Eh?

Last time I looked there was only one on SCC. Am I suffering from some sort of post invisibility where only some parts of my posts appear? Methinks there are trolls about.

My main reason for using a moniker is it enables me to post during short breaks in the working day without worrying that my employer thinks I spend all day posting on sites like this!

But there will always be some people who feel they cannot reveal their true identity whilst making a fair contribution online, whether they are whistleblowers or just people (like myself) trying to protect themselves from potential employers googling their name, disagreeing with their politics and not hiring them. It is ultimately not up to you to judge whether they feel they can make comments linked to their real name, it is up to them.

I think that LDV is enriched by the contributions of several handle-users including Passing Tory and Grammar Police and the unidentifiable “John D” and “Julian H”.

“People using their own name are more likely to attack what other people have done, said or thought, rather than the people themselves with personal remarks.”

So what? Even if that were true, which I doubt – do you have any evidence? – there are plenty of people who go by their handles who are able to conduct themselves perfectly well online. Has anyone really been slinging around personal insults here? The worst I can find from a quick scan is Tony Greaves basically labelling everyone who uses a handle here as sneaky and dishonest.

The content of the comment is far more important than the person who says it.

(Alright, Laurence, I accept from the tone of your comments that you read like a male, so I’ll make a judgement call on the basis of probability where conclusive evidence is lacking – who can completely trust online avatars anyway?)

Thank you for your support for the critics of anonymity! It is a subject related to the recently expressed concerns of the founder of the internet.

I think that using one’s own name has something to do with the integrity of the individual. Tony Greaves put it well to the anonymous ‘Oranjepan’ in the thread about Make it Happen.

If Tony, with his ear to the ground and his knowledge of the Liberal Democratic party, does not know who ‘Oranjepan’ is, I wonder who does.

Integrity and genuine communication with someone, knowing where you each come from, is better than giving in to the cowardice or fear that leads to anonymity in the interests of self preservation in whatever situation is important to the person concerned.

Of course, integrity and telling the truth are luxuries that not everyone can afford, particularly in unfree societies, but where it is possible to shed anonymity, I agree with you that it is much better to use one’s own name.

People using their own name are more likely to attack what other people have done, said or thought, rather than the people themselves with personal remarks. Karl Popper made this point with his talk of a Third World of Ideas, outside each of the worlds of the protagonists in an argument or debate.

It is always better to say “that was kind of you” or “that was stupid of you” rather than “you are kind” or “you are stupid”. With what seems to me to be the rather cowardly cloak or shield of anonymity, it is much easier to sink into the latter, over-generalising way of arguing and speaking, which leads to unnecessary heat and bad feeling.

Dane Clouston

“I am perfectly happy to debate with you guys, but your critics are right in that it really is best to use real names.”

Why? No-one has yet actually explained why this is important. I suspect no-one else can be bothered to have this argument but you have a good reputation for stamina, so let’s have at it. Why isn’t it enough to use a unique, consistent handle on the Internet?

Oh dear. More “misunderstandings”. It can scarcely be an accident, can it?

Please read what I wrote again. I referred to a moderator employed by the party. I didn’t say anything about a moderator employed by the _site_ or about the party employing anyone to run the site.

We’re in sympathy on nearly all those commitments, although:

(a) I’m not sure I’d consider environmental equipment subsidising to be a function of the state and

(b) a more general long-term point, most of your list is, in an ideal Liberal Democrat world, a matter for local government. Our ultimate aim is to devolve both tax and spending, so at what point should we say “enough” and stop finding things for the central state to spend money on? This is the principle, I think, behind the “black hole” argument, which wasn’t really given the airing it deserved in the debate.

But the thing is, it’s a bit pointless for me to say I agree with you on your list – we simply don’t know these aren’t going to be Lib Dem spending priorities. (I thought social care packages were already a commitment although I could be wrong about that.) In a sense, that’s a battle for you and others who supported the amendment still to win. Several of them I’d fight to become spending commitments myself.

I just don’t think a list of possible commitments – any commitments – can be drawn up as a sort of proof that tax cuts are *never* going to be the right thing. Comes back to the amendment I guess – it was very accurately worded for what it was trying to say. Surely the point is that as a party we would argue over each commitment, and the liberal tax-cutters among us would, I guess, look at each individual proposal for spending and assess whether we thought it or the corresponding tax cut would do less harm/more good. It’s a consensus we’ll reach, like parties do, with less-than-ideal features for individual members. But I really don’t think it’s worth getting this het up over the principle when we don’t yet know what the spending commitments will be by 2010.

Just written something about raising the Personal Allowance, if you’re interested. As I said before, anyone who wants to think about putting some pressure on the party on this, I’m all for it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/17/libdemconference.vincentcable

I used to post under my real name, but I prefer not to lay myself open to that kind of defamation – particularly as, realistically, no kind of redress is available.

While the site allows anonymous/pseudonymous posting, people can respond or not as they prefer. But if people are incapable of producing a counter-argument, criticising someone for not posting under their real name is a poor substitute.

I am perfectly happy to debate with you guys, but your critics are right in that it really is best to use real names.

Just to repeat what I have already said, do not expect a reply from me from now on, anonymous poster, unless and until you reveal your identity.

With your anonymity shield and personal remarks, such as attributing “bitterness” to Tony Greaves, to take but one of many examples, you are not worth it.

Dane Clouston