UKC

Every so often, the topic of whether people on UKC should be using their real names or not comes up. I'm not addressing that - UKC is actually very civilised and people who post anonymously (i.e. not their real name) likely have good reasons (they don't want the IT folks at work identifying them, for example). It is, however, an interesting philosophical point.

For those who are interested in this - this is a thoughtful essay
https://medium.com/p/f5ab81f9f654

For this who are interested but want to get to the meat and potatoes, scroll down to about half way

In reply to pneame:

Cheers, I do love medium. Although that's quite a long article for that site, will have a look later when I'm meant to be working.

In reply to pneame:


Their IT people would be able to tell that it was them if they post on here just using a pseudonym. It isn't anonymous in so far as it is perfectly trackable. It just isn't identifiable to casual people reading who might be customers, stalkers, people you don't want tracking your leisure activities, future employers who search for you on the web etc...

In reply to pneame:

Interesting article, thanks for posting it. It's a reminder that there is a small but significant minority whose behaviour is only kept in check by social pressure. I'm not talking about laws and punishments here, just the prospect of looking someone in the eye and admitting what they've done would be enough, but without anyone to answer to they will behave appallingly.
This also explains why UKC is probably the best behaved forum I've ever used. It's very rare to see the sort of abuse that goes on on more generic forums, and I think this is because climbing is a small community and there is a very real chance that you might bump into your fellow posters at the crag one day. Whether you use your real name or not is irrelevant, if you log climbs or post about any real-world activities then people can match up the real person to the poster.

In reply to Hooo:


I think it's because we're a much better class of people than you find in the real world.

In reply to krikoman:

Agreed with that! But I think it's also because UKC is moderated, albeit with a light touch. It's counterpart, SuperTopo, is barely moderated at all and can become quite "heated". Although it is still more civilized than many sites, suggesting that indeed climbers are a better class of people

A book I'm reading at the moment "The Circle" posits a world where everything is known and shared (yeah, sounds like hell!) and everyone is, in principle, fully accountable for everything they do. I can't decide whether I like the book as such, but it's an intriguing enough concept that I want to see where the author goes with it.

In reply to pneame:
Only read it part of the article..The site systematically breaks on my phone

There are some extremely well behaved communities on the internet. Cases in point of those I've belonged to in the 100-200 online users at a time range:
- One made everyone a moderator
- One made no one a moderator and no one was ever banned or censored. Spam was prevented via requiring a computational proof of work scheme

The catch though...The userbases were highly computer literate, for want of a better term.

In reply to needvert:

I think the most civilized forums tend to be highly specialised in their interests - and so have small user bases. In fact, dare I say it, the more specialized the more civil. Perhaps this is because people know who the other person is, or at least might be even if their "handle" is less obvious? UKC and SuperTopo are both good examples of "pretty specialised" and so can veer towards less civil behaviour.

So there is certainly something to be said for meeting in meatspace!