Personally, I am all for anonymity. That being said I have always used my legal name (or a close version of) as a handle across all sites that I might be a member or even just occasional commenter on and even on my blog.

As i said on TC awhile back i think it has always made me a more thoughtful commentator or poster. Although, i can certainly understand certain cases where people want to vent etc anonymously.

Care to give any more hints as to new version or Archinect?

Thanks Nam. Details on the new Archinect will be forthcoming, in a separate context, and will be introduced first, in beta form, to a select group of Archinect's long-term and more prominent participants. (You will be included, of course)

like nam, i don't take advantage of anonymity. at least not often ;) .

but i do think it's important to the liveliness and lessening-of-inhibitions anonymity makes possible. if everone were 'real' i think archinect would be much more dull.

i realize that you've had some issues to deal with because of folks abusing their anonymous status, spouting things they'd never say under their own names, but i hope that this has been a reasonable burden and that these few instances wouldn't trigger you to change things.

i'm not enough of a legal mind to be able to comment about any liabilities that you might encounter, but i haven't seen archinect 'outing' anyone anyway. as long as people are free to blow their cover on their own, you should be ok, right?

sometimes i tend to get a little ryled up at times, but who doesn't, and therefore wish there was an 'edit/delete' button

as for the new version, can i suggest an 'ignore' button/feature along with putting the page numbers at the top (so i don't have to wait for pages/images to load to get to the bottom)

I think it is very easy to take advantage of anonymous screen names, but at the same time opens up the conversation to more people that would otherwise not enter the conversation. Hypothetically, if I were forced to use my real name, I would not join the conversation as often. Hell, I submit few posts as it is relatively (even though I write them out), even with my screen name that has no association with my real name. The responsibility to not do unethical acts or unlawful acts is on the individual, anonymous or not.

For me, my screen name is still an extension of my identity. The screen name may not reflect my real name, but I still feel that it reflects my personality, tastes, and etc.

So anonymity isn't perfect. But it allows a bigger pool of identities, even if that may include undesirable individuals. It still makes room for more opportunities and platforms for conversations and connections.

As to the question of the newspaper being sued by a judge: there is really no ironclad guarantee of anonymity, ever, especially by a news-reporting organization doing their own investigation, and a judge breaking an expectation of ethical and professional behavior is not only completely in the wrong, it's also definitely news-worthy.

I like having the choice to be anonymous, and I think on a website where a lot of people bitch about their jobs the camaraderie that springs up between anonymous people who understand one another's situation can be very valuable.

That said, on a professionally-based site such as Archinect anonymous personal attacks (both of individuals and of firms) really can't be tolerated, and though it means more work for moderators and for you, Paul, I think a clearly-stated and robust policy (which we now have, after all) is necessary.

Anonymity and fun is what Archinect was all about before it started selling classified ads for $100 each. From pimping Architecture to Pimping Architects in 10 years.

there's archinect and then there's thread central where mostly everybody already knows each other personally. that's pretty cool.
but lately some of these people tend to stay inside this safe thread and don't venture so much outside as before. and I wouldn't blame them, it's been nasty for a while (hope the trolls don't come back too soon).
I think it boils down to exactly this issue of anonymity versus showing your real identity to all the loonies out there.
I wouldn't want to use my real name, but I practice restraint nevertheless (perhaps so much as to not make the cut into the select group of pro-eminent posters:))

No comment. >:3

wait, we're 'select' because we don't practice 'restraint'?!

--

"...help nurture a new form of communication that can't exist in real life, or does it simply break down any sort of productive discourse?"

i'll venture to say that i think anonymity, like the 140wd limit on twitter, has helped nurture a new form of communication. though they're opposites, really. while twitter requires specifically chosen words, anonymity allows an un-edited spilling over of one's thoughts. one can test ideas, feel out how things sound and how they play with others, without having to take full responsibility for those thoughts.

i would not say that anonymity breaks down productive discourse. that is caused by a very particular choice: the decision to disrupt. even a nasty argument has the potential to be productive discourse. it's when commentary devolves to willful destruction of any vestige of civil conversation that things go wrong.

steven, i just wished that there was more of an overlap between thread central and the rest of the threads. like there was more accountability in the general threads. perhaps then the regular posters of thread central would engage more outside of TC (which has become a sort of refuge, lately).
The select thing was a reference to Paul's post above about the impeding arrival of the next version of Archinect, by invitation only in beta.

impending, that is

But seriously, I do agree with c.k., ManBearPig, Slart and, well, most of the people here.

Participation, I think, is the most important thing. I'm a little peeved that some people complain about the quality of the discussions but contribute little to anything other than the occasional "you suck." Fair enough but I believe it is a pay-to-play situation-- one must "pay (that is, contribute-- share their opinions, intellectual bounty and personal work) to play (getting the ability to compare their ideas, abilities and fantasies {for a lack of a better word}) with others.

Because I have personally seen the work of some of these individuals (who go out of their way to show it), I don't not necessarily mind getting told to "eat it." That's half the fun! The other half of the fun is making a doodle in sketchup or illustrator or whatever and then getting compliments and recognition for it!

That being said, I make both good and horrible contributions! And while I am certainly to be held accountable for the terror, I do take time to provide quality.

I would gladly post non-anonymously (my temper tantrums, making fun of GSD kids, crass sketchup skills have seemingly spread much father than I had ever imagined!) given more opportunities of valid participation (call for ideas, competitions et cetera). Archinect certainly has the infrastructure and brand identity to do that (even on a lesser serious scale).

And as far as Donna's point and ManbearPigs point, I have worked in the wild world of publishing and they both have valid points. Salacious gossip and personal attacks can be made tolerable (and legally) given specific phrasing. People love mostly unture image-damaging gossip! But... to ManBearPig's objection, it is hard to mix the power of press with the power of advertising.

I think given opportunities to allow people to share in other arenas will allow for the expression that people crave while being advertising friendly. And anything that is advertising friendly is really also "real name" friendly. Perhaps more op/eds, a "man on the street" feature (participants must provide a photo, real name to voice their opinion), competitions. These things require diligent volunteers (and paid employees) though.

That's my brass penny.

I agree with the statements above that anonymity allows people to be slightly more open than they would if their true identity were known. In some cases I believe it helps to nourish the trolls that were a while so prevalent. I feel that anonymity can lead to more harshness online as there is no "real" consequence. I think Donna, though, is right, there is no ironclad guarantee of anonymity these days. All that being said, I feel my screen name persona is a lot nicer, a lot more patient and a lot more diplomatic than my real persona.

what anonymity allows - as steven and others have noted - is the testing of ideas or thoughts, even tirades, without having it come back to bite you. this is not like a speech act, where something said in the course of heated discussion will come back to bite later, this medium, and print in general, allows for distortion, things taken out of context and the inevitable trouble that will ultimately ensue. i have considered moving from beta to my real name, but i know that there are things i have written, with the express purpose to; upset, derail or just honest thoughts, that given the nature of the internet, would allow for someone to either misrepresent me or seriously distort/malign my character. there are people here that i talk to or meet with that know, while i may be passionate about many things, i am not the in least like the person some here might think i am.

so i am torn.

I had initially started posting for support in dealing with a difficult situation at a former office - which these days I'd definitely think twice about, knowing who reads these forums... i don't think I would have ever started posting if my name were public (and if I did, I know I wouldn't be as silly). although I'm sure if someone who knew me tried hard enough they'd figure it out.

plus my relative anonymity gives me a chance to gain respect through my words and how I respond to things instead of who I am in real life. It's also very easy to take people out of context if they change their minds later on in a thread and over time, and I'm not sure I want how I was thinking 2 or 3 years ago hanging over me.

I'm currently riding a fine line: my handle is "anonymous" but it's very easy to find out through my profile who I really am. I figure that if someone really wants to know, then fine, and that keeps me in check to a certain extent. On the other hand, googling my real name doesn't bring up every comment I've ever made on archinect, which I appreciate.

c.k. I'll try to venture "outside" a little more often...

the anonymous me is much more interesting than the real me. i think it should be mentioned that when it comes to your job you have no first amendment rights. for example, blackturtleneck5000 may worry that criticizing her employer could get her fired but, in fact, any position that an employer disagrees with could get her fired. let's say for example, her boss is a prolife advocate and blackturtleneck5000 makes a pro choice statement on her facebook page or here on archinect. the employer could fire blackturtleneck5000 on this alone and the courts have upheld similar cases.

just a note to c.k. and then i'll leave the TC critiques behind: i actually don't sequester myself in TC, and i'd guess that few others do.

i mean this is in the best possible way but TC has become kind of archinects' version of the necessary junk drawer - things go there that don't fit other places and it's almost always the most interesting place in the kitchen.

i, personally, scan the discussion board on a regular basis. when something catches my eye, i read and, if moved to do so, i post. i'll admit that, during the recent spate of nastiness, there was less on the discussion board that i found of interest than in the past. seems like things are up and rolling again now.

Anonymity allows you to express your thoughts in Public, as if you were in a Private conversation. Conversely, a Real name forces you to express your thoughts Public-ly, in a calculated and politically correct manner, or you're screwed. There is obvious abuses in both forums.
In many ways a Fake name offers more REAL discourse - without inhibition, and Real name often yields your typical FAKE bullshit - especially from the self-righteous who want to be accredited with making love, not war.

no criticism whatsoever, the recent spat of nastiness was a turn off to many people and I sense that preventing future outbursts is what paul here may be trying to resolve.

(that said, I do keep up with TC, reading only, because I enjoy how genuine architecture discussions mesh organically with advice on how to keep children asleep at night)

Anonymity can be a double-edged sword in an environment like this.

On the one hand, anonymity easily can lead to the decline of any discussion forum, as some individuals hide behind anonymity to engage in abusive or self-absorbed behavior. That's a problem that can be managed, if not wholly avoided, by enlightened moderators.

On the other hand, some people here may hold a fairly prominent role in their firm or in the profession, which is my situation. While far from famous, my name is reasonably well known in national professional circles. Consequently, I have an affirmative responsibility not to put my professional colleagues, my firm, my partners, or our clients in a position where their privacy or their professional reputations are at risk.

While I doubt I've ever written anything on Archinect that would create such problems, I probably would not have been nearly so candid or complete in my posts if I knew other readers could trace those comments back to my firm or my professional associations. When I post as Quizzical, I'm posting strictly as an individual. Were I to post using my real name, it is inevitable that I would be posting - however indirectly - in a manner that could reflect on my firm, my partners, my colleagues and our clients. I simply cannot allow that to happen.

I come to Archinect to learn and, where possible, to educate. I try to be thoughtful about my posts. Where practical to do so, I try to share some of what I've learned over a long period of successful practice. In my case, I'm confident my ability to contribute would be compromised were I writing in the open. Based on the many private e-mails I've received in connection with my posts, I am equally confident I do make a valuable contribution—especially to younger archinectors—when I participate behind the veil.

In the end, any discussion forum that allows anonymity must rely on the goodwill and judgment of its member and, perhaps, some sort of formal moderation. On the whole, I enjoy the wide-open spirit of Archinect. However, especially during those times when we spin completely out of control, I feel the need for more formal regulation so threads don't degenerate so quickly and thoroughly into vapid wastes of time.

i really like not knowing me but more and more where i am i feel i am just a fly on the wall - ok email me and i will tell you who i am. doesnt matter!

Nobody cares who any of you are.

I'm not Brad Pitt

Great responses so far. A lot of very insightful comments. I'm listening... Thanks!

Paul,

I keep going back to your opening:
We receive a lot of requests;
and your question:
At what point does a publication have an obligation to make public the identity of an individual who is potentially breaking the law, or a public servant who is acting unethically?

I guess that would be my question to you. While the majority of requests may be to remove content or comments from the individuals who actually submitted them, what about those requests from other individuals or groups requesting their identity? What is Archinect's policy? At what point would it change its position?

I recall long ago (maybe spring 2005?) there was a Yale thread (Yale blows?) I don't remember all the details, but I vaguely recall things getting out of hand and people begging to have the thread removed, which it eventually was . . . I think.

I think that's a different and far easier case from say, an agency requesting someone's identity. But you can tie them together: an individual makes sexual or racial comments to another individual or exposes their identity; the victim requests from Archinect their identity . . . what do you do?

Since I'm asking so many questions, I should probably answer a few of yours. I'm not sure anonymity does exist online. Recall the Whole Foods CEO using a pseudonym to boost Whole Foods name and blast its rival, Wild Oats Markets. To the extent that someone does post unethical or immoral comments, the risk of their anonymity decreases; with or without the site's assistance.
Having said that ... I don't know.
But I know how we can find out: for one week, let's all use our real names ...

de Architectura - over the years we've received a few requests to disclose the identity of a user. In most situations we have no idea what the real identity of the user is, but if we did, we would NEVER reveal that identity to anybody. There is no information about an Archinect member that would ever be revealed to any person, company, or organization. This includes, but is not limited to, their email address, location, IP address, name, etc.

Conversely - does a licensed architect using their real name on an architecture message board open themselves up to potential liability issues?

Or am I just being paranoid?

two observations - first, i'm in complete agreement with quizzical. except we're not so famous. that small detail aside, the kinds of commentary i'm willing to participate in would certainly be tempered a bit. not that i've regretted anything posted here either, but ..... it would be a bit different.

second - and in direct to paul's last post above - about a month ago i accidentally figured out who piggy/obi wan/winston smith is in real life. it had nothing to do with this site - we just happened to be on another listserv together and the tone/rhetoric/prose of their responses there was so similar it was hard not to notice. suffice to say i'm 100% positive it was the same person. so, here i've got their email, address, phone, name - everything. as my name might allude to, i've been on the opposite end of someone's else's particular ax. even without that though, the thought of 'outing' this particular person - even after being directly attacked by them in a post - never seriously entered into my thinking. even now, after they've been banned, what would the point be? i think the 'code' of protecting the anonymity is much more important and, besides, it's certainly not my website. i'm a guest here, as we all are.

if the site were to flip to a 'real' name status, i'd be fine. following one wise person's example here, it's a step that will be undertaken gradually anyways...

'direct response'. add the extra word...

I'm all for anonymity..
I haven't seen it get horrible here, like it does in newspaper forums. maybe because we all have architecture as a common ground? and were not ordinary members of the public.

it would be nice if, for the new version of archinect, when you click on multi-page threads, that they open on the last page. with page numbers and the first post at the top. just my opinion :)

on the contrary, Archinect has always been really great about helping members conceal identities. I know there have been occasions where someone has let another member's real name slip or posted a photo without permission and Paul has been kind enough to remove the post upon request from the outed party. I've always really appreciated knowing that is an option.

I know I'm just being repetitious at this point since most views points have been expressed, but I think the user name system in place now suits the site well.

Obviously there has been (and will continue to be) people that take advantage of anonymity to troll threads, but there's such a good level of positive discourse and healthy conversation on this site that real identities don't seem necessary. Though there are a handful of people on here who do know the "real phuyake", I doubt I would post as much as I do now if I had to use my name. Not because I'm embarrassed or incriminated by what I'm saying, but I like to keep my self-googling page results under 5 for perspective stalkers.

It is a required part of the progression,you let in the the bad with the good.

Architizer is real name only, right? (I still haven't signed up over there.) It's nice to have different sites serve different needs. The only problem with anonymity is personal attacks, outing of others (as happened to outed above), and the conversation sometimes devolving into "You pee like a girl!" level snark. Which also has its place and can be fun when it doesn't completely drown out the ability of others to continue the conversation.

Example: the hottest female architect thread from years ago was fun, and mostly restrained enough, though when at least one inappropriate thing was posted Paul took it down at the request of the person whose real name/image was put up w/o their knowledge.

c.k., you're right that a lot of TC regulars disappeared into TC for awhile there - I know I did simply because I was exhausted of feeling like I had to defend against idiotic attack comments while being accused of being a fascist for asking that the conversation be kept civil. The discussion forum policy has really helped.

archinect is as good as the voices that participate, anonymous or not. lately, there has been poor participation by the people who have a voice and a compelling point of view, and the site has suffered. i don't believe this has anything to do with online identity.

I like to remain anonymous, not because it lets me be crude and inflammatory, but because it lets me self-disclose about life and work in online discussions without enabling the entire planet (specifically, trolls and potential employers) to know too much about me. Paul's initial post above illustrates the possible dangers of having too much information out there.

And civility and manners shouldn't just fly out the window when one uses a screen name, for God's sake.

Anonymous is a necessity. I've been here a long, long time and those that know me can easily pick out who I am (and those I have met from here too).
Also, I have become quite attached to my name here, going on something like 10 years!! I cherish coming here, to be honest, and have enjoyed learning and contributing over the years.


But, as a business owner, I would never want any comment anywhere searchable on the internet. I still have an annoying comment I made in a 3D forum as the first thing that shows up - very frustrating.


So, anonymity is a necessity to get honesty. Without it, many of us would not post here, just not worth the risk.



An EDIT button, though, would eliminate the problems you are facing and be quite welcome.

Just don't let this place turn into the comment section of Treehugger.

Talk about intellectual poison, amirite?

I feel your pain, Trace. Back in the early days of the WWW, I posted many comments in my real name to message boards, list-servs, etc. for things I was into as a teenager. Even tongue-in-cheek posts don't read as such anymore and today, 15 years later, Googling my uncommon name allows the searcher a look at all of my seriously embarrassing opinions and tastes from 1994-1996.

Serious design flaw that early Internet adopters got toasted by naivete in the days before google worms roamed the web.

para, that's exactly what i am talking bout. zero context, zero appreciation for tongue in cheek...the climate emails are case in point; isolate a few emails, leave out context, and voila - shit storm.

I am really torn with this one. As many have said, anonymity allows a greater degree of freedom, frankness and honesty. It also provides cover for defamation, rudeness and irresponsibility. Unfortunately, I know I've used it for both (though hopefully much more for the former). There are things that I have written in the past that I know I would not have said using my actual name, and that I now wish I could take back. For that reason, I am actually somewhat opposed to anonymity.

However, as many of us openly discuss issues regarding practice, our work, those we work with, and many other sensitive subjects, anonymity is necessary. It's unfortunate that the same thing that allows us to speak freely about private things in an open, honest forum also enables (and encourages) us to be less considerate about what we say.

I used to use my real name to write fairly liberal responses on the comments section of a rather conservative local newspaper back home. Most of the commenters tended to be quite conservative, and like Archinect, there was no automatic moderator review or requirement to use your own name. Once, and the last time I used my real name as an online poster, an anonymous rebutter somehow found that I had recently changed my residency and posted such as a means of saying that I should not be commenting on local issues. I was deeply disturbed that someone hiding behind a false identity would have the audacity to openly reveal something rather personal based on my willingness to use my real name.

This incident alone makes me ultimately come down in favor of anonymity. Unfortunately, as long as someone outside our community, someone unwilling to reveal themselves honestly, is able to look up our comments and use that information for whatever purpose they choose, anonymity remains essential to allowing the community to function. I'm not sure where this will all go in the future--as we increasingly socialize online, as there continues to be an enormous and growing paper trail on everyone, and as there becomes an increased hunger for and exposure of dirt on each other, will this reliance on online anonymity lead to a refuge or a depository of vitriol?

I think it's good to remember, and comforting in many ways, to realize that our online anonymity, while currently necessary and protective, is really superficial--our online identities can be traced in many ways, and many of us know each other by our real names. I think this bodes well for anonymity ultimately promoting openness over irresponsibility.

i don't even think of this stuff anymore. if i have something to say, i say it and keep going. it is up to others to figure out what to do with them. what i say here, i'll say it in physical public spaces too. i have anonymous names as well. internet is a fairly new place and many in public forums still use it in boring ways. archinect is a much better than most forums i sometimes browse.
but internet is full of people trying to prove they are rightful and correct at any given moment. that is the boring part... kind of a conversation killer... and for many, posting is an anxiety and anonymity takes the edge off.

i know who TED is. hi!

i recently decided to switch to my real name because you could find it out with a click or two anyway, and i didn't have any particular reason to be anonymous.

Under my cloak of anonymity, archinect is one of the few places where I am not bound to the high professional standards that chafe me throughout my workday. It's the only venue I have to speak frankly about the profession, shit that bugs me, and solicit advice from folks who won't hold my stupidity against me in any work context where I masquerade as someone who knows what they are talking about.

While the transparency offered by posting under real names might have some benefit and keep folks accountable, it's also important to remember that too transparency causes glare and poor envelope performance. The dark, shadowy corners of the internet and the world both need protecting.

Hi agfa!

Hi Paul! Didn't realize this was you or I would have stopped by sooner...

Oh look agfa8x has his real name out... hi agfa!

Although I've been enjoying the recent trend of folks on this site switching to their regular names, I have and use my "anonymous" name much more frequently because I have always thought there ought to be some distinction between business and party-time. It's like a mullet, which was used as an analogy recently on another thread, but it's true: I have my "business" screen name, which represents my professional self and then this "party" screen name, which is still me but I get to be silly and use the occasional 4-letter word. And Archinect is a place of both for me, although I default to the silly.

As many have already said, if I couldn't be anonymous I would probably post a lot less. But I like having the cloak around just in case.

Sincerely,
-dubK aka the "party" end of the mullet

I like it that users can reveal their identity as and when they choose. I will probably be a little more open once a few things change.

I am more interested in this from Paul - Details on the new Archinect will be forthcoming, in a separate context, and will be introduced first, in beta form, to a select group of Archinect's long-term and more prominent participants

Hi Abra!

you might know my name ... not certain you know who I am?

isn't Volume an Alias for Rem Koolhaas?

________________________________

Esmeralda: "What is your name?"

Butch: "Butch."

Esmeralda: "What does it mean?"

Butch: "I'm American, honey. Our names don't mean shit."