The Mopologetic Hall of Fame: Pacman Goes Trolling

[_cksalmon]

The back and forth on this thread raises an interesting question: to wit, does an anonymous MD participant have the inherent moral obligation to reveal his/her anonymous handle on another significantly-related MB?

I think ultimately, I'd say, no, I think. I'm not sure that any "oughtness" is entailed here.

That said, the vast majority of posters here at MD, (I'd argue) in the spirit of politic conscientiousness, are quite unreserved about their respective MADB identities, past or present. Consider, to mention but a few, the cases CaliforniaKid, Mister Scratch, Dr. Shades, Ray A, beastie, David Bokovoy (a.k.a. Enuma Elish), Benjamin McGuire, Uncle Dale, runtu (a.k.a. Not Quite Me), Consiglieri, myself, Kevin Graham, Bond...James Bond, Moksha and countless others too numerous to mention. In fact, I'm not aware of any MADB poster being suspected of hiding his/her MADB identity other than Darkness. Perhaps there are some. Perhaps they're too clever for me to suss.

Is this person doing something technically or morally "wrong" or "unprecedented"? Probably not. Is he/she doing something inherently counterproductive to the open exchange of ideas in a public sphere for reasons that can only be construed as self-serving? I think probably so.

I, too, assume that the poster in question is a visitor from MABD. Perhaps he/she needs a fresh start without the baggage entailed in owning his/her MADB identity...?

Such a move doesn't tend to elicit trust, though, does it? (And trust is the online currency of MBs--easily given; easily lost)

Best.

CKS

I don't think Darkness should give up their identity...apparently there are some other MAD posters (See this thread) posting here under different identities. I think this new poster should be allowed to keep their identity secret. If they post like they do on MAD then the identity will probably become known either way. Of course speculation about if they're a sockpuppet is fair game, but I don't think they should have to give in to demands about their other posting ID. Demanding Darkness to give up their identity while not making other MADB posters declare their identities would make us hypocrites. Let this poster remain anonymous. It sounds like some posters have ideas already anyway.

Essentially, I agree Bond...James Bond (if that is your real name). Again, I really don't think any "oughtness" is entailed here. I say, let him/her do as he/she darn well pleases.

That said, not giving up one's relevant and anonymous MADB handle would seem to be an instance of "self-serving-ness." Perhaps it is justified; perhaps it's not. I don't want an address or phone number. And I'm perfectly content with his/her not identifying him-/herself with regard to an anonymous handle on MADB. I frankly don't really care that much.

We, as MB participants, are comfortable with varying degrees of openness. No crime there. I began posting on MADB (then FAIRboards.org) with my in real life name simply because I'm involved with an "anti-Mormon" ministry that comes into contact (infrequently) with prominent LDS at BYU. I figured it would be better, all things considered, to be transparent in that regard (if only to keep me honest), rather than assume an identity difficult or impossible to track in the real world. Others are not comfortable with that level of openness, for personal reasons that I'm not privy to and possibly couldn't even fathom. I have no problem with that, on either side. I'm certainly no judge in this matter. I don't care, frankly, where Polygamy Porter resides or what his children's names are, etc. None of my business.

I do think it inhibits a certain amount of web decorum, however, to intentionally hide one's would-be-known (yet anonymous!) web identity with regard to an established posting history within a discourse-specific context. Again, no crime there. It's just a bit off-putting, that's all.

I hold nothing against Darkness based on his/her refusal to divulge rightly confidential information. I am just reticent to extend "web-based trust" (whatever that may mean) in him/her. There's no reason why that should overly concern Darkness. We give what we're comfortable giving in these forums. No more; no less.

Best.

CKS

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't think Darkness should give up their identity...apparently there are some other MAD posters (See this thread) posting here under different identities. I think this new poster should be allowed to keep their identity secret. If they post like they do on MAD then the identity will probably become known either way. Of course speculation about if they're a sockpuppet is fair game, but I don't think they should have to give in to demands about their other posting ID. Demanding Darkness to give up their identity while not making other MADB posters declare their identities would make us hypocrites. Let this poster remain anonymous. It sounds like some posters have ideas already anyway.

Eh, I don't know if I agree, Mr. Bond. The reason why other MAD posters cannot declare their identities is due to the fact that they would be punished on MAD. I doubt very much that ALitD would ever be punished by the fittingly named MADmods, provided that s/he continues to tow the line of orthodoxy, of course.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Eh, I don't know if I agree, Mr. Bond. The reason why other MAD posters cannot declare their identities is due to the fact that they would be punished on MAD. I doubt very much that ALitD would ever be punished by the fittingly named MADmods, provided that s/he continues to tow the line of orthodoxy, of course.

Since I don't know who is using aliases from MAD and posting here I can't really comment on the possible punishment...obviously some posters have some immunity due to their standing as pundits and so forth. But if we ask Darkness to give up his/her identity, what's to stop an apologist poster here from asking those MAD posters posting under different names here to give up their identities (especially in order to be able to learn the posters posting style and position history on LDS topics)?

[_Mister Scratch]

Eh, I don't know if I agree, Mr. Bond. The reason why other MAD posters cannot declare their identities is due to the fact that they would be punished on MAD. I doubt very much that ALitD would ever be punished by the fittingly named MADmods, provided that s/he continues to tow the line of orthodoxy, of course.

Since I don't know who is using aliases from MAD and posting here I can't really comment on the possible punishment...obviously some posters have some immunity due to their standing as pundits and so forth. But if we ask Darkness to give up his/her identity, what's to stop an apologist poster here from asking those MAD posters posting under different names here to give up their identities (especially in order to be able to learn the posters posting style and position history on LDS topics)?

As I noted on my other thread, there *are* MAD posters who feel the need to adopt sockpuppets here in order to avoid censure on MAD. However, I can tell you that ever single one of these posters, as far as I am aware, is a critic on MAD. Thus, ALitD is breaking with precedent: a MAD stalwart who is evidently so embarrassed about his/her involvement on MAD that s/he feels the need for a sockpuppet. It's not that any of us---or any of the Mods here---would "punish" ALitD, it's just that we would know his/her history. That, to me, is the principal difference: all we are asking for is knowledge. There would be no retribution in the form of bannings/queueings. On the other hand, at MAD, you can bet your sweet bippy that the critics would be made to suffer in some way, shape, or form. This is just yet another instance of the double standard that is applied by the Good Folks at MAD.

[_beastie]

Scratch,

I'm pretty certain that "light" has already posted here under another name, and it is likely THAT history he is attempting to escape.

[_Bond...James Bond]

As I noted on my other thread, there *are* MAD posters who feel the need to adopt sockpuppets here in order to avoid censure on MAD. However, I can tell you that ever single one of these posters, as far as I am aware, is a critic on MAD.

I figured so...but didn't want to assume they (however many there are) were all critics.

Thus, ALitD is breaking with precedent: a MAD stalwart who is evidently so embarrassed about his/her involvement on MAD that s/he feels the need for a sockpuppet.

Let's not forget Opie Rockwell and Monitor ;o)

It's not that any of us---or any of the Mods here---would "punish" ALitD, it's just that we would know his/her history. That, to me, is the principal difference: all we are asking for is knowledge.

Well then let us hope Darkness will shed a little Light on the situation. ;o)

There would be no retribution in the form of bannings/queueings. On the other hand, at MAD, you can bet your sweet bippy that the critics would be made to suffer in some way, shape, or form. This is just yet another instance of the double standard that is applied by the Good Folks at MAD.

Yeah...Shades is too laid back to ban anyone. Come on Darkness....end the suspense!