Privacy

[caverdan]

Excellent points made by all. Nice find Scott. I love links. Every poster should be required to have one.....well.......off to crawl back under my rock.....

[Bill Putnam]

Previously
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=272

Funny how things come back up like this, isn't it? And how people didn't say much about the results of the poll?

As to the "don't fix it if it isn't broken" argument, I was on the receiving end of an anonymous personal attack post this week, and I believe something here is broken. Apologies to Dan in advance, but I did not enjoy the experience, and didn't find it to be very entertaining, from my perspective. Some found it entertaining from a spectator perspective while others did not.

I don't really know what you were scared of Kevin, but I suspect that (among other things) it might have been anonymous posts trashing new cavers for asking questions. Also, things used to get pretty nasty in the politics and open talk threads. That might have been entertaining to some, but it was intimidating and discouraging to others. Fortunately, that got fixed some time ago.

Things have changed for the better.

I stared using the Internet and discussion boards (including Usenet newsgroups) in 1980, before the WWW was even invented (1991). I know quote a bit about flamewars, netiquette, trolls, emoticons, anonymizers, web DBs, forums, etc. from having been there and lived through it all as they were created and as they evolved into their present state.

I have a long and deep perspective on all this, as do those of you who have been around it all for decades and have also seen it all unfold. Anmar is one such person. We may come to different conclusions, but we can agree to disagree, respectfully. One reason for that is that each of us knows and respects the others background and experience. With anonymity, one loses that knowledge and respect, and the quality of the discourse, as well as its utility, usually suffers.

[graveleye]

I actually was joking about being scared. You guys don't intimidate me.

Although I admit I was a little nervous at my first DCG meeting because I didn't know a soul.

For my first year at the grotto I knew and caved with more people from this forum than I did with the DCG. It just kind of worked out that way.

[Bill Putnam]

I figured you were just kidding, Kevin.

But I will tell you that all that noise (anonymous attacks, the open talk political forum, etc.) was one of the main reasons that I did not participate more here, and I believe it is one of the reasons Cavechat has the poor reputation that Lee Florea and others have recently mentioned or expressed. To a certain degree, the bad behavior continues today, though in muted form and lesser volume.

Isn't it just possible that anonymity and conflict are related, and that their presence actually discourages good people from participating? In the name of "freedom of speech" could we be handicapping ourselves?

It is entirely possibly, and even pleasurable, to have a lively and spirited debate without the shield of anonymity. We see that every day, and saw many examples last year. Anonymity degrades the quality of debate, and eventually the quantity as well.

I looked at the member list page, as Dan suggested. I have looked at it before, but had never sorted it by the number of posts. If you sort it in descending order you will quickly see that Cavechat is the playground of a just a handful of active people - probably fewer than a typical grotto. Most registered members very rarely post.

With more than 12,000 NSS members to draw on as potential Cavechat posters, why do you suppose that is? Could it have anything to do with the tenor of the postings and activity here? Could that be affected by anonymous posting?

What are the goals and purposes of Cavechat?

Does anonymous posting further those goals and purposes, or does it hinder them?

[shibumi]

To paraphrase:

Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by apathy.

I doubt that 90% of the NSS membership could give you the web address here, let alone
are aware of its existence. That's true of almost any online forum.

[Bill Putnam]

...let the mods deal with it. That's why they get paid the big bucks.

I should have received combat pay for yesterday. You guys are killing me!

Kevin - I think we should double, no, triple your salary!

[Bill Putnam]

To paraphrase:

Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by apathy.

I doubt that 90% of the NSS membership could give you the web address here, let alone
are aware of its existence. That's true of almost any online forum.

Perhaps. But how would we find out? And if it is true, what should we do about it?

If they don't know about it, perhaps we should tell them. How about writing an article on Cavechat for the News? I'm willing to do the work if some of you who are the major players will participate.

Also, how does that explain the fact that 10% of the registered users account for more than 90% of the activity? Why do you suppose the vast majority rarely post? I believe Lee gave us the answer last week. I do not agree with his conclusion (especially since I believe officers and directors are held to different, and higher standards than regular members, and are public figures who should expect criticism) but I totally understand his feelings. I have even felt that way myself on several occasions. ;-)

[graveleye]

Bill, I wasn't aware that cave-chat had a poor reputation. I've found my time here to be quite enjoyable.
Honestly it's been quite amiable up until the past couple of weeks.

We threw out the poli/rel forum, and that put a stop to the flame wars right there and then. People bitched about it for a while but they gave up and went away. It's not allowed here.

You're seeing this from a different perspective. This may seem like I lack a life, but I am on this forum several hours of every day of the week, and have been without fail for over three years. Every day!!! This is my homepage, I log on first thing in the morning and check every thread and pretty much every post throughout the day. Then I go home and check it some more. It's my job. I can tell you and everyone else from experience that the forum is almost never this intense. I am certain that after May, it will get quiet again. I think the other mods will agree with me here in that this is normally a very quiet place with very little trouble.

I'm not saying that I am totally against or for anonymity on this forum. I believe that we will eventually make it so that you'll be required to provide your name. Nothing would stop someone from lying about their name though and I'm pretty sure we're not going to run authenticity checks on every new member.

[shibumi]

Those are actually pretty good numbers. In the earlier days of USENET what we would find in some
of the moderated groups was that less than one percent of the people approved to post ever did
more than one or two posts. And The ratio of readers to posters in the unmoderated groups
was like 1000:1 (it's been so long that I can't remember who was gathering the data, but it was a reliable
source).

Me, I post sporadically, and I'm someone who usually has something to say. In most human endeavors,
most of the people involved are passive, only a small percentage are active.

I'm sure that the level of crap that gets posted drives the numbers down a bit, but I'd be very, very
surprised if it was more than a few percent. A lot of people simply don't have much to say, or are
afraid of speaking publicly, not because of the repercussions, but because of personal insecurity.
And a lot of times people don't post because one of the more vocal people already said what they want
to say.

And there's always the fact that not many people are text oriented.

I think you may be tilting at a windmill, but hey, it's your time :)

[graveleye]

I post because I'm bored at work.

[Scott McCrea]

If they don't know about it, perhaps we should tell them. How about writing an article on Cavechat for the News? I'm willing to do the work if some of you who are the major players will participate.

There was one. About a year or two or so ago. Wayne wrote it. But, it's probably time for another. Therefore, I second Bill's motion that he write an article about Cavechat for submission to the NSS News. All in favor?

[caverdan]

If they don't know about it, perhaps we should tell them. How about writing an article on Cavechat for the News? I'm willing to do the work if some of you who are the major players will participate.

There was one. About a year or two or so ago. Wayne wrote it. But, it's probably time for another. Therefore, I second Bill's motion that he write an article about Cavechat for submission to the NSS News. All in favor?

[NZcaver]

Last night I drafted a response to Bill's comments from yesterday, and then took my own advice about "cooling off" and saved it rather than posting it. Yay me.

Since then, Bill has more-or-less confirmed my suspicions about his motivation for starting this topic (no rocket science required there). Also Scott posted a link to that old poll (good memory!), and I actually recall voting "yes" to that question several years ago. Now I think a new poll is in order, but worded a little differently to accurately reflect the current debate and its possible ramifications. I'll have to add that to my to-do list.

Kevin just said he wasn't aware of this forum having a bad reputation. Neither was I. I can't speak for the other moderators, but I haven't noticed any of us hanging our heads in shame recently because of this alleged bad reputation. And as he said, many of us spend a LOT of time on the forum almost every day. We contribute to topics, discuss issues in private among ourselves, and do other work behind the scenes. Some of us read virtually every post, because it's part of our job. If this idea of a Cavechat article for the NSS News goes ahead, we'll no doubt be investing some time in that too. And we're still waiting for that raise!

Anyway... here's the reply I wrote last night. After re-reading and deeply contemplating, I've decided to go ahead and post it in it's original form.

Personally I disagree that "allowing anonymous posting on Cavechat is bad for the forum and bad for the NSS." However I suspect others here might agree with you.

OK. So you disagree. Why?

Make your case.

Right-o, then. Brace yourself! I hope we can still be friends afterwards.

I think Kevin made an excellent and very reasonable first post in this topic. His major point was about individual rights to privacy. Your reply was that there's no true anonymity on the internet, and all this privacy talk is a red herring. So if this is true I have to ask - why does it matter to you if forum members declare their full names or not? Is it just a matter of principle? If so, doesn't that make you just another person who wants to impose their personal beliefs on others regardless of the will of the majority?

Honestly, I was a little disappointed to see you've found a new cause to fight and another perceived injustice to try and make right. Disappointed because I think it detracts the the "real issues" a renegade BOG candidate such as yourself might otherwise be focusing on. Yes I realize I'm adding to this distraction by debating the issue with you, but I also feel I have a vested interest in the future of the forum. I simply don't see a big problem with the status quo. I think you're still steamed about a certain anonymous poster calling you out on a few things. My theory is that since you're done attacking and unmasking the dastardly messenger, you're now hell bent on trying to change the system and damn the consequences. Something one might expect a pissed-off politician to do. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

First and last name, and NSS number (if a member) would seem to me to be the minimum level of identification. We already require a valid email address for activation, but it is not visible. I don't mind that, because you can send someone a private message. I have no objection to people using nicknames, but their full name (and NSS number, if they have one) should be visible on their profile.

People who refuse to identify themselves are not serious, and should not be taken seriously, or afforded the same privileges as those who stand behind their words.

Only my first name, NSS number and location are visible on my profile. Therefore by your reckoning, I'm one of those people who should not be taken seriously or afforded the same privileges as others because I don't really stand behind my words. Mmmm? Even though I've clocked over THREE THOUSAND posts on the forum (not that I'm counting but the forum does), and have a few other entries in my caving service resume. It's presumptuous of me I know, but I suspect a few of my posts may even be taken seriously.

And of course Bill, you also know me personally so that probably changes things a bit. Would you like me to list the dozens of anonymous and semi-anonymous forum members that I've had the pleasure meeting in person, caving with, corresponding with, hooking them up with other people for trips, etc? Would you really want to tell each and every one of them to cough up their details or leave the forum? Tell these many good people that you'd like them to identify themselves in full, because otherwise they are no better than masked bank robbers or fake ID users? Have us moderators spend a LOT of time trying to police everybody by attempting to establish their true identities?

I contend such action would cause FAR more problems and make the forum into a MUCH more dysfunctional environment than you claim it is now. But I'm also willing to consider reasonable argument about the matter, from others as well as yourself. I'm still waiting for somebody else - anybody else - to really agree with you here.

One of the reasons I have not posted much or participated much in the forum until now is that I do not particularly enjoy arguing with anonymous hair-splitting nitpickers ad nauseum. As recent events have amply demonstrated, I tend to get pissed off and carried away.

No offense, but you know you don't have to participate if you don't want to - right? Of course it would be a very dull and boring place if you didn't.

PS if you do change your mind about anything, that's cool. But please don't edit any more of your previous posts. I won't if you won't.

[Bill Putnam]

Since then, Bill has more-or-less confirmed my suspicions about his motivation for starting this topic (no rocket science required there).

Think again. And if you want to know my motivation, you need only ask. It's exactly as stated above. I have no hidden agendas, and I am not saying this to get even with the people responsible for the anonymous attack. I am generalizing from that incident to what I see as a larger pattern, and applying it to what I believe to be a real problem - lack of participation in Cavechat by NSS members.

Kevin just said he wasn't aware of this forum having a bad reputation. Neither was I.

Of course not. But if all you do is ask one another, you never will be. Ask Lee and Howard and others who are good thoughtful people why they do not read and post here more often. And don't let them get off easy with "I don't have time." That's only part of the story, and makes a good non-threatening excuse.

Right-o, then. Brace yourself! I hope we can still be friends afterwards.

Of course we can! And there's always a beer in my cooler for you, Jansen.

Is it just a matter of principle?

No, as I've said above, I believe it's a real problem that is hurting participation in the forum.

If so, doesn't that make you just another person who wants to impose their personal beliefs on others regardless of the will of the majority?

All I did was make a suggestion, and answer questions and comments about it. How is that imposing my beliefs or will on anybody? Is dissent allowed here, or not? I have no power or authority to impose anything on anyone here. I am just another member with an opinion. The only power I have is the power of my ideas in open debate.

Honestly, I was a little disappointed to see you've found a new cause to fight and another perceived injustice to try and make right. Disappointed because I think it detracts the the "real issues" a renegade BOG candidate such as yourself might otherwise be focusing on.

Give me a break! Haven't I already done more posting about the real issues and my opinions and positions that all the other candidates combined? I am all about the issues! Name an issue I haven't addressed yet, and I'll tell you what I think about that one as well (in the appropriate thread) if anyone can stand it. ;-)

But why aren't you holding any of the other candidates to this standard? They are all in hiding, and you're after me for not addressing the issues? Good grief!

I simply don't see a big problem with the status quo.

Well of course not - you're part of the status quo. Step back and take an unbiased look at all this. Talk to some people you know who are active on email lists and Facebook, but not here. Ask them why not. I think you will see what I am talking about.

I think you're still steamed about a certain anonymous poster calling you out on a few things.

Yes and no. Who wouldn't be? And it does illustrate the larger problem. But if that's all I cared about I would have lodged a complaint (as they did) and abandoned the forum (as they did). It takes a lot to get me mad, and then I'm really mad for a very short time, and then I cool down quickly and move on. And I don't hold grudges. I'm onto something different and hopefully positive, even though I embarked from that bad place. And I won't be getting mad about this, because I don't even have a dog in the hunt.

If you guys want to keep things the way they are, that's fine with me. It's only a suggestion, so feel free to ignore it. But if you ask me questions I'm probably going to answer them.

My theory is that since you're done attacking and unmasking the dastardly messenger, you're now hell bent on trying to change the system and damn the consequences.

Not so. I've believe I've thoughtfully addressed the pros and cons above. If I've missed anything feel free to point that out and ask. And I' not hell-bent on changing anything, except the leadership of the NSS. You can count on that. But this DB is not a big deal to me one way or the other. I just said what I think about an issue that is close to me, and you guys are free to dismiss it or whatever. Won't bother me either way.

Something one might expect a pissed-off politician to do. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

You're very wrong, and you're starting to hurt my feelings.

Only my first name, NSS number and location are visible on my profile. Therefore by your reckoning, I'm one of those people who should not be taken seriously or afforded the same privileges as others because I don't really stand behind my words.

Now you're getting silly. If your NSS number is there you're identified, and you know it. It would be polite of you to include your last name, but I'm not that particular. You asked if I would be happy with that, and I told you what I think. Personally, I would not be, but I could live with something else. I'm not a total absolutist, and I understand compromise.

But if I did not know you personally, yes, I would discount the value I accord to your posts because you did not disclose your true name. True names have power. When you hide them, you lose power. Anonymous words have very little power. Words are taken more seriously when we know whose words they are. You may not like that, but it's just human nature.

And of course Bill, you also know me personally so that probably changes things a bit.

Indeed it does. If I didn't, I might not read your posts at all, and would miss out on some great stuff. I'm not saying that all anonymous posters are bad people. Most are great people, I'm sure, just as most cavers are great people. But there are a few bad apples in every group, and anonymity enables and encourages them to be bad. There is no free lunch - anonymity has a price, and I believe we are paying it in the form of reduced participation. That's all I'm saying.

No offense, but you know you don't have to participate if you don't want to - right?

You make my point for me. I believe that many, many members are taking that option, because the signal to noise ratio on this DB is too low for them. To many, it is simply not fun, and/or a waste of time.

Look, if the majority of the moderators and active participants like things the way they are, fine. I'm happy for all of you. The DB will be exactly what you want. I'll still participate because I feel it's my responsibility to do so. But I don't think it will grow into the resource that you would like it to be. Of course, I could be wrong. What do I know about it anyway? I've only been participating in forums like this for 29 years.


Bill

p.s. I edited my post to make it more clear and avoid further confusion. You can certainly do the same and I won't object. If you think that was cheating or whatever I can put it back or use strikeouts or whatever you think is appropriate. But send me the rulebook, OK, so I can know what you want before, rather than after the fact.


bp

[NZcaver]

Bill, thanks for clarifying things. Nice avatar!

I now see some of your arguments in a new light, and this is good. I apologize if I was a little out of line. Being on the inside, I might just be a tad defensive about issues which I think may affect the future of the forum. I just don't have a huge desire to reinvent the wheel based on the chance this might attract a few more NSS members who otherwise can't be bothered participating. My main concern is for the welfare of our existing forum community, who already actively participate here with relatively few problems.

I do believe we should have that quiet drink together when the opportunity next permits.

I'm taking a break now. See you later.