SIGN YOUR POSTS

Stephen Williams · January 5, 2006

To me, anybody who chooses not to use their real name has something to hide; their name at least. I think that's unprofessional, and many professionals on this forum will choose not to communicate with you because of that.

As the forum admin I'm not that much of a control freak that I will disallow faux names. However when I get support emails from 'anonymous' users I often ignore them. If I receive complaints about a user with a faux name I will not hesitate to suspend that user. Users who at least appear to use their real names get my full consideration and the benefit of the doubt.

'Sustaining Members' get extra consideration ;)

Hi Tim,

You could make it that only sustaining members have the option of being anonymous!

Stephen

Robert Edge · January 5, 2006

Gee, you sound like a hitman for the mob...

I have yet to read a single post by you that would have required the 'discretion' of not using your real name.

And here I thought that audiris was a Latin conjugation. What's your first name, Mr. Audiris?

:)

Stephen Williams · January 5, 2006

And here I thought that audiris was a Latin conjugation. What's your first name, Mr. Audiris?

:)

Hi,

Thats award winning director Max Jacoby, his signature has his full name and IMDB link.

Stephen

Robert Edge · January 5, 2006

Stephen, I was joking. During the last marathon thread on this issue, Max also weighed in without signing, and found himself having to go back to fix it. You do see the humour in this?

Stephen Williams · January 5, 2006

Stephen, I was joking. During the last marathon thread on this issue, Max also weighed in without signing, and found himself having to go back to fix it. You do see the humour in this?

Hi,

I thought mabe you were!

Cheers

Stephen

Scott Bullock · January 6, 2006

Okay, I think I've correctly added a signature . . . we shall see very soon! And yes, my last name really is "Bullock." That's with a "u" not an "o" and no, I am not the (relatively) famous VO guy with the same name. I also changed my occupation from DOP to "other" as my primary source of income doesn't come from being a cinematographer, even though I do get paid small sums for my services on occasion. My primary income comes from being a master control operator at a television origination facility. Anyway, because so many of the older members of the board have been so gracious with their time in responding to some of my questions, including David Mullen, I figured I'd go ahead and provide my full name instead of just my first. If that is the best way to get these knowledgeable people to respond to my posts, it's a very small price to pay, in my opinion.

Robert Edge · January 6, 2006

The last time that this issue came up I wrote a fairly lengthy post about why I do not think that people should be required to give their full name. This time, I'm going to keep it brief.

The only thing that I care about is that I be civil to other participants and that they be civil to me. The last time that I said this, Tim Tyler explained that participation was increasingly dramatically, that this seemed to be resulting in more trouble and that much of the trouble seemed to be coming from people who weren't using their full names.

Tim probably has a better handle than I do about what goes on on this site. That said, I do not myself see any difference, when it comes to the question of civility, between the behaviour of those who are using their full names and those who are not.

Given that the Gold Medal game of the World Junior Hockey Championships has just started to a packed arena in Vancouver, and it appear from the first three minutes that this is going to be an incredibly fast, hard hitting and classic match, I'll leave it there.

Cheers

Robert Edge · January 6, 2006

Well it's the end of the first period and Canada leads Russia 2-0.

Here's my suggestion. Replace these banner headline threads entitled SIGN YOUR POSTS with lower case threads entitled civility.

Max Jacoby · January 6, 2006

During the last marathon thread on this issue, Max also weighed in without signing, and found himself having to go back to fix it. You do see the humour in this?

Could you please post a link to the post in question, since 1) I cannot find it and 2) if memory serves me correctly I do not remember even making such a statment.

For your information, I have been using a signature ever since I found out how to add one to my posts, which was several years ago and long before you showed up here.

Hal Smith · January 10, 2006

A message to the recalcitrant from a newish forum participant

This newby frankly rather enjoys running names of posters through his imdbpro account and seeing what falls out. My advice to the unwashed (and un-named): There are professionals in these forums who have real serious credentials in the business. If, for some of them, the price of replying to one of your posted questions is signing those posts with your real name, pay them their going rate. Look at it this way, just how much does USC charge for tuition? I'll bet their film program is a billion times more expensive than just signing your posts - and getting an instant education.

Edmond, OK

Tim Tyler · January 11, 2006

This just in: :o

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%..._3-6022491.html

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

By Declan McCullagh

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

Chris Fernando · January 12, 2006

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

Now that's funny!!! Hey, is it true the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are also now being held hostage somewhere in Iraq?

January 12, 2006

I've personally felt annoyed by a few posts that were not signed properly in this forum.

Tim, how do I get these criminals jailed? They must be prosecuted to the fullest extent. :)

Keith Mottram · January 17, 2006

My name is victor meldrew. it is a new year and in the last few weeks i have seen some of the lamest usernames appear on this site, so i've decided to name and shame all these sad people (which of course is in itself pointless). anyway here is my rolecall of two bob idiots:

Prim (as in what? proper?)

Zoostory (what the fu** does that even mean?)

Timay (as in Tim ay av you no real name?)

jstern (i'm going to take a wild guess you are jon stern- why not sign with it)

E.C. (that's a bit of a bold claim and might bring you to task with some eurosceptics)

etc etc.... but my personal favorite is

cashcow75028, i mean come on even if your so much of a twat that you dont want to use your real name are you really telling me there are 77027 other cashcow's on the net?

keith

p.s i apologise to anyone else with tosser username that i have neglected to mention.

Landon D. Parks · January 23, 2006

This new "Bill" passed in congress won't stand the first time someone takes the law to the high court. A high court judge must uphold the consititution and bill of rights, and this is clearly in violation of first amendment rights.

Just because the government "Passes a Bill" Does not mean they can legally do it. But then again, they are the law, so they can legally do whatever they want, until the constitution comes into play, then it's up the high courts to strike down unfair laws.

This sort of reminds me of when my state (Indiana) had an inacted curfew law for anyone under 18, well that lasted until the ICLU (Indiana Civil Liberties Union) took them to court over it, and won, 3 times! They won the first suit, then the state re-inacted a slightly revised version, and again ICLU sued and won, and it happend then again. Now (at least to my knowlege) Indiana has no curfew law, because no matter how they pass it, to tell someone of any age they cannot move about freely is violation of 1st amendment rights, no matter what the reason. It violates the "Parental Right to Supervision" Law and the "Right to Free movement" law, which are both in the constituion.

So just because the Bush wants to pass a law, does not mean It will stand when they try to use the law.

David Mullen ASC · January 24, 2006

It's incredibly hard to regulate content on the internet anyway, since it is international. If this new law really exists (sounds phoney to me) I don't see anyway of enforcing it. It would just drive ISP providers to go overseas to shelter them from U.S. regulation anyway. Besides, with so much extreme pornography on the internet, unregulated drug sales, identity theft, not to mention intellectual property theft, it seems unlikely that Congress is concerned about anonymous forum posters being annoying... Sounds bogus to me.

Josh Bass · January 24, 2006

bogus as in hoax? Or what?

I've seen that law mentioned in a number of different places. On the internet. So maybe you're right.

Chris Burke · January 24, 2006

I just posted this only one month ago and we seem to get more and more people joining this forum who aren't signing their posts with their real names, posters like:

Handcranked films

beanpat

stoop

djdumpy

thinkmonkeymedia

redbaron

plus a number of first-name-only posters.

If some of us are going to take the time to answer your questions, please take the time to sign your posts. You can set-up an automatic signature in your account.

Fair enough, but how? I have looked and looked and can't figure it out. No luck in My Controls or My Assistant. Sorry for sounding rather stupid. I do always end my entries with my real name.

Chris