Posted by spoc on June 26, 2004, at 17:46:11
In reply to Re: starting over, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2004, at 16:06:21
> > I do realize that there are important cases of real-life need to change names... I just don't know that the decision to do so without *any* statement as to why is the one (...went on to say "to be defended/informally condoned by Admin..")
> >
> > spoc
>
> Hmm, you're suggesting that people also be required to post a reason when they change their name?
>
> Bob<<<<< I just like to examine all angles. I meant pretty much literally what I said, before truncation, above. That maybe people can't or shouldn't be made to give a reason (they could say whatever they wanted anyway), but that I think it should be encouraged by Admin, rather than stoically defending the choice of total anonymity. It seems to me that should just be known as the riskier and less desireable way, including in the tone about it from management.
Please, everyone know that I do respect that some do have an IRL need to change names as quietly as possible. My point, for the others not giving any reason at all, was just to weigh it extremely carefully; be prepared for whatever does and doesn't happen because of it; and understand why others may feel the way they do.
No one has anything to go on, and that person would likely feel the same themself. If someone was making crank phone calls to you, you wouldn't necessarily become willing to pick up the phone for them again just because they started calling from a different number. Or, if someone upset you past your limit, then came back wearing a mask, thinking that should be all it takes. Regardless of whether the person actually does offend again in the above cases is just not all there is to it. You might well say, "Good luck with THAT! But sorry, I have to pass." And that would be reasonable, or at least you'd probably want that right.
Which leads in to.... I was hoping you'd respond to whether the following brought the point home or not, about whether having a "fresh start" forced (for lack of better word) on one is such a bad thing:
> > I think the difference is that the someone may have had an upleasant interaction with the poster whose name has been changed.
>
> True, in that case, it's like giving them a chance to start over. Is that a bad thing?
>
> Bob> > I'm guessing that to those people, it probably feels the same as it does to you when someone gives themself a "fresh start" by sneaking back in under a new name while blocked.
>
> > It may not seem the same to you because you call the shots and in one of the scenarios, you apparently hadn't found the name changer unredeemably uncivil, or uncivil at all. But the poster affected may not have agreed on that ruling, or could have been justified in feeling offended even if technically no rules were broken. It's subjective -- people just like to decide for themselves whether a fresh start is warranted, and want their decisions respected, exactly as you do by making circumventing your blocks an offense of the highest order (I'm assuming you don't do that *only* because you are certain the person will again wreak havoc).
poster:spoc
thread:358482
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040527/msgs/360728.html