Forum Etiquette
Posted by: JamieL_v2 on 04 January 2011
There are a number of forum members I know outside these pages and I never know whether to call them their real name or their user name when replying on the forum. i.e. Bill or Westlock11.
By having a user name there is a little privacy, and using a real name might expose that. On the other hand using someone's user name seems a little like calling a friend by their surname, a little rude.
How do others feel about this, or is it a complete irrelevance.
I wonder what other little idiosyncrasies exist in writing on the forums.
Jamie
By having a user name there is a little privacy, and using a real name might expose that. On the other hand using someone's user name seems a little like calling a friend by their surname, a little rude.
How do others feel about this, or is it a complete irrelevance.
I wonder what other little idiosyncrasies exist in writing on the forums.
Jamie
Posted on: 04 January 2011 by Richard Dane
You can call me Al...
Posted on: 04 January 2011 by BigH47
My guide lines are, if they sign off with their own name, use that, otherwise use their "handle".
Also not revealing where a poster might be located, if he/she chooses not be too specific.
At least a country should be entered in their profile, though , IMO.
Also not revealing where a poster might be located, if he/she chooses not be too specific.
At least a country should be entered in their profile, though , IMO.
Posted on: 04 January 2011 by Guido Fawkes
It's a bit like Robin always used to refer to Batman as Batman rather than Bruce or Adam or even Mr West.
Some of us like/need to remain A. Nomee Mouse.
In particular I'm glad nobody knows I'm a bald headed drummer with a rotten voice.
Some of us like/need to remain A. Nomee Mouse.
In particular I'm glad nobody knows I'm a bald headed drummer with a rotten voice.
Posted on: 04 January 2011 by Steve O
quote:Originally posted by ROTF:
In particular I'm glad nobody knows I'm a bald headed drummer with a rotten voice.
Ah, but we do Mr. Collins
Posted on: 04 January 2011 by MilesSmiles
It's a fair question, I usually stay with the user name until I know that the real name is in the public domain.
Posted on: 04 January 2011 by JamieL_v2
Thanks for the replies, I must say tend to use user name to be safe, but did wonder if I was being rude sometimes.
Jamie
Jamie
Posted on: 04 January 2011 by BigH47
quote:Originally posted by JamieL_v2:
Thanks for the replies, I must say tend to use user name to be safe, but did wonder if I was being rude sometimes.
Jamie
I thought you were always like that?
Posted on: 04 January 2011 by TomK
Safer to use the user name unless the person signs his or her own name. Personally I think real names should be used all the time. In my experience there's much less chance of rudeness and bad behaviour if people aren't hiding behind silly names. Perhaps not such an issue here as it's the most civilised board I visit regularly.
Posted on: 04 January 2011 by Hook
I try to stick with user names.
Have always thought it a bit curious that some folks sign using their real name. Nothing wrong with doing so, but why not just make your user name the same as your real name then?
And maybe this is bad form, but when I reply to a member whose user name is all small letters, I always capitalize the first letter (e.g., I address mudwolf as Mudwolf). Maybe I'm being anal, but it just looks better to my eye.
Hook
Have always thought it a bit curious that some folks sign using their real name. Nothing wrong with doing so, but why not just make your user name the same as your real name then?
And maybe this is bad form, but when I reply to a member whose user name is all small letters, I always capitalize the first letter (e.g., I address mudwolf as Mudwolf). Maybe I'm being anal, but it just looks better to my eye.
Hook
Posted on: 04 January 2011 by EJS
Naim posts regularly turn up as results in search engines such as Google - if this was a closed forum, using real names would be more straightforward.
EJ
EJ
Posted on: 05 January 2011 by Mike-B
I would not be too concerned about being rude JamieL_v2
Some people seem to be pretty good at rude without any concerns over etiquette.
If its in response to a persons post, I think that if someone signs off with a name, use it if its appropriate
If they don't use a sign-off, the user name is 100% OK.
It might be more of an issue if you know someone personally & they do not ever use a sign-off name, but you use it, that might not be a good move
Some people seem to be pretty good at rude without any concerns over etiquette.
If its in response to a persons post, I think that if someone signs off with a name, use it if its appropriate
If they don't use a sign-off, the user name is 100% OK.
It might be more of an issue if you know someone personally & they do not ever use a sign-off name, but you use it, that might not be a good move
Posted on: 05 January 2011 by Dungassin
You can call me whatever you like - as long as it's not late for dinner.
John
John
Posted on: 05 January 2011 by Chris Kelly
I was too dumb to think of nom de plume in the first place!
Posted on: 05 January 2011 by GraemeH
I'm not sure I would like my avatar if I created one. I prefer to be myself.
Graeme
Graeme
Posted on: 05 January 2011 by Derek Wright
Having spent most of my working life addressed as 86695909 and dealing with people called 866nnnnn where n is a numeric between 0 and 9 the use of a real name is quite a refreshing change.
Posted on: 05 January 2011 by winkyincanada
For many years (maybe still now), Shell corporate employees were identified by a three-letter code that releted to their position. Letters and memos would be signed "LGT", "MBJ" etc. You theoretically might never know the name of people with whom you communicated (this likely rare, but I'm exaggerating for effect) This system was intended to be robust as people moved through into different roles. One position had the three-letter code of "FAG" assigned.
Posted on: 05 January 2011 by EJS
quote:Originally posted by winkyincanada:
For many years (maybe still now), Shell corporate employees were identified by a three-letter code that releted to their position. Letters and memos would be signed "LGT", "MBJ" etc. You theoretically might never know the name of people with whom you communicated (this likely rare, but I'm exaggerating for effect) This system was intended to be robust as people moved through into different roles. One position had the three-letter code of "FAG" assigned.
Not anymore. It's the age of Microsoft Communicator, Winkyincanada!
EJ
Posted on: 05 January 2011 by winkyincanada
quote:Originally posted by EJS:quote:Originally posted by winkyincanada:
For many years (maybe still now), Shell corporate employees were identified by a three-letter code that releted to their position. Letters and memos would be signed "LGT", "MBJ" etc. You theoretically might never know the name of people with whom you communicated (this likely rare, but I'm exaggerating for effect) This system was intended to be robust as people moved through into different roles. One position had the three-letter code of "FAG" assigned.
Not anymore. It's the age of Microsoft Communicator, Winkyincanada!
EJ
Good to hear it. I always thought it de-humanising. Perhaps it was that rare example of a corporate HR initiative that had overstepped the mark. I worked for a subsidiary, so wasn't ever actually assigned a code but I did see it in action.
Posted on: 06 January 2011 by Sister E.
I have always preferred to use my real name on these forums. I haven't got the imagination to think up a username,
Sister xx
Sister xx