PALEIF, a choice to not use a real name on this site is not about honesty or dishonesty for many of us. It is about being able to comment without our views having a potential impact on careers, it's about being able to relate personal experiences without having the flow on effect of identifying others involved.

It involves the reality that not everybody we encounter on line respects boundaries, I don't want one of our religious nutters on my door step preaching at me, I don't wish to be assaulted because someone didn't like what I said here, I don't want someone at C$A adding me to their little hit list because they don't like my views about their organisation.

For many of us it is a responsible choice.

I've seen nothing in my time on OLO to suggest that those who use real names are in any way more polite, honest or rational than those who choose an alias.

Rather our perceptions and values relating to privacy and risk are different.

R0bert

I think PALEaIF are showing their sense of humour R0bert.
On the issue of honesty in names......hummm?

___________________________

I'm still trying to get the hang of the black v the red threads! The posting limit is very frustrating, and the autocensor reminds me of a headmistress I once fell foul of!

IF this structure IS resulting in dual/multi ID's; then it defeats its own purpose.

I've got to concur with R0Bert there PALEIF.
There are posters here who I wouldn't trust with my identity.

How about if we split the difference and make it three (3)!

OLO most definitely needs posting limits that are strict and apply to all.

My main gripe is the presence of cheaters who blatantly go under two names. I can’t imagine why on earth the moderator would allow this for one moment.

OK, so they can then presumably come back on the forum in a surreptitious manner. I don’t suppose there is a lot that the moderator can do about that.

But for the moderator to be seen to not be policing his own strict rules is a bad look indeed.

.
I’d suggest that four posts on the general threads in 24 hours is just fine. But THREE posts on article threads would be better than two. And perhaps six article posts in total in 24 hours instead of five.

.
“PALEIF a choice to not use a real name on this site is not about honesty or dishonesty for many of us.”

Too right R0bert. For some of us it is really irksome to have to go under a ‘spewdonym’ in order to avoid potential conflict with one’s employer! In fact I strongly protest about not being able to express my own views under my own name….and my views are the most eminently sensible views of anyone on this forum!! (:>|

I agree with PALEIF on the use of pseudonyms. Dishonesty and cowardice are probably too strong a terms but they are definitely the ones that come to mind for me. I can see RObert's reasoning but for most people using your Christian name should still gives a high degree of anonymity surely. The main drawback that I see is that it can expose you to sexist, racist and possibly ageist stereotyping, especially in the minds of some posters. I still strongly believe though that an opinion worth having is worth putting your name to.