Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

Suggestion: Make showing avatar names mandatory on PCF

I agree 100%

:wise:

I think they used to and mandatory ? ( or just not optional to leave out. )
I can't be sure back when had credits possibly on here.
 
RT_Tony said:
It's annoying when people hide their avatar names.

More transparancy is better for everyone involved.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
It's also annoying when people hide their minimum acceptable negotiating prices for items they're selling (or buying). If I had that information, I could make that exact offer and take all surplus of the trade for myself.

But alas, here I am living in this information-opaque world in which individuals still have a quarter ounce of autonomy over their own private information dissemination.
 
RT_Tony said:
More transparancy is better for everyone involved.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting claim. It might be relevant to know if it's true. In particular, is there overwhelming support for this suggestion even among the subset of forum users who have chosen to keep their anonymity thus far? It's possible there is, that for them the anonymity is some prisoner's dilemma they desperately want to escape. But usually what I see is a bunch of forum users with avatar names already listed who bear none of the downside in such a change "voting" to take anonymity rights from those who've retained them, which is less interesting and more closely resembles a pack of wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
 
TheOneOmega said:
This is an interesting claim. It might be relevant to know if it's true. In particular, is there overwhelming support for this suggestion even among the subset of forum users who have chosen to keep their anonymity thus far? It's possible there is, that for them the anonymity is some prisoner's dilemma they desperately want to escape. But usually what I see is a bunch of forum users with avatar names already listed who bear none of the downside in such a change "voting" to take anonymity rights from those who've retained them, which is less interesting and more closely resembles a pack of wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Click to expand...
im way too smooth brained for whatever you just wrote, i just like knowing who im talking to

Tina Walther said:
Hi, I'm Tina
Click to expand...
hi Tina, im Tony.
 
TheOneOmega said:
This is not correct. You are suggesting that anyone who doesn't voluntarily identify themselves to you ought to be compelled to do so. Liking something and advocating for non-consensual means to obtain it are quite different.
Click to expand...
im asking for thoughts on something i think would be beneficial for everyone, in my opinion


and yes, it is correct. i do like knowing who i am talking to lol

i have yet to find a valid, legitimate reason why you would want to hide your in-game avatar name here. even most players with hidden EL profiles have their avatar name listed. im not saying there is no reason to, im just saying i have yet to find one.

and none have been suggested thus far in this thread
TheOneOmega said:
In particular, is there overwhelming support for this suggestion even among the subset of forum users who have chosen to keep their anonymity thus far?
Click to expand...
i dont know? is there?

we have yet to hear from a single one of them. curious, no?
 
Totally agree all game linked forums should insist the name used is ava name, prevents a lot of issues if we and MA can clearly see who says what.
Maybe even get rid of a few that stir the pot here even though not been in game in years
 
Should be done but the amount of programming required means it will never be done.

Lest we remember, this forum and your passwords (specifically your password hashes) were already hacked and is available in the dark web.
 
How would you know, ensure, and enforce that ppl use their true avatar names...?
Probably would be against European privacy regulations, anyway.
:dunno:
 
Last edited:
GradenFoss said:
How yould you know, ensure, and enforce that ppl use their true avatar names...?
Probably would be against European privacy regulations, anyway.
:dunno:
Click to expand...
you dont, or cant, really...

just dont let users leave the fields empty, its better than nothing (again, in my opinion...)

concerning the regulations, its a non-issue. dont like it dont sign up
 
RT_Tony said:
concerning the regulations, its a non-issue. dont like it dont sign up
Click to expand...

Well, I am referring to laws which can result in hefty fines for who owns and operates a website/forum like PCF... you cannot put up such rules when in violation. That is not a question of whether to like it or not.
 
GradenFoss said:
Well, I am referring to laws which can result in hefty fines for who owns and operates a website/forum like PCF... you cannot put up such rules when in violation. That is not a question of whether to like it or not.
Click to expand...
i understand

but it doesnt violate any law as no one is forcing anyone to register to the forums, just like every single ToA that exists and to which users reply or click "i agree"

forcing users of a game forum to link their avatar names does not violate any law lol in the same sense that MA asking for your ID before you can withdraw does not violate any law, its a non-issue
 
Another discussion not long ago on the same topic:

Suggestion: - Accounts on forum should have mandatory 'avatar name' field filled.

I wish there was a mandatory field for forum accounts to be able to post - full ingame name should be required. There could be some limitations for the accounts without this filled, like in some help area or greetings area, but sometimes the alts created issue gets out of hand and it takes quite...
www.planetcalypsoforum.com www.planetcalypsoforum.com
 
RT_Tony said:
but it doesnt violate any law as no one is forcing anyone to register to the forums, just like every single ToA that exists and to which users reply or click "i agree"

forcing users of a game forum to link their avatar names does not violate any law lol in the same sense that MA asking for your ID before you can withdraw does not violate any law, its a non-issue
Click to expand...

As a company you are by law restricted which data you may collect and link together and on what grounds. Has nothing to do whether ppl are forced or not. Has nothing to do with ppl agreeing to TOUs. If you use data in an unlawful way, authorities can step in on their own volition and sanction you.
 
GradenFoss said:
As a company you are by law restricted which data you may collect and link together and on what grounds. Has nothing to do whether ppl are forced or not. Has nothing to do with ppl agreeing to TOUs. If you use data in an unlawful way, authorities can step in on their own volition and sanction you.
Click to expand...
no law restricts a company from forcing to show an avatar name come on now...

we're not asking for a social insurance number or your bank PIN, we're asking for a name of a virtual avatar... lets not go too too far shall we
 
RT_Tony said:
no law restricts a company from forcing to show an avatar name come on now...
Click to expand...

Actually, this could in fact be a violation.
In the country where I live it probably would be. On multiple grounds even, I might add.
Sry, you seem quite unawares.

:dunno:
 
Would it be possible to add a subsection to the forum , where avatar name is required ?
I am not saying I advocate for that , but are these forum programs adjustable in that way.
 
How about if players can post a pic of their Avatar in game with enough information to identify them (i.e. Name) then they be allocated some sort of "verified" mark
 
GradenFoss said:
Actually, this could in fact be a violation.
In the country where I live it probably would be. On multiple grounds even, I might add.
Sry, you seem quite unawares.

:dunno:
Click to expand...
i am not unaware, every time you sign up to something you agree to terms of use.

if you do not agree to those terms of use, you simply do not sign up

its not impossible, but i would find it very surprising as mindark literally asks for a government-issued ID for withdrawals, yet they would be outlaws for having you put your avatar name on a forum?

what law, or what grounds would be violated? im genuinely curious...
 
RT_Tony said:
and yes, it is correct. i do like knowing who i am talking to lol

i have yet to find a valid, legitimate reason why you would want to hide your in-game avatar name here. even most players with hidden EL profiles have their avatar name listed. im not saying there is no reason to, im just saying i have yet to find one.

and none have been suggested thus far in this thread
Click to expand...
The incorrect part isn't that you like knowing who you're talking to, but that you just like knowing who you're talking to. You are not merely expressing your preference, but asserting (effectively without reason) that your preference should take precedence over the privacy rights of others, unless and until others accept the burden of proof of articulating a "valid, legitimate reason" for maintaining their rights.

Based on the almost-nonexistent rationale you've offered thus far, there is nothing to distinguish this from complaining that the customer at the front of a line in a paint store has asked for yellow paint, while you like green paint. You think only green paint should be sold unless and until another customer in line gives you a valid, legitimate reason that someone would want to buy other colors, because you find other colors annoying, and the Feng Shui association for green paint is family and health (and improving family relations and health is better for everyone).

No one owes you such a reason. A reason no one owes you a reason (one of the many) is the general principle that decision making power tends to be best allocated to the individual(s) most directly affected by the first-order effects of the decision. It is good that the customer chooses their own paint color, rather than you choosing or the line taking a democratic vote, because the customer will have to view it on their walls every day, whereas everyone else in line will only have to look at it until the customer leaves the store. Similarly, it seems good that individuals are allowed to choose whether or not to disclose their in-world avatar names, even if their decision might produce some mildly suboptimal externality with respect to your personal preferences, because their decision affects them more directly than if affects you.

But let's assume that for whatever cause, the rights holder decides to take on the burden of proof they don't have. Let's try to think of a valid, legitimate reason a player may want to maintain their anonymity right. Maybe some player receives a lot of PM offers in-world for their auction items, and they'd rather keep the PMs in-world and not start receiving them on PCF as well. Maybe some in-world pirate just wants to have civil, content-driven discourse on PCF that doesn't constantly devolve into ad hominem attacks. Entropia has seen threats of RL harm over PVP drama before; maybe some player finds identity disaggreation a good way to mitigate the risk of a credible threat (we have learned from cryptocurrency transaction graph analysis that pseudonymity without anonymity is difficult to attain). Maybe some player has principled disagreement with MindArk controlling PCF (this was a hotly debated topic when EF became PCF) and sees identity disaggregation as a form of power decentralization, or as a tool to incentivize the maintenance of a healthy separation between in-world policy enforcement and PCF policy enforcement. The thing about this type of speculation is that often, no one reason applies to a large number of cases; rather a bunch of improbable reasons add up to a probable conclusion, the conclusion that simplistic models of player preferences and their rationale cannot be made sophisticated enough to capture a complex reality.
 
TheOneOmega said:
The incorrect part isn't that you like knowing who you're talking to, but that you just like knowing who you're talking to. You are not merely expressing your preference, but asserting (effectively without reason) that your preference should take precedence over the privacy rights of others, unless and until others accept the burden of proof of articulating a "valid, legitimate reason" for maintaining their rights.

Based on the almost-nonexistent rationale you've offered thus far, there is nothing to distinguish this from complaining that the customer at the front of a line in a paint store has asked for yellow paint, while you like green paint. You think only green paint should be sold unless and until another customer in line gives you a valid, legitimate reason that someone would want to buy other colors, because you find other colors annoying, and the Feng Shui association for green paint is family and health (and improving family relations and health is better for everyone).

No one owes you such a reason. A reason no one owes you a reason (one of the many) is the general principle that decision making power tends to be best allocated to the individual(s) most directly affected by the first-order effects of the decision. It is good that the customer chooses their own paint color, rather than you choosing or the line taking a democratic vote, because the customer will have to view it on their walls every day, whereas everyone else in line will only have to look at it until the customer leaves the store. Similarly, it seems good that individuals are allowed to choose whether or not to disclose their in-world avatar names, even if their decision might produce some mildly suboptimal externality with respect to your personal preferences, because their decision affects them more directly than if affects you.

But let's assume that for whatever cause, the rights holder decides to take on the burden of proof they don't have. Let's try to think of a valid, legitimate reason a player may want to maintain their anonymity right. Maybe some player receives a lot of PM offers in-world for their auction items, and they'd rather keep the PMs in-world and not start receiving them on PCF as well. Maybe some in-world pirate just wants to have civil, content-driven discourse on PCF that doesn't constantly devolve into ad hominem attacks. Entropia has seen threats of RL harm over PVP drama before; maybe some player finds identity disaggreation a good way to mitigate the risk of a credible threat (we have learned from cryptocurrency transaction graph analysis that pseudonymity without anonymity is difficult to attain). Maybe some player has principled disagreement with MindArk controlling PCF (this was a hotly debated topic when EF became PCF) and sees identity disaggregation as a form of power decentralization, or as a tool to incentivize the maintenance of a healthy separation between in-world policy enforcement and PCF policy enforcement. The thing about this type of speculation is that often, no one reason applies to a large number of cases; rather a bunch of improbable reasons add up to a probable conclusion, the conclusion that simplistic models of player preferences and their rationale cannot be made sophisticated enough to capture a complex reality.
Click to expand...
i made this thread literally asking for peoples thoughts on the suggestion

i never said my preference should take precedence over anything

i never talked about paint and to be frank i really dont understand the comparison

no one owes me anything, that is 100% correct. you choose to reply or you dont. again, im only asking for thoughts.

you did offer a couple of counter arguments in your last paragraph and hey, surprise, i dont disagree

thats the beauty of discussion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top