I think we would probably all agree that pseudos are a lot of fun.  But
how about pseudos that aren't designed for "fun" -- but to hide someone's
identity?  Is that okay on a bbs?

28 responses total.

hide for what purposes? privacy? protection? vindictiveness? other? are
we discussing "spite"? kali? mulberry? ted?

"Fun" and hiding of one's identity are compatible activities.

If person X posts things anonymously, and these postings result in
an undeserved problem for person Y that would not be a problem for
Y if X posted the same things non-anonymously, then one can fairly
say that X is abusing anonymity.

Or if X uses the pseudo simply to vent hostility, and attack Y, when X
would not do so non-anonymously.
Obnoxiousness without the threat of reprisal is unpleasant.

What if X uses a pseudo to vent hostility, and attack X?  It would look
pretty silly if done non-anonymously.

If somebody does that, I can't help them.
Self-flagellation is not encouraged.

(now, I coudl see a couple of people here doing so, attacking their "real"
personas, just to create or maintain an image as "injured party"...hmmn...)

Daniel Napolitano created me to cast aspersions on his character.

no, i'd have done a better job, really. <whoosh>.

<whoosh>?

(i was just reaching.)

Hmmn...
More than a little strange.
I knew I shouldn't hang out in this cf.

Are we discussing me? Can I cast aspersions on somebody? Have I?

You have, but they only went so far as you could throw them.

Well, I'm glad you noticed where they landed. Please, be electronically
responsible and recycle them. Even recycled, they're a better product
than your new stuff.

I can see some real problems arisising from pseudo masks used for libel
or slander.  The Constitution states, in the Sixth Amendment:
[The accused shall enjoy the right]; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his 
favor,"
How can one defend him/herself against attacks from parties using 
pseudos for damaging statements (substantiated or not) if you can't 
identify them?  Can they be compelled to identify themselves?  Can the
sysop compel someone to confirm their real identity before being allowed
online?

The passage from the Constitution refers to people formally
accused of crimes by the state, not to private speech.  If
somebody says something derogatory about me, I can't "compel"
people with the opposite opinion to speak in my favor.

Owners of bbs's can, of course, require validation of users if
they want to.  But they don't have to.  And it has nothing to
do with the "rights of the accused".

Can a pseudo slander a pseudo? 

If anyone can, I'll bet you could! :)
I have faith in you, my psuedo...

Faith can be a dangerous thing.

Not as long as you fall well.

When I was young, I attended a small catholic high school with a girl 
named Faith. The sisters found this nowhere near as funny as the pupils.
Neither was Faith amused, and she exacted revenge (for teasing) at every 
opportunity. She particularly reveled in convincing other girls that they
were going to hell, no matter what.

Did they?

Go look.

I called.  They said they'd been looking for you because you'd been
away quite a while.

They asked you to pick up some milk on the way home.

Don't milk me! =)

There are too many 12-13 little boys on m-net and grex who feel the need to
create pseudos and cause trouble with them. I can usually spot them. when 
I do confront them, the majority of the time the fool will deny it. pitiful.

I deny it.

he too!

Da Uff

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss