Anonymity and This Board

When many participants post items related to schools and other projects they've worked with, they'll often identify that relationship. Along with that comes the identification of the person him/herself. We know Tom H., John B., Steve, Tom N. Chip, Larry, David Y., Paul C., and others. We know what schools they've worked with, what books they've written, etc. And we know them. When they say something, their own credibility is on the line. (And I personally don't think their credibility's been harmed one little bit by that.) Everyone here knows who I am, what I've done before, what I'm doing (and not doing) with MIGS, etc. That's how it should be.

But people who post anonymously sometimes take a different road. They hide behind the personas they've created. I don't think people like that can be trusted, nor taken seriously. Funny how it's these people that seem to take the most liberties with the facts and with civility. Hmmmm.

It's like driving down the road. People will do things to each other in their cars they would never do to face-to-face. Same here.

This kind of behavior made a mess of a.e.d., not to mention About.com.

My take is, if you have no identity, then you do not exist. If you do not exist, you cannot possibly have something to say. If there is a question posed to me by someone posting anonymously, please understand now why I will not respond. It has nothing to do with the merits of the query, but of the merits of the inquirer. People like that will not go away, nor will they shape up. Ignoring them is the only option.

Rich Douglas

 

Rich, I cannot begin to imagine why you have posted this message except, perhaps, due to the pressure you feel from HPiper's posts. Granted, Piper may be harping on minutia with his critique of grammar on the MIGS' web site, but I'm afraid you opened the door for that one by asking him to cite specific examples.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that I have spoken out against people using anonymous e-mail addresses such as Hotmail, yahoo.com, my-deja, etc., the fact remains that there is an increasing number of whackos on the Internet. As much as this forum tries, it will not be able to avoid all of them, although the moderators have done a fine job of banning the worst of them (who are now relegated to posting under multiple aliases on AED).

The fact is, we do not all know each other, although some of us know each other. And I'm afraid that I must agre with Piper when he says that (1) you have shilled for MIGS on multiple forums, and (2) you are in biiiigggggg denial. When you are enrolled in a program - any program - and use an official title (like "research assistant," not to mention "Ph.D. candidate" - which you have done prematurely and with both MIGS and CEU tags), anything you say will be taken as an endorsement. That is why many of us have advocated the use of disclosure statements. To your credit, you have used such disclosures in your posts, but to assume that people will not take your posts as an endorsement of MIGS is naive.

As for people posting anonymously, if someone chooses to do so when expressing a valid opinion (whether or not I agree with that opinion) or making a sincere inquiry, I consider that an error on the side of caution. It is precisely because there are so many psychos lurking on these boards that a little bit of anonymity cannot hurt. Moreover, a review of all the posters on this forum will reveal many who use only a first name or even an obvious alias, yet they post relevant questions and make substantive contributions to the responses. They do not take any more liberties with facts than you, nor any more liberties with civilities than me. (Let's face it, you are not always the most factual, and I am not always the most civil.) Yet this forum has managed to maintain a high level of civility when compared with any Usenet newsgroup, and a little friction does not hurt - especially in the field of distance education, where any participant has a lot at stake.

When you say, "This kind of behavior made a mess of a.e.d., not to mention About.com," I agree in part. A.E.D. is a lost cause at this point, but I hardly see how this has occurred on the About.com Distance Learning Board, where Kristin has moderated the content more strongly than this forum and has managed to keep the content focused on the issues.

I get the impression that your message was posted entirely because of comments by one person whom you do not know. But as some of us know you, some of us also know HPiper. There have been many FTF's (for newbies, that means face-to-face meetings) among the members of this forum and, while you may not know who HPiper is, I do. And you, sir, are no HPiper. (Sorry, campers, couldn't resist the Lloyd Bentsen riff.)

But I forgive that, recognizing that you need the practice for when you have your MIGS degree in hand.

I agree with you on one point: This forum should be kept on topic as much as possible. But the nature of both the Internet and distance education, as well as the type of consumer advocacy and activism in which many of us are engaged, means that we may occasionally have to sit on the hot seat. You know the old saying, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." The rest of us are still in the kitchen, and we hope that you remain there as well.

But leave the whine behind . . . You used drivers on the road as an example of people saying things they might not say face to face and, quite frankly, you're beginning to sound like a trucker on the CB radio.

 

Originally posted by Rich Douglas:
Everyone here knows who I am, what I've done before, what I'm doing (and not doing) with MIGS, etc.

I think a lot of folks are seriously wondering what you're doing (and not doing) with MIGS, etc.

Funny how it's these people that seem to take the most liberties with the facts and with civility.

It's funny how hypocrites act, too.

People will do things to each other in their cars they would never do to face-to-face.

Anything I've said here or anywhere else I would also gladly say to your face, Richie.

This kind of behavior made a mess of a.e.d., not to mention About.com.

I know someone's posting history that began a huge mess for a new "school" called MIGS.

My take is, if you have no identity, then you do not exist.

Je n'existe pas, my dear boy. I do not exist. It's your problem that you do.

Ignoring them is the only option.

"Ignore" is the root of the word "ignorance".

 

My own preference would be that no one be allowed to use anonymizer accounts or anonymous names. I think that it typically lends little to the discussion. This is also why I rarely respond to people with anonymous user names.

I'm not saying anything about any particular poster, but I've rarely* seen people who post anonymously do so in what I would call a responsible manner.

Certainly their right to use them as it is my right not to respond to them.

Tom Nixon

*Yes, it does rarely happen, hence the word, "rarely". For those that want to argue about this point, feel free to assume that you're part of the "rarely". You probably will any way.

 

Folks,

Please, please keep the posts on topic and avoid personal insults/attacks/etc.

When anyone starts to resort to name calling or personal attacks, the only thing that suffers is the overall quality of posts and participation on the board.

Your cooperation is much appreciated!!

 

Chip:

Since the inception of this forum most of the dialogue, at least from my perception, has been civil, cordial and informative (interjected of course with periodic humor). To keep degreeinfo.com moving toward its original objective, and from becoming another a.e.d. circus, would it be possible to delete any posts which are blatant personal attacks?

Regards,
Russell

 

I have noticed that blatant personal attacks have been deleted in the past. My personal opinion is that it's safer to error on the side of no censorship. I believe that blatant personal attacks make the attacker look worse than the person being attacked. I applaud the moderators for keeping this a lightly moderated forum.

I believe some conflict is very healthy in a forum such as this. For example, when someone's alma mater is being questioned as a possible degree mill it's only natural for them to feel personally involved.

The point I'm trying to make is that the moderators are sometimes faced with difficult decisions and I believe that their decision to keep it lightly moderated is for the best to keep the discussion real and interesting.

 

When I first started posting several years ago, I didn't use my real name. But after reading a number of posts from the "gang" insisting that only people that identified themselves would be taken seriously, I complied. I wanted to be taken seriously too (didn't work, I guess...)

In the light of subsequent events, I have wondered if that was a good idea.
One individual has been personally sued in order to prevent him from expressing his opinion about a questionable school. Another apparently has an individual employed by his enemies to endlessly defame him. AED itself has come under daily attack from a group that appears rather bizarre and unstable. And it seems to me that some of these mill operators might even have organized crime connections.

(That's just my personal opinion, but follow the convoluted Trinity C&U web across the continents, look at its diverse branches and offshoots, look at all the "consulting" companies that front for them, and check out what else those fronts are up to and who their other clients are. It's kind of amazing.)

I have belatedly realized that some of these degree mills (let alone all of their other associated activities) mean millions of dollars a year to the sort of people who wouldn't hesitate to hurt people very badly if they were perceived as being a threat. So at this late date I would actually suggest that people use fake names if they intend to say anything critical about the mills.

They could be required to use some kind of more real name when signing up here, so all the 'gang' insiders will know who they are. But their identities can still be hidden from the likes of me. That should give them some protection.

As far as personal conflicts go on this board, it's going to be inevitable. People will take controversial stands which will be criticized by other people. Unfortunately some people are unable to disagree without ad-hominem attacks, either in offense or defense. Resentment occurs, and the thing snowballs.

The first line of defense is simply not to respond to personal insults. If somebody insults you, ignore the insults and respond to the substantive points in their post. If you can press home your points without losing your cool, you win the argument and look good doing it.

The final line of defense is the moderators, I guess. I have to commend the moderators for doing a good job so far. I think that if they are going to error, it should be on the side of free and spirited speech. We are all adults and most of us have university educations. We shouldn't be treated like children. But if a pattern develops of one individual gratuitously harassing others, or of making posts meant only to enflame passions and create resentments, then I think that they should quietly be warned by e-mail or something, and terminated if they don't cool it.

And I want to make it clear that's a generic position and is not meant to implicitly refer to anyone in particular or to any past or present disagreements on this board. I present it only as a general suggestion on how to handle heated disagreements that prove intractable to time and common sense.

 

Bill, you make an interesting case for anonymous posting... but keep in mind that there is little posting that is *actually* anonymous, so someone saying something libelous or defamatory will still be identified.

And for my own selfish reasons, I'd prefer that people *not* post anonymously and use that as a sheild to hurl accusations, because if a legal action then *does* come of it, then I or other administrators of the board will have to comply with subpoenas requesting IP information, user registration information, etc.

I think it's much better to be up front about who you are, be somewhat careful with what you say, and trust that, while the wazoos may rattle the cage and threaten, very very few will actually follow through. (Look at the MIGS matter, for example... it seems clear in retrospect that Enrique wanted only to silence Steve, as evidenced by his "generous" offer to withdraw the suit if Steve would shut up. And the story about the 4 students *still* seems awfully suspicious... which is, I'm sure, why MIGS has been amazingly silent after their threat to "fast track to a quick judgement" against Steve.

So... I'd say that if one chooses to make comments about less-than-wonderful schools, one should simply get comfortable with the heat that comes therefrom.