|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sun 17 Oct 08:30
My brother and I were discussing some of the vile abuse circulating on SM in general and from a small minority of posters on dotnet. He suggested that this issue could be eradicated overnight, if we were obliged to post under our real names. I believe there is some merit in that suggestion but I'm not 100% convinced and would like to hear what other posters think. I've put this on the Football Forum as this is the one most folk use and hope it will be allowed to remain.
Nobody wants to stifle healthy debates and differing opinions, of course, as that would make for a boring site. There's even room for posters who are naturally pessimistic and fear we are already heading for relegation. What some of us object to are the insults and abusive posts aimed at the Chairman, the manager, the directors and fellow posters who do not agree with them. I understand that feelings are running high with the team having endured such a poor start to the league campaign. We're all Pars fans and equally frustrated and disappointed and perhaps even angry but most of us stop short of posting insults and abuse. I'm fairly sure that posting anonymously makes it easier to overstep the mark of common decency and from there some are emboldened further to act in an unacceptable manner, both at games and away from the stadium, as some players and Ross McArthur can testify.
Stanza put up a link on another thread, which is a good starting point for a discussion.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/56114122
Not your average Sunday League player.
Post Edited (Sun 17 Oct 08:31)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sun 17 Oct 09:18
No, because it would only be a few games away from idiots on here seeking each other out in real life.
Carole Baskin fed Rasta to a tiger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sun 17 Oct 09:19
I Like the idea but not sure how you’d introduce it though?
Unless your going to go through official checks via official docs then anyone can put any name in they like (and create all the g-mails etc they like to back that up)
Another question I’d ask is are we all genuinely grown up enough for it? …and I mean that as readers as well as posters?
it’s easy to point at posts we don’t like as the problem… but many of those posts are not personal attacks but people taking offence and call for cards etc, because it challenges their deeply held view or feelings about something
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: RossF
Date: Sun 17 Oct 09:22
I`ve perhaps missed it but has their been vile abuse on .net? Granted there are a few posters who act like smart *rses (which would most likely not happen in public) and many were critical with the management team and board members but what was said on here that would be considered threatening.
I can guarantee as well that this forum is nowhere near as bad as most. Some of the things that have made it to social media from other forums have been ridiculous. Most of us are just rightly annoyed because our board have employed a poor manager that was extremely unpopular in the first place.
I have no problem with real names being revealed but to the admin only so they`re able to report something they feel is abusive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: neils
Date: Sun 17 Oct 10:04
In principle is fine, Neil is my name, I think the practicalities would rule it out.
Privacy, Rasta made a good point above, secondly, security- these sites are vulnerable to hacking, they are not set up to hold this type on information. The database WILL get compromised.
Anger is fine, and it`s ok to post, but these have not been thought out, and are typed out in the spur of the moment, when a deep breath would be needed. Toxic posts - take a step back and think...would you really speak like this normally face to face? Anonymity allows this, and some posters that`s all they do, but it`s really more about the general discourse which seems to be driven by anger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sun 17 Oct 10:13
No.
1. There are adequate measures to card people who cross the line.
2. As Rasta says, it will result in people being abused elsewhere.
3. As this forum is not private, anybody can view these posts including press hacks out for a story.
I like not knowing who everyone is so I can debate freely and not worry I'll be stopped in the street.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Sun 17 Oct 11:34
No.
If we have names on here then anyone Googling you will bring up everything on here. Applying for a job, meeting a new girl/boy, new neighbors etc. Even if pretty innocuous stuff that isn't secret, embarrassing or controversial it'll be forever following you around and defining you.
Short of taking the site down that would be the quickest way of killing it. Well the forums, at least, but I expect that's 99% of the traffic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sun 17 Oct 11:56
Not needed.
If admin have real names and addresses that’s all that is required.
Permanent exclusion to the repeat and persistent offenders after having gone through the due process of warnings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Milos Drizzle
Date: Sun 17 Oct 12:02
The vile abuse would be eradicated overnight, along with 90% of the forum traffic! Folks would simply shift to the other forum for all the reasons mentioned above.
This is my signature
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: yorkiepar
Date: Sun 17 Oct 12:26
This is a really tough question, GG.
There’s no doubt whatsoever that social media can be a source of real harm when used irresponsibly. But I fear that this is a result of Societal attitudes more than anything else. Over a period of time respect for one’s fellow human beings has significantly eroded and is not quickly or easily going to be restored.
You were a teacher, weren’t you? In my (humble) opinion so many problems stem from the relaxation of discipline in childhood - both in the home and in school.
In the context of the dreadful killing of another politician, Chris Bryant, a Labour M.P., is quoted as saying, “I’ve seen our (political) culture go terribly sour over twenty years. Social media acts as a vortex of nastiness. Anonymity inflames intolerance …….. So we need to do some real soul-searching. Let’s think before we spit venom in each other’s face. And, please, let’s end the anonymity on social media that seems to grant people permission to write things online that they would never dream of saying to another person’s face”. So it’s not just you that’s posing this question.
I understand though why some people object to this - compromising of people’s liberties, etc. But I definitely feel that self-regulation is never going to be the answer.
Admin really does a remarkably good job on this forum, despite the fact that they’re constantly being called out - in my view wrongly - by a significant minority of posters for over-reaction. If anything - as the recent “debates” over our manager, our chairman, our BOD and our team individuals go - I think that they could take action much sooner. Perhaps though that’s putting too much onus on a few very willing but under-appreciated volunteers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 17 Oct 12:38
I don't know if anyone else has noticed this but there are a few weirdos on the internet and, as terrible as it can be, I'd rather be verbally abused online than stalked at my home.
I'd also hate to have online discourse taken from my life because, say, I was afraid that an abusive ex partner was attempting to track me down.
It would only serve to make current problems much much worse.
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Par
Date: Sun 17 Oct 13:08
This forum is dying anyway. A very small percentage of the Pars support post on here and I think a few posters over estimate the importance of this site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 17 Oct 13:30
Quote:
Par, Sun 17 Oct 13:08
This forum is dying anyway. A very small percentage of the Pars support post on here and I think a few posters over estimate the importance of this site.
It's still the most used Pars forum on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The Roy Barry Fan Club
Date: Sun 17 Oct 13:35
It is a tough one: and mirrors many of the issues with social media.
On the whole, I think there is no alternative to sticking with present system, and having fairly proactive moderation. I do think there is a vast difference between someone`s opinion that you don`t agree with and an obvious troll like Hail2Crail who is just coming on because he has an agenda to pursue which has little to to do with DAFC, and doesn`t hesitate to say things which in my view are untruths plain and simple. In my view, correctly black carded.
There are complex issues at stake here, and I can`t do better than the posting from Stanza on the wider subject.
Just one further thought: there used to be a gallery of posters. A half-way house which humanises a forum such as this is to have a mental picture of who is posting. So if you want to post -- stick your photograph up. Effectively that is what Facebook does in any event. Probably lose some posters but might get a better forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Milos Drizzle
Date: Sun 17 Oct 13:51
Quote:
Par, Sun 17 Oct 13:08
This forum is dying anyway. A very small percentage of the Pars support post on here and I think a few posters over estimate the importance of this site.
This forum has ebbed and flowed over its very long life, and I expect that pattern to continue.
This is my signature
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sun 17 Oct 14:09
There was an issue with details being handed to third parties at one point as well was there not?
Heavy no from me.
Carole Baskin fed Rasta to a tiger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Sun 17 Oct 14:21
Terrible suggestion. If admins even consider this they can just delete all record off my from .net and I'll gladly go elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: JTH123
Date: Sun 17 Oct 14:40
Parsfan's post above gives good enough reasons for it to be a no from me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Grant
Date: Sun 17 Oct 14:45
Quote:
jake89, Sun 17 Oct 13:30
Quote:
Par, Sun 17 Oct 13:08
This forum is dying anyway. A very small percentage of the Pars support post on here and I think a few posters over estimate the importance of this site.
It's still the most used Pars forum on the net.
More than Twitter and Facebook?
The train of thought that anonymity would stop the questioning and criticism of the club falls on its face when you consider that the virol on twitter and Facebook was far more severe, by far more people, most of whom had there first and second name available with a picture to confirm who they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sun 17 Oct 15:22
Firstly, thanks to everyone who has posted on this thread. It`s much appreciated and a real school day for me. Having read through everyone`s responses, I`m of the opinion that the benefits of anonymity far outweigh any disadvantages. I was blissfully ignorant of the dangers and pitfalls of using our real names on the forum.
"Terrible suggestion. If admins even consider this they can just delete all record off my from .net and I`ll gladly go elsewhere."
It was never a suggestion, Andrew - just a topic for discussion.
"I`ve perhaps missed it but has their been vile abuse on .net?"
You`ve quoted me out of context, RossF. I said there was vile abuse circulating on SM in general and from a small minority of posters on dotnet. If you think some of the posts aimed at both our manager and Chairman do not constitute abuse, you`re entitled to your opinion, but it`s at odds with mine.
"Not needed.
If admin have real names and addresses that’s all that is required."
I`m not 100% but I don`t think Admin have our real names, VEE? I joined dotnet back in 2006 and I think I only provided an email address but the rules may have changed since then. Could people not supply a fictitious name in any case, especially if they were intent on making controversial or abusive posts?
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sun 17 Oct 15:45
GG Riva as far as I'm aware, Facebook is the only social media site that you have to give your real name but the fact you control your own page, who you are friends with is an important fact.
I think to enforce this on a forum like this, or twitter and Instagram etc which you have little or no control over who can interact with you is dangerous.
For example you might have a gripe about your employer and invite discussion on it.
This would be a big no no if we were forced to use our real names.
I accept the wider point about trolls hiding behind keyboards though and I'd be happy if this forum decided our names were privately on record with the owner of this site but that privacy is respected.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sun 17 Oct 16:55
Cheers for that, AAPS. I know hee haw about Facebook and Instagram. I do have a Twitter account but have used it about once a year. I find that WhatsApp is more than sufficient for all my needs.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sun 17 Oct 17:03
Which is why the Admin volunteers are so important, as much as some folk have a problem with a very small number of decisions.
Thanks Admin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Malcolm Canmore
Date: Sun 17 Oct 17:17
"I`ve perhaps missed it but has their been vile abuse on .net? Granted there are a few posters who act like smart *rses (which would most likely not happen in public) and many were critical with the management team and board members but what was said on here that would be considered threatening."
A classic example of how things so easily spiral out of control on social media. A suggestion from one poster that there has been vile abuse is countered by saying there was nothing that could be considered threatening. Vile abuse is simply that - it doesn`t need to be threatening to be vile.
My dog eats meat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Sun 17 Oct 21:05
I've just realised I answered the wrong question. My "no" should have been ”yes” to "anonymity on dotnet".
I blame whoever answered before me, but as I don't know who they are IRL my rage will probably subside before I get a chance to do anything about it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sun 17 Oct 21:39
Quote:
parsfan, Sun 17 Oct 21:05
I've just realised I answered the wrong question. My "no" should have been ”yes” to "anonymity on dotnet".
I blame whoever answered before me, but as I don't know who they are IRL my rage will probably subside before I get a chance to do anything about it.
I'm putting the extra bolt on tonight just in case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Indiapar
Date: Mon 18 Oct 13:10
I think people are entitled to their privacy. For me it is simply about respecting others views and rational and healthy debate without abusive behaviour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: fcda
Date: Mon 18 Oct 13:22
I think the forum already has enough in place to deal with this. If posters are crossing the line, there's a report button. If forum posting rules are broken, admin will step in. Accounts can be suspended or blocked.
IP addresses are logged so new accounts can be linked to old ones if necessary - not foolproof but if the poster is abusive again, they get blocked again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DRJ1986
Date: Mon 18 Oct 13:42
I think as a lot of people have been banging the drum on for some time, there should be a requirement to prove who you are. I think it should apply to any site on the internet whether it be Facebook, Insta to forums like this. The amount of nonsensical drivel a minority of people spout whether racial, homophobic, religious etc is too much. Whilst I get f**ked off with Grant, the players & hierarchy, it doesn’t give me a divine right to abuse them. If someone came to my work & abused me for doing my job I’d be raging. I just think if your allowed to post anything you want that behaviour for a very small minority can escalate into physical attacks or worse. If there was more accountability from all there MAY be a smaller chance of someone being attacked or worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DRJ1986
Date: Mon 18 Oct 13:46
Although what I’ve written is more of a general comment, I haven’t noticed any vile behaviour on here. I still think proving who you are should apply to any site where you can post views which would include this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DunfyDave
Date: Mon 18 Oct 17:47
I am more than happy to put my name under anything I write or say.
A forum is a meeting place for a discussion where ideas, views and opinions can be shared.
This can lead to a healthy debate where all opinions can be looked at from various points of view.
Where it breaks down is when the debate ends and the argument begins as one or more contributers feel their opinion is either under threat or far superior to that of others. It descends into an argument which is where ones position must be defended strenuously.
Everyone's alter ego on this forum (albeit Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne or Peter Parker) has the privilege to discuss and debate but it can soon evolve into chaotic argument when they can anonymously hide behind super-powers like Superman, Batman or Spiderman to viciously insult, attack or bully another opinion that is not similar to their own without the fear of ever being uncovered.
The irony is that all Pars fans are pulling in the same direction and share the same desires and aspirations for their beloved club. Only their personal anonymous opinions on how to get there, differ.
DunfyDave
Post Edited (Mon 18 Oct 17:49)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 19 Oct 00:42
Might have no choice in the matter if Priti Patel has her way. Apparently looking to remove the right to privacy online.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Tue 19 Oct 08:08
Quote:
londonparsfan, Tue 19 Oct 00:42
Might have no choice in the matter if Priti Patel has her way. Apparently looking to remove the right to privacy online.
Could there be a better reason for being against the proposal?
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 19 Oct 09:25
I'd be struggling to find one if there is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Wed 20 Oct 13:48
If I may be permitted to nit-pick, I think what we have here is pseudonymity not anonymity – in that people use pseudonyms and are therefore already identifiable to some limited extent.
Given the consequent uncertainty over GG’s original question, I will say that I think the current situation is fine and the moderators do an excellent job in trying circumstances.
Most of the arguments are well-rehearsed – there is a need to protect privacy and personal data and a need to prevent bullying, particularly of minors. In practical terms a change of policy would likely chase contributors away - I saw this on another (non-footballing) forum where there was much discussion over the matter and it was agreed to implement a “full name” policy, whatever that was with the result that that forum is now virtually dead. I think the real problem here (and there will be societal and political reasons) is a lack of tolerance and respect of other opinions or persuasions, and changing the naming policy would really only be treating the symptom, not the underlying issue.
By maintaining the status quo we can avoid the philosophical debate over what a real name is. Arguably GG Riva is a real name as the contributor is known by that name as well as by his or her birth name. Could Lulu post as Lulu or would she have to post as Marie Lawrie, or Marie Kennedy-Cairns, or some combination thereof?
|
|
|
|
|
|
