Graham Banks wrote:If you're prepared to reveal your real name when posting under an alias, then what's the point of using an alias?
I know that the reasoning is faulty, if many people here are allowed to use an alias, why not let others use an alias if they wish to? You have seen the list made by Thorsten, out of that list everyone except ray uses an alias. They should be given the same treatment that Gaston Levabre received.
The list provided has several "real" members and the fact that two have been pointed out already points to the foolishness of making such a list.
All it can do is offend those "real" members and make yourself look bad.
Regards, Graham.
Gaston's name looked more real than the names on that list. Ofcourse, the list isnt devoid of errors. After all we are humans. I dont have the skill to sell sand in Sahara over the net, but I know how to sell water in the middle of a desert.
The list is invalid because it has two real members.
So if we remove those two real members then the list is good right?
Not necessarily no, because there could be others on the list that are also "real" members.
Possible, but the majority of them uses an alias. Isnt that the issue here? Gaston was a real member as well, he just didnt use his own name.
