After reading the "Young Guns" thread, I have to echo the earlier threads. RYPN must go to a confirmed-member/real-name basis. I know that will cause some good posters or two to think twice, but it will get rid of the garbage posts that inevitably start flame wars.

Please, RYPN editors, reconsider your position.

Rob Davis <----- real name

To the extent that anyone's identity can be "verified," I agree.

It's one thing to post "insider information" anonymously. It's quite another to accuse or attack.

JAC

Here's the problem: no one has ever suggested to us a way to verify identities that has any teeth.

We could ask for real names, but to say we require real names when all we are collecting is a supplied name and a supplied email address is a Potemkin Village solution. Any user can give us a real-sounding name and an email account that does not bounce. We would have no way of knowing who the person behind the name really is. Good users will give their real names, bad users will effortlessly give fake identities that we have no way of detecting, and the underlying situation will not have changed one bit.

If anyone can suggest a way out of this conundrum that provides real identity verification, we're all ears. To date, no one has suggested such a system. What we do not want to do is create the illusion of identiy verification without any underlying reality.

To compound this problem, we know of several instances (including, allegedly, one involving this board) where individuals have posted while posing as others, including notable loco owners, museum officials, etc. One individual in particular has supposedly earned himself prosecution from state officials, restraining orders, and other legal action as a result of posing as certain people online.

And inasmuch as a LOT of folks here have met me personally over the years, and may be seeing my byline in Trains, R&R, etc., has anyone ever checked my identification? Maybe Ive been using a pompous-sounding nom de plume all these years...........

Paid membership. Folks who are willing to pay for a privledge tend to be more responsible with it. You can easily accomodate real names and pseudonyms, even allow folks to have both for those occaisons when they have a justifiable reason to be anonymous.

A paid membership would reduce Hume's out of pocket expenses and perhaps even support additional features.

It would also drive up our administrative overhead by increasing out accounting complexityand tax filing complexity--and staff time, more than money, is our most scarce resource.

I think the best thing to do is to confront the people as needed. There are a lot of good opinions and information passed along by those who prefer to use a handle and that is always fine. The problem comes when a bum starts throwing trash around like in the young guns or SP&S 2-8-2 thread. Those who post that type of stuff are bums and just not man enough to make a statement and own it. I vote in favor of deleting any such trash quickly.

One of the fundamental tenets of our judicial system is the right to confront one's accuser. As far back as Anglo-Saxon times, an accuser is expected to make his case in the light of day.

This isn't a court, of course. But when anonymous posters are allowed to accuse and attack, everyone's sense of fairness is rightfully offended.

Let me offer this solution: when an anonymous post clearly adds no value, but is an obvious accusation or attack ("S. A. Worthington" or "Superheater" come to mind), the moderator should not only delete the post, but suspend the account. Only when a public apology is issued will the account be re-instated.

Hold these low-lifes accountable.

JAC

A few points:

1. Exactly this procedure was tried on the Chaski board. It caused the bad actors to make a whole series of fake accounts, so that another one was waiting in the wings as soon as the first one was closed. The resulting war between the moderator and the bad actors harrassing him nearly destroyed the board. I can easily see the same thing happening here.

The bad actors always have the advantage in this kind of fight, becuase they have no compunction, and nothing better to do, whereas the management is hamstrung by expectations of due process, etc, and have other things to do in life to boot.

2. It is actually easier for the moderators to keep an eye on posters with a penchant for trouble if they know then handle the troublesome individuals post under, instead of having to chase down a whole flock of spurious identities.

3. Immediate and aggressive intervention on the part of the moderators on the terms John suggests takes a LOT of time. It requires having the resources to watch the board nearly 24x7 (or else you deal with a flood of email asking why you didn't remove so and so's bad post immediately) and it also requires having the resources to deal with the consequences o the deletions (each time we delete a post its usually followed by 3-4 rounds of back-channel correspondence, complaints, answers, negotiations, etc with the poster).

Folks, here's my personal bottom line: these suggestions, though meant well, amount to trying to use regulation to fix an absence of courtesy and common sense. But most of the proposed solutions are more likely to burn out RyPN's all-volunteer staff than they are to fix the problem. It is hard to try to regulate courtesy and regulate common sense--people tend either to have them or not. Tweaking our moderating format won't change this underlying reality.

I am only speaking as an individual here, not in my office as a member of the RyPN Board, but that's my take after five years of moderating this forum, and watching how different moderating strategies have played out on other boards.

Happy to use my real name when posting, but cannot figure how to change my username on my profile. How is it done now?

Bob Yarger

You would have to register the username you want as a new profile.

It is not possible to edit an existing username after the profile is set up, becuase the username is the value to which everything else is keyed; you can change every setting BUT the username you chose.

With respect Rob, these young guys can deal with it. they don't need us to protect them from obviously irrational rantings and innuendo. Besides, I'd be willing to wager a lot of it is simply friendly insults bantered between friends who know exactly who they are talking to and hearing from.

Anybody can call himself anything he wants and Erik and Hume and the other magicians of HTML moderating this site have no way to confirm any of it. I just don't see it as a practical thing to do. "A wise prince makes no law he is unable or unwilling to enforce." (Machiavelli)

Besides, some of the people who do occasionally flame have some real experience and insight to offer when they aren't dealing with their flame points. Erik and I differ in our tolerance along these lines, but without flaming each other. I am willing to simply overlook the rants and focus on the information. The only control I need to impose is my own brain as I read the threads that interest me, and ignore irrational posts.

Its the substance, not the image here that concerns me, and I don't care what you want to be called if you have something worth reading to post.

dave (real name with no S also)

I think we should allow the moderators to guide us as they see fit. I see that there are some real points in both sides of this issue that was also discussed a short while ago. When I was in Marine Corps boot camp in glorious Parris Island, SC, my drill instructors used to always lament about " the 10%" of the platoon that "just didn't get it". This 10% they explained was a virtual reality that would always have to be dealt with.

We have a similar situation here. No matter what we do, we will always have someone trying to subvert the objectives, whether it be from petty jealousy, or just having an axe to grind, or never having grown up. As mentioned, these things have been seen on many other forums such as CHASKI, Yahoo, and other similar sites.

Thanks for listening.

Rich O

With all due respect and politeness, I respectfully disacgree
with John Craft's demand that only people who register under
their true and legal full names be allowed to post here.

Isn't this truly a "tempest in a teapot"? Isn't it true that
98% of all posts are not flames? Isn't it possible that this
proposed requirement for using full and true names is really
a solution in search of a problem?

Were it possible to easily enfore this rule, you would lose
info and thoughts from people who have very good reasons
to post anonymously. I, for one, would not choose to sign
up, out of real and genuine concerns for my personal safety -
because one never knows WHO is lurking in any discussion
board. As I wrote in the previous thread on this subject,
search engines - especially Zabasearch - make it all too easy
to learn someone's HOME ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER - by
merely entering a person's name and state of residence!

Is this something that is not a problem for most men?
(I asked this in the previous thread on this subject and
never got even one reply! <sigh....>.)

Another very legitimate concern is the fact that all too many
employers do a routine Google search for someone's name
as one way to filter out supposedly unsuitable candidates.
(Side note: if most employers were as enlightened as
"Semco, S. A." apparently is, this particular issue would not
even be an issue. Please read about this company and its
current CEO - fascinating, absolutely fascinating!)

These two reasons alone should be more than enough to
deter anyone from demanding that every person must use
his or her real and legal full name before being allowed to
post anything.

I thihk our moderators are doing an excellent job.

Margaret (SP fan)

As someone who runs an online forum, I know that the moderators are correct. There's really no easy way to verify names. Even a credit card verification won't make it 100% accurate, there's lots of identity fraud.

If it bothers you, simply ignore posts written by members with names like "Superfoamer". If you see them attacking a member or flaming, notify the moderators.

My forum has a button on each post that you can use to report a problem post. Members use it when spam or flames are posted, and it works well. Sure, we get problem posts, but not very often since they go away within moments of being posted.

I don't really see this as being an issue here. Encourage the use of real names as either part of the ID or your signature? Great idea. (Obviously I like it, check my user name....) Require it? Way too difficult.

For that matter, let's say they do go to real names... How many names would you recognize? If my verified, authenticated, USDA approved name is Vernon P Throckmorten, how does that information help you? Will it make me be any less likely to flame or cause problems? Maybe a little, but probably not much, since even if they know who I am what do the moderators do about it? Kick me off, sure, but they can do that either way. Sue me? Doubt it. Not let me back in. Yes, until I fake a new identity...

It's much easier to try and keep things running smoothly as is.