New Vote Regarding Names - VERY IMPORTANT

[EmmaRobins]

Ok, after all the emails we have recieved complaining about this issue, we will retake the vote. This IS NOT us changing our mind, as the name issue came about from members in the first place. We arfe rethinking simply because of the massive response we have had asking us to, and at the end of the day this site is for you.

I do - however - feel the need to say that some of you who have sent us very stong emails did not even take part in the initial vote. This seems silly to me, but we'll run with this all the same.

We have decided to take a vote on this very thread. This thread will be kept open for one week exactly, beginning at the present time. After one week, we will count up how many want names, and how many do not, and we will STICK with the decision you make.

If some of you do not vote, then we will assume that you do not mind either way, and will assume that we will not offend you no matter which decision proves to come out on top.

Please do make the effort to vote in this one, as I believe that maybe some of you didn't vote initially and wish that you had.

Please understand that we just want this forum to be a place where people can share opinion, regardless of grade or experience, and we do expect that people are honest in their knowledge.

Whether a name is needed or not is really up to you, but I will ask that everyone respects whatever this vote comes out as, as we on the team don't want this to continue to be such a huge issue.

As far as the vote happens, please try not to voice opinions for to long, simply to allow for easier vote counting, simply state YES FOR NAMES or NO FOR NAMES.

Hopefully this will clear up all the negative feelings that seem to be making themselves heard.

Again, feedback will be appreciated, but not via this thread as it will only be used for voting, so that you can all see the outcome for yourselves.

Thanks you guys,

Emma and Shaun

[200374]

I fail to understand wjy a new vote is needed, however - I am of the firm opinion that a name must be provided at leat to the admin.


Ged Moran

[jmullin]

I think if there is nothing to hide why hide a name. I've seen it in the past, people attacking some one then hiding behind anonymity. Whereas if they had to use their real name I'm sure they would not be so courageous. I would refrain from engaging in a dialogue with someone who is afraid to be honest enought to show his name.

John Mullin NYC

[the-saint]

No to names

[SusanW]

NO FOR NAMES

(Although I think it's reasonable for admins to ask for full names etc before giving people access. Just let us keep these details private if that makes us more comfortable! There are too many nutters lurking )

[david]

NO TO NAMES

But with the same proviso as Susan said.

[Andy]

NO TO NAMES

If you want a name, PM and ask for it.

[Paul Herbert]

I want a name, passport sized photograph, and/or a blood or urine sample provided together with a signature from both parents.

Personally I don't really care as you can tell me that your name is Retchin Phoneykoshi but I'm actually voting yes to a name as this whole 'i'm too important' or 'I need a name to hide behind' thing makes me pmsl.

[Helspeth]

Sorry I thought my e-mail to you was a vote and it counted. However here's my vote

NO TO NAMES

(but same as Susan)

ps Paul Herbert - lyk yr txt spk pmsl is a gud 1 if it mns wot I fnk it mns!

[Robert S]

I think that there will always be antagonists who attack others and hide behind the pseudonym. So for that reason I vote YES FOR NAMES.

I would be happy for pseudonayms to be used, providing the admisnistrators (and eventually possibly moderators) know the identity of corresepondents.

Hotmail etc. are far too easy to register with and creaate pseudonym e-mails - so an email address does not provide security to the owners of this site.

What happens if litigation for libel or slander occurs due to comments written here, and the forum has not taken steps to prevent it?

Surely provision of identity in some form is protection for TSW.

As John Mullin says if you have got something to say and you have nothinng to hide -why hide behind a name?

I am not innterested in anybody's grade, just what they say. And I like to know who I am speaking to.

[Jellybean]

YES for names

[Paul Herbert]

I would be happy for pseudonayms to be used, providing the admisnistrators (and eventually possibly moderators) know the identity of corresepondents.

I don't think that anyone could argue with this point. In the event of pseudos' being allowed without a name given in the signature line, then I believe that this should then be a prerequisite.

[Bern]

Yes to names, what have we got to hide, to be respectful to the senior karate-ka that post on this forum who do not hide their names.

[Joe Foltz]

YES TO NAMES!! It'll keep people more honest.

[shotokan15]

NO TO NAMES