Blizzard: You can only post using your real ID
Static Void
WDS
> As in your real first and last names.
>
> http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25626109041
Good. It will cut down on the cr*p posting.
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> Their house, their rules.
My thoughts exactly. If they want real anonymity, they can use Usenet
or a fan-run forum.
--
Hammer
Static Void
> Zaghadka wrote:
>> Static Void wrote:
>>
>>>As in your real first and last names.
>>>
>>>http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25626109041
>>
>> Their house, their rules.
>
> My thoughts exactly. If they want real anonymity, they can use Usenet
> or a fan-run forum.
Somehow I don't think that's a good idea, but I could be wrong...
"So Blizzard are now making it so instead of showing your character on
those forums, it'll instead show your real name with the option of
attaching your char name too it (no option of not showing your real
name).
Now I think it's fairly safe to say that this is perhaps the dumbest idea
that anyone has ever had ever.
To alleviate people's concerns, Blizzard employee Bashiok decided to say
his real name on the forums, his real name is Micah Whipple:
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25712374892&sid=1
&pageNo=1 Post #16
So say hi to Micah Whipple:
Address:
473 Avenue B
Lakeport, CA 95453-6032
Phone Number:(707) 263-0190
Age: 28
Family:
Kimberly K Whipple age 54 and Jason Stephen Whipple age 34
It looks like he's staying in the same house as his mother =[
http://www.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?
firstname=Micah&name=Whipple&where=Lakeport%2C+CA
http://www.peoplelookup.com/search-summary-out.php?trackit=&ReportType=1
&qf=Micah&qmi=&qn=Whipple&qs=CA&searchform=name&focusfirst=1
Oh btw, here is his facebook too:
http://www.facebook.com/micah.whipple [edit: it's been deleted already]
Music: Honeypie, Closed Heart Surgery, The Sound Of Animals Fighting,
White Stripes, Tool Band, Radiohead, Disorient Express, The Mars Volta,
The Unhandled Exceptions, As Tall As Lions, The Dear Hunter
Movies: *Big Trouble in Little China*, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World,
Disney Pixar
Television: The Daily Show, Samurai Champloo, Tim and Eric Awesome Show:
Great Job!, Freaks and Geeks, 30 Rock, Human Giant
I think we can all see what a great idea this is going to be."
And this is just the beginning, see full post here:
http://wowriot.gameriot.com/blogs/Americans-are-bad-at-games/Real-Names-
on-the-Official-Forums-New-REAL-ID-function?gr_i_ni
WDS
> Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz wrote:
>
>> Zaghadka wrote:
>>> Static Void wrote:
>>>
>>>> As in your real first and last names.
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25626109041
>>>
>>> Their house, their rules.
>>
>> My thoughts exactly. If they want real anonymity, they can use Usenet
>> or a fan-run forum.
>
> Somehow I don't think that's a good idea, but I could be wrong...
>
> "So Blizzard are now making it so instead of showing your character on
> those forums, it'll instead show your real name with the option of
> attaching your char name too it (no option of not showing your real
> name).
>
> Now I think it's fairly safe to say that this is perhaps the dumbest idea
> that anyone has ever had ever.
Not at all. It is a GREAT idea. Anonymous posting causes 10 times the
problems over the benefits it provides.
yaugin
> To alleviate people's concerns, Blizzard employee Bashiok decided to say
> his real name on the forums, his real name is Micah Whipple:
(snip personal details)
Exactly right. There is an insane privacy risk inherent in this sort
of thing, but no, nobody will consider this to be a serious problem
until they personally become an example. In the meantime they will
offer trite rationalizations like the ones previously posted in this
thread.
Mike S.
wrote:
>Their house, their rules.
That goes without saying, or at least it should. It hardly ends the
debate though. It certainly won't for Blizzard when their customers
cry foul as they are already doing on the forums.
Personally, I think Blizzard is being nonchalant about the privacy of
their customers. Not unlike Facebook nowadays. The bottom line is I
care more about my own privacy then I do about trolling and spamming
in Blizzard's forums.
Ross Ridge
> To alleviate people's concerns, Blizzard employee Bashiok decided to say
> his real name on the forums, his real name is Micah Whipple:
yaugin <yau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Exactly right. There is an insane privacy risk inherent in this sort
>of thing, but no, nobody will consider this to be a serious problem
>until they personally become an example. In the meantime they will
>offer trite rationalizations like the ones previously posted in this
>thread.
Uhuh. I've posted online, BBSs, Usenet and other forums, for over
25 years using my full real name, without a single incident, and I'm
hardy unique. My name is pretty unique though, so it couldn't be any
easier to track me down. I've certainly got a lot of people very angry
at me.
What ever insane privacy risk you're imagining is just paranoia.
You face a bigger risk from people you meet on the street. You face a
much bigger, if still very small, threat from your friends and neighbours,
who know exactly where you live, and are much more likely to get pissed
off at you and don't have to far to go.
In couple of cases, after being threatened online, I've given even give
people my address so they could meet me in person. Needless to say
neither of them had the courage to show up and so much as yell insults at
me, despite living in the same city and an in one case going to the same
university. On the other hand, the only time my privacy has actually been
violated is when the police decided one day that they had to search my
apartment because of a false complaint by a neighbour I'd never even met.
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
db //
WDS
> Static Void<s...@ticvoid.com> wrote:
>> To alleviate people's concerns, Blizzard employee Bashiok decided to say
>> his real name on the forums, his real name is Micah Whipple:
>
> yaugin<yau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Exactly right. There is an insane privacy risk inherent in this sort
>> of thing, but no, nobody will consider this to be a serious problem
>> until they personally become an example. In the meantime they will
>> offer trite rationalizations like the ones previously posted in this
>> thread.
>
> Uhuh. I've posted online, BBSs, Usenet and other forums, for over
> 25 years using my full real name, without a single incident, and I'm
> hardy unique. My name is pretty unique though, so it couldn't be any
> easier to track me down. I've certainly got a lot of people very angry
> at me.
>
> What ever insane privacy risk you're imagining is just paranoia.
> You face a bigger risk from people you meet on the street. You face a
> much bigger, if still very small, threat from your friends and neighbours,
> who know exactly where you live, and are much more likely to get pissed
> off at you and don't have to far to go.
The real privacy threat is from the private companies that track us from
birth to death. They have databases with lots of information about us
that is used by the police to obtain search warrants, to deny us housing
and jobs, or forbid us from traveling. We have no way to verify that
any of that data is valid let alone what is in there.
So, no, I'm not going to worry if I have to use my real name when
discussing StarCraft II.
Insane Ranter
up at her high school after finding out about her real name. Its easy
getting someone real name without the real id thing many are so
"innocent".
If blizzard really cares so much about trolls and spam in their forums
why aren't they tossing out all the crap that goes on in trade chat in
game? Wouldn't a simpler solution just give a permanent ban on the
forums? There will still be trolls who don't care that there real life
name is up there.
Yes its their house and there rules. But it seems that if cleaning up
the forums is a major reason for this the side effect that doesn't
seem to be brought up is the loss of those good posters who would post
but choose not to due to their name being up there and out there.
Sheldon England
> Static Void wrote:
>>
>> Now I think it's fairly safe to say that this is perhaps the dumbest idea
>> that anyone has ever had ever.
>
> Not at all. It is a GREAT idea. Anonymous posting causes 10 times the
> problems over the benefits it provides.
I agree.
- Sheldon (it's really my name)
Justisaur
I would be annoyed as my real name means little to me due to it being
handed down from my father who I haven't seen since I was 15 and later
found out it wasn't even his real name. Whereas my handle holds far
more meaning to me, as I carefully chose it and am quite comfortable
with it. In any case it would be ridiculously easy to find all that
other info on me just from looking up my handle if anyone were so
inclined to find my real name, or vice versa from a prospective
employer. I just don't post anything that would cause me any
consternation should someone go to the trouble. Well very rarely, if
you really really dug hard you might find something, although nothing
If someone cared that much about I wouldn't want to associate with
someone.
If you think just using a handle is going to protect your anonymity
you'd be very sadly mistaken.
- Justisaur
WDS
> "Julien Barreaux reportedly spent six months looking for the person who
> killed his online character in a virtual knife fight, and eventually found
> the foe living only a few miles away in Cambrai, a town about 2 hours north
> of Paris. The 20-year-old, armed with a real-life kitchen knife, went to the
> man's house and brutally stabbed him in the chest."
>
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/05/27/2010-05-27_video_gamer_hunts_down_stabs_man_who_killed_his_online_counterstrike_character.html
>
> Now instead of six months it will take about six seconds.
>
> Let's say you are a girl gamer, there's enough harassing and stalking as it
> is - think for a second what will happen now. Or an potential employer
> googling your name at your job interview and the first page hits are all
> posts you've made to a MMO gaming forum. Given the stigma attached to
> gamers do you honestly think that's not detrimental to your chances of
> getting that job?
>
> I can't believe you people can really be missing the obvious implications of
> this stupid and inherently dangerous policy. To say that it's their forum
> and they can do whatever they want is not the point and certainly not a
> valid excuse for retarded decisions like this one.
Oh good grief.
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> "Justisaur" <just...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>> If you think just using a handle is going to protect your anonymity
>> you'd be very sadly mistaken.
>
> So I take it you leave your house and car unlocked because hey, we all know
> locks never stopped determined burglars and thieves.
>
> Obviously nothing is ever 100% safe or foolproof, but why make it easier for
> those few with bad intent?
I understand some people do not want to post under their real name on
Blizzard's forums. But what's stopping them from using one of the
hundred or more other forums to talk about the same topics?
Running even a small forum can be a pain (I have run several), and
there's no question that moderating a forum is easier when there is no
anonymous posting. People just act differently. I bet Blizzard is
actually hoping for reduced forum use though this move.
That being said, I don't like to discuss game topics under my real
name, so I do understand the dissatisfaction. But it's no big deal to
go somewhere else. It's not as if Blizzard's forums are the only
place to talk about Blizzard's games.
--
Hammer
Mike S.
>Oh good grief.
There was an article in PCWorld or PCMagazine awhile back about an
employer who looked up someone he interviewed for a job on the
internet. He found this potential employee in a youtube video where
he was basically acting like an ass. He was drunk I think. The
employer decided against hiring him for that reason alone.
Ok, that isn't exactly the same thing as posting about World of
Warcraft with your real name but it is close enough for me. I'll pass
on posting on their forums with this policy in place. You do as you
wish.
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> There was an article in PCWorld or PCMagazine awhile back about an
> employer who looked up someone he interviewed for a job on the
> internet. He found this potential employee in a youtube video where
> he was basically acting like an ass. He was drunk I think. The
> employer decided against hiring him for that reason alone.
Mere due diligence. So what?
--
Hammer
Mike S.
<star...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>Mere due diligence. So what?
Anything you say or do online in a public arena is out there for
anyone to look at. They may get a negative impression, deserved or
not. It may harm you as it did here to the guy in that article -
again, deserved or not.
My resume underneath 'interests' does not show video games because A)
It won't help me get the job and B) it might actually *hurt* my
chances because gaming, at least in the US, has a certain stigma
attached to it. World of Warcraft in particular. I don't need an
employer doing his due diligence on me and thinking I'm an antisocial
recluse which we gamers are don't you know. <g>
Zank Frappa
Zank Frappa
I don't play any Blizzard games myself but I understand their forum is
pretty much the only way of getting technical support?
Mike S.
wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qiauaGbxipA
I imagine posting with your real name WOULD be a problem if your name
was Adolf Hitler. :)
Zank Frappa
Absolutely.
Not to mention the fact that many parents pay their kid's monthly fees so
the "real ID" attached to some accounts may cause unforeseen (and
probably undesirable) consequences to many people who will have no idea
what the hell happened until it's too late.
Bad idea, Blizzard. Or Activision, I'm not sure who's to blame here.
Ross Ridge
>The Internet is the safest place you can interact with other people.
>Anyone who's thinks hiding their real identity is important for
>safety reasons, seriously has their priorities mixed up.
Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think that's unfair. There are reasons, and I think by the very nature
>of those reasons, nobody with "mixed-up priorities" is going to be able
>to tell you what they are to your satisfaction on a public forum.
Sure there are other reasons to hide who you are, but if the supposed
reason is protect yourself from some imagined "insane privacy risk"
then your risk evaluation is competely off base. Sure, if you're Salman
Rushdie and facing a real and specific threat, then maybe you don't want
to use your real name, but even then the Internet would still the safest
place to do so.
>Just leave it at, "Reasons exist, but not in your case." I have my
>reasons for using a pseudonym, and it's not because I want to avoid
>repercussions for the occasional flame, which is about as bad as I get.
I'm not asking anyone to justify why they're using an alias. I'm just
saying you don't have to worry about anyone showing up at your door if
you don't.
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>Static Void <s...@ticvoid.com> wrote:
>> To alleviate people's concerns, Blizzard employee Bashiok decided to say
>> his real name on the forums, his real name is Micah Whipple:
>
>yaugin <yau...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Exactly right. There is an insane privacy risk inherent in this sort
>>of thing, but no, nobody will consider this to be a serious problem
>>until they personally become an example. In the meantime they will
>>offer trite rationalizations like the ones previously posted in this
>>thread.
>
>Uhuh. I've posted online, BBSs, Usenet and other forums, for over
>25 years using my full real name, without a single incident, and I'm
>hardy unique. My name is pretty unique though, so it couldn't be any
>easier to track me down. I've certainly got a lot of people very angry
>at me.
Yeah, but you're also in Canada, where it's less likely to have someone
like Russell Tavares come after you.
See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19980505/ for his story.
Then there was that Chinese gamer, killed over the sale of a Game Sword.
If I didn't live in Canada I'd be a lot more worried.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Tim O
wrote:
>So say hi to Micah Whipple:
His dad told me not to squeeze the Charmin. I'm gonna stalk him!
Zank Frappa
>
> I imagine posting with your real name WOULD be a problem if your name
> was Adolf Hitler. :)
Bwah ha hhaaah haha!..
This one also cracked me up, here's an excerpt from the BBC reporting on
the issue:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10543100.stm
Now tell me if you notice anything:
===================================
One World of Warcraft player, Jim Brand, contacted BBC News to say how
disappointed he was over the change.
"I have been using the forums for over five years, reporting bugs and
trying to be helpful. Now, to have the privilege to help people on the
forums I have to reveal my real name; I'm dead against it," he said.
"I work in a charity and deal with governments officials. If they do a
search and see I am a gamer, it could affect my employment prospects," he
added.
===================================
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
Jane Doe
> Mike S. wrote:
>
>> Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz wrote:
>>
>>>Mere due diligence. So what?
>>
>> Anything you say or do online in a public arena is out there for
>> anyone to look at. They may get a negative impression, deserved or
>> not. It may harm you as it did here to the guy in that article -
>> again, deserved or not.
>>
>> My resume underneath 'interests' does not show video games because
>> A)It won't help me get the job and B) it might actually *hurt* my
>> chances because gaming, at least in the US, has a certain stigma
>> attached to it. World of Warcraft in particular. I don't need an
>> employer doing his due diligence on me and thinking I'm an
>> antisocial recluse which we gamers are don't you know. <g>
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Not to mention the fact that many parents pay their kid's monthly fees
> so the "real ID" attached to some accounts may cause unforeseen (and
> probably undesirable) consequences to many people who will have no
> idea what the hell happened until it's too late.
>
> Bad idea, Blizzard. Or Activision, I'm not sure who's to blame here.
I respect the folks who are emailing Blizzard with their concerns. But
that's not the path for me. Blizzard has crossed a line. They've
demonstrated to me that they simply don't care (nor will they ever care)
about their customers. Sure, maybe enough hate mail will get Blizzard to
back down on this round. But that just means their marketing folks will
hide in the shadows and strike again when we're not paying attention.
I play games to relax. I didn't sign up for a never-ending vigil against
Blizzard's creep tumor of privacy invasion.
This is not a case of a "misreading" of the customers. Blizzard clearly
has been pushing this idiotic Facebooklization of their games for a long
time. This is part of their long term strategy to "connect" us whether we
want to or not.
So I say FUCK THEM. I love this game. I love it to death. I love the
Starcraft community.
But you know what? Sometimes protecting your rights means giving up
something you truly love.
I'm not going to play another game of StarCraft until Blizzard not only
reverses this forum policy, but also takes away the stupid Real ID in
games, and also apologizes profusely for even pulling this stunt in the
first place. Since that day will never come, then well, I guess it is
good bye StarCraft.
You have been a good friend for a very long time. I'll miss you, but I
have a feeling if I don't draw the line right now, Blizzard's strategy
will be the norm and pretty soon no company will respect my privacy in
any shape or form.
I'm not just talking about gaming companies here, just look at the crap
Google and Facebook are constantly trying to pull with their "surprise
opt in" social media changes. Draw the line folks, before it is too late.
r2002
WDS
> But you know what? Sometimes protecting your rights means giving up
> something you truly love.
So exactly what *RIGHT* is being violated here?
BTW, I would never have dreamed there were so many drama queens here.
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> But you know what? Sometimes protecting your rights means giving up
> something you truly love.
If you don't like Blizzard, then by all means, don't do business with
them. But what "right" is at stake here? Words mean things. Use the
right ones. Blizzard isn't infringing on any of your rights. It's up
to *them* to decide the terms of use of their forums and games. Don't
like it? Don't use it. Easy.
--
Hammer
Mike S.
<star...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>If you don't like Blizzard, then by all means, don't do business with
>them. But what "right" is at stake here? Words mean things. Use the
>right ones. Blizzard isn't infringing on any of your rights.
I agree. While I do think there is a privacy issue here (feel free to
disagree on that point) I wouldn't call this an *invasion of privacy*
as that would require infringement. There is none here.
Adam Russell
Similar to how you "have the right to remain silent" but may choose to
give up that right, I believe you also have the right to not have your
real name divulged but may give up that right. Were they to divulge
without your permission they would be liable. Though the word "rights"
is often used to mean the rights given by the US constitution, that is
not the entire meaning.
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
The Constitution does not "give rights," but a basic course in civics
is probably beyond the scope of this thread.
Simply: you do not have a right to use Blizzard's services without
disclosing your real name on their forum. If they want to let you use
their services without disclosing your name, fine. If they don't,
fine. You don't have a "right" to their services, period. It's
voluntary *both ways*. If you don't like their terms of use, *don't
associate with them.* No rights of yours are being infringed just
because you don't like their terms of use. Nobody forces you to play
their games or post on their forums. Simple enough!
--
Hammer
Zank Frappa
>
> I respect the folks who are emailing Blizzard with their concerns. But
> But that's not the path for me. Blizzard has crossed a line.
It's not the path for quite a number of folks, apparently.
Some people seem to have declared war against the company and its
employees. And this guy is just collecting legally and freely available
information, mind you - imagine the kind of damage that someone
with better computer skills and a nasty side could actually do.
http://asnowstormbyanyothername.blogspot.com/
I can't help but feel sorry for some of the employees who got sucked
into this epic mess when they're just trying to do their jobs and may
even be against the RealID policies themselves.
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> http://asnowstormbyanyothername.blogspot.com/
>
> I can't help but feel sorry for some of the employees who got sucked
> into this epic mess when they're just trying to do their jobs and may
> even be against the RealID policies themselves.
Incidentally, all this blogger did was google some data that was
already out there -- and all RealID does is add the information that
they play a Blizzard game or post to their forum.
I guess the point is that people are scared of Blizzard's forum being
a *starting point* for a google search? Blizzard is not posting
private details like this blogger did. (In those cases, those details
were originally posted by either the person in question or their
friends and family.)
The solution is so mind-bogglingly simple: don't post on Blizard's new
forums! According to what I read, real names won't be applied to
forum posts retroactively and this is something for *new* forums. So
vote with your feet and go somewhere else. Problem solved!
--
Hammer
WDS
This is a perfect example of the huge NEGATIVE side of anonymity. Note
that the blog has no information about the blogger.
Adam Russell
No one is saying you have the right to post on their forums so thats a
strawman argument.
The point being discussed is that if you want to post on their forums
then you have to give up your right to keep your real name private.
WDS
> The point being discussed is that if you want to post on their forums
> then you have to give up your right to keep your real name private.
Why do you think you have a "right" to keep your real name private?
Morgan
Because I live in free country with legislation that protects my privacy.
I'm a secondary school teacher, and from time to time the odd student
will go looking on the web for any information that can find about me
and/or other members of staff. I wouldn't be overly chuffed if they
could google and find posts that I'd made to a Blizzard forum. That is
part of my private life and no one's business but my own.
Adam Russell
Because they are legally obligated to keep your name private unless you
give them permission to divulge. I thought I said this before.
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> The point being discussed is that if you want to post on their forums
> then you have to give up your right to keep your real name private.
No, you are not "giving up a right." You are voluntarily associating
with someone/corporation who has a clear terms of use policy. To say
it is an infringement of rights is the same as saying you have a
*right* to post on someone's forum without identifying yourself, which
is not a right at all. You have a right to keep your details private
from them and other readers of their forums, and they have a right not
to let you use their servers. If you post there, *you* are agreeing
by their terms of use, not having your "rights" taken.
--
Hammer
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> Well, in the U.S. the 5th amendment states that a person may not be compelled
> to testify against himself in a criminal matter by the government, and
> identifying oneself to an agency could be considered such testimony under
> certain circumstances, so you have protection from that. You may not be
> compelled.
>
> But that has fsck-all to do with this.
Well, yeah, it has nothing to do with it at all. The idea of a "right
to privacy" comes from the 14th Amendment, not the 5th, and has
nothing to do with individuals voluntarily choosing to use a service
offered by a private entity with their own terms of use.
Anybody who thinks Blizzard is violating "rights" here is probably the
same kind of idiot who thinks Obama is doing a good job.
--
Hammer
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
...except that you are making public posts on a public forum ran by a
private company with a terms of use policy which you have agreed to.
If those terms of use are incompatible with your private life, go
somewhere else. Pretty simple.
--
Hammer
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
What do you think you are doing when you agree to their terms of use
when you post? As has already been pointed out, this is not
*retroactive* to prior posts.
--
Hammer
Adam Russell
No one afaik said they were violating rights or taking away your rights.
If you give up your right to privacy you do it voluntarily. Just like
if you talk to the police after you are read your rights they arent
violating your right to remain silent, you are giving up your right to
remain silent. In this case you have a legal right to expect them to
keep your information private, until and unless you give up that right.
You are being asked to give up that right for the right to use their
forum.
Adam Russell
>
>> WDS wrote:
>>> On 7/8/2010 5:00 PM, Adam Russell wrote:
>>>> The point being discussed is that if you want to post on their forums
>>>> then you have to give up your right to keep your real name private.
>>> Why do you think you have a "right" to keep your real name private?
>> Because they are legally obligated to keep your name private unless you
>> give them permission to divulge. I thought I said this before.
>
> What do you think you are doing when you agree to their terms of use
> when you post?
I think you are being asked to give up your right to privacy in return
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
"Rights" have nothing to do with it. Even if you "give up your right
to privacy" you do not have a "right" to use their forum -- they could
ban you for any number of other reasons. No matter what you do, you
never obtain a "right" to post on their forum.
Stop using the wrong words -- all they do is cheapen *actual* rights.
--
Hammer
Yesindeed
"Static Void" <s...@ticvoid.com> wrote in message
news:i1080b$vs7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> As in your real first and last names.
>
> http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=25626109041
It is a decision designed to make the forums less trouble for Blizzard. To
make the forums less of an outlet for the angry and dissatisfied.
They do not make money on a per-post basis.
If the decision effectively kills the forums, they are more than happy to
see that death.
It's a good decision from their perspective.
Yesindeed
"Ross Ridge" <rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:i133gp$doj$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> Ross Ridge wrote:
>>The Internet is the safest place you can interact with other people.
>>Anyone who's thinks hiding their real identity is important for
>>safety reasons, seriously has their priorities mixed up.
>
> Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I think that's unfair. There are reasons, and I think by the very nature
>>of those reasons, nobody with "mixed-up priorities" is going to be able
>>to tell you what they are to your satisfaction on a public forum.
>
> Sure there are other reasons to hide who you are, but if the supposed
> reason is protect yourself from some imagined "insane privacy risk"
> then your risk evaluation is competely off base. Sure, if you're Salman
> Rushdie and facing a real and specific threat, then maybe you don't want
> to use your real name, but even then the Internet would still the safest
> place to do so.
>
>>Just leave it at, "Reasons exist, but not in your case." I have my
>>reasons for using a pseudonym, and it's not because I want to avoid
>>repercussions for the occasional flame, which is about as bad as I get.
>
> I'm not asking anyone to justify why they're using an alias. I'm just
> saying you don't have to worry about anyone showing up at your door if
> you don't.
Anybody who thinks they gain something by using their real name to
counteract what they lose is not well thought out.
You can think if you will that the risk of real names is tiny. I'd agree.
But the gain? Explain that one to me.
I mean, i know why some people do it. To prove something to themselves, to
be different, to be "courageous" and "honest" and "open". It means
something to them emotionally. It is some small part of their identity.
but let's for the sake of argument take that out of the equation. What
other benefit comes from using one's real full name in a forum that does not
require it?
There are no benefits to that.
For those who might have a politically incorrect honest opinion every once
in a while, it does in fact make sense not to put it out there onto the
internet for the search engines to consume for all of eternity.
The benefit of anonymity is protection from the thought police.
Jane Doe
> private company with a terms of use policy which you have agreed to.
> If those terms of use are incompatible with your private life, go
> somewhere else. Pretty simple.
I am one or more of the following:
X a woman
- a minor
X a member of an ethnic minority
- a person of alternative sexuality
- a transgendered person
X a person with a uncommon name - one of the few with this last name
X a person who has been harassed and stalked
X a person in an information-sensitive profession
X a person who may be Google searched by co-workers/employers/potential
employers
X a person who may be Google searched by mates/potential mates
X a person who is concerned about account security
X a person who is uninterested in online social networking
X a person who does not fit any of these categories but who is
nonetheless concerned for him/herself or for the welfare of others
X a person who is concerned about identity theft.
and I oppose RealID for one or more of these reasons:
X It is a threat to personal safety.
X It is a threat to personal security.
X It will not eliminate/significantly reduce trolling.
X It should be optional; choosing between risk and silence is not truly
“optional”.
X Unified tags/handles provide the same effect with minimal risk.
X World of Warcraft is not Facebook.
If this decision persists, I will do one or more of the following steps:
X Refrain from posting on these forums.
- Seriously reconsider my subscription.
X Cancel my subscription and ask that all data pertaining to my account
be permanently deleted.
- Prepare to cancel my subscription should RealID be made mandatory in
game.
Simple enough for ya?
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> If this decision persists, I will do one or more of the following steps:
>
> X Refrain from posting on these forums.
> - Seriously reconsider my subscription.
> X Cancel my subscription and ask that all data pertaining to my account
> be permanently deleted.
> - Prepare to cancel my subscription should RealID be made mandatory in
> game.
>
> Simple enough for ya?
Yuep -- exactly what I've been saying people who don't like it should
do.
--
Hammer
EMan
<snip>
Great job summing it up, why is this discussion still going on...
WDS
> WDS wrote:
>> On 7/8/2010 5:00 PM, Adam Russell wrote:
>>> The point being discussed is that if you want to post on their forums
>>> then you have to give up your right to keep your real name private.
>>
>> Why do you think you have a "right" to keep your real name private?
>
> Because I live in free country with legislation that protects my privacy.
What legislation would that be?
Warewolf
news:l5oetvpqxka0$.dlg@starfist.thorsfinni:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:47:18 +0000 (UTC), Jane Doe wrote:
>
>> But you know what? Sometimes protecting your rights means giving up
>> something you truly love.
>
> If you don't like Blizzard, then by all means, don't do business with
> them. But what "right" is at stake here? Words mean things. Use the
> right ones. Blizzard isn't infringing on any of your rights. It's up
> to *them* to decide the terms of use of their forums and games. Don't
> like it? Don't use it. Easy.
Actually, here's another side to the proverbial coin...
What's to stop someone from taking another person's 'real name' in the
forum (or, for that matter, on Battle.Net)?
(There is more than one John Smith out there)
In fact, what is to stop this person from trolling, spamming or
performing other illegal acts *in that persons's name*?
If what I've read is true - that employers base an employee's
fitness/performance on Google searches - then, yes, you have a privacy
issue on your hands.
What happens on YouTube, on the various forums and even places like
Usenet should 'stay there' and have *NO BEARING* on that person's
activities and 'impression' in real life.
(We wear different 'masks' for different situations, after all)
While we're at it, what's to stop Blizzard from *blocking* or even
*BANNING* legitimate names like Anna Graham or even Dick Assman?
Does this mean that these people will *NOT* be able to post on the forums
or play games that they legally purchased?
(I'd call the latter cause for a class action lawsuit, especially since
not all stores accept the return of 'opened software') }:^(
You are right when you say that we give up some of our privacy when we
provide information (ie name, age, interests) to forums like Blizzard's
but that *doesn't* mean that they can (or *should*) parade it around like
a banner going 'Na-na-nana-na'. Not only is it petty but it's not a
clear or concise depiction of the real me.
Oh well. It's just another lesson for the corporations to learn.
'Never your customers fuck with.'
Signed,
Warewolf
who has had his nickname 'stolen' on other sites. -_-U
Mr. Stabby
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25968987278&sid=1&pageNo=83
Zank Frappa
> They seem to have backpedaled
"Hello everyone,
I'd like to take some time to speak with all of you regarding our desire to
make the Blizzard forums a better place for players to discuss our games.
We've been constantly monitoring the feedback you've given us, as well as
internally discussing your concerns about the use of real names on our
forums. As a result of those discussions, we've decided at this time that
real names will not be required for posting on official Blizzard forums."
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=25968987278&sid=1
Reminds me a bit of the Real Coke fiasco - introduce something nobody in
their right minds could possibly want then call it off to make it look like
the company is "listening to our customres".
Well played Blizzard.
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> What's to stop someone from taking another person's 'real name' in the
> forum (or, for that matter, on Battle.Net)?
This issue is hardly unique to Blizzard's forums, and allowing people
to post with fake names obviously does nothing to mitigate it. If
anything, "RealID" lowers the changes of someone using a false
identity!
> (I'd call the latter cause for a class action lawsuit,
You'd have to find a real schiester of a lawyer to waste time on that.
Blizzard is not obligated to let people post on their forums -- that
really is all there is to it.
--
Hammer
Morgan
If I'm paying Blizzard £9 a month for a WoW subscription then I expect a
decent level of customer service. This includes access to their forums
with the option to post without displaying my real name.
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> If I'm paying Blizzard £9 a month for a WoW subscription then I expect a
> decent level of customer service. This includes access to their forums
> with the option to post without displaying my real name.
This is now a moot point since Blizzard is backtracking. But being
able to post anonymously to a community forum is not something implied
in a contract when you buy a software product. When you sign up to a
forum, you have to accept their terms of use. Just because you *want*
something doesn't mean it is your right to get it.
--
Hammer
Morgan
>
>> The point being discussed is that if you want to post on their forums
>> then you have to give up your right to keep your real name private.
>
> No, you are not "giving up a right." You are voluntarily associating
> with someone/corporation who has a clear terms of use policy. To say
> it is an infringement of rights is the same as saying you have a
> *right* to post on someone's forum without identifying yourself, which
> is not a right at all.
Not true. Identifying yourself the the company running the forum and
publicly identifying yourself on every post are two very different things.
> You have a right to keep your details private
> from them and other readers of their forums, and they have a right not
> to let you use their servers. If you post there, *you* are agreeing
> by their terms of use, not having your "rights" taken.
I think the point that people are trying to make it this it's
*unreasonable* for Blizzard to expect you to give up that right. If
you disagree then that's your opinion and of course no less valid than
anyone else's in here.
Morgan
Data Protection Act.
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:00:53 -0700, Adam Russell wrote:
>>
>>> The point being discussed is that if you want to post on their forums
>>> then you have to give up your right to keep your real name private.
>>
>> No, you are not "giving up a right." You are voluntarily associating
>> with someone/corporation who has a clear terms of use policy. To say
>> it is an infringement of rights is the same as saying you have a
>> *right* to post on someone's forum without identifying yourself, which
>> is not a right at all.
>
> Not true. Identifying yourself the the company running the forum and
> publicly identifying yourself on every post are two very different things.
Again, you are missing the point. You do not have a *right* to post
to *someone else's* forum. If you don't like the fact that they
require non-anonymous posting, then simply don't post. It's really
not too difficult!
Obviously people can complain that the posting requirements are
unreasonable, but Blizzard is under no obligation to run their forums
the way you think they should. (But, obviously, they got tired of all
the bitching and moaning and caved. I don't really care what they do,
but it's annoying to see people complain about imaginary "rights"
being "infringed.")
--
Hammer
Morgan
I didn't say that I had the right to it. I said that I had the right to
privacy. I do not expect to have to surrender this right in order to
post to said forums. You may not think that that right to privacy or
anonymity is important as you suggested in another post. I however do.
Morgan
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 22:40:44 +0100, Morgan wrote:
>
>> Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:00:53 -0700, Adam Russell wrote:
>>>
>>>> The point being discussed is that if you want to post on their forums
>>>> then you have to give up your right to keep your real name private.
>>> No, you are not "giving up a right." You are voluntarily associating
>>> with someone/corporation who has a clear terms of use policy. To say
>>> it is an infringement of rights is the same as saying you have a
>>> *right* to post on someone's forum without identifying yourself, which
>>> is not a right at all.
>> Not true. Identifying yourself the the company running the forum and
>> publicly identifying yourself on every post are two very different things.
>
> Again, you are missing the point. You do not have a *right* to post
> to *someone else's* forum.
Please point out where I have said that you do.
> If you don't like the fact that they
> require non-anonymous posting, then simply don't post. It's really
> not too difficult!
>
> Obviously people can complain that the posting requirements are
> unreasonable, but Blizzard is under no obligation to run their forums
> the way you think they should.
And I'm under no obligation to not publicly disagree with their decision.
>(But, obviously, they got tired of all
> the bitching and moaning and caved. I don't really care what they do,
> but it's annoying to see people complain about imaginary "rights"
> being "infringed.")
Not actually imaginary. Depending on where you live.
Warewolf
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:26:48 GMT, Warewolf wrote:
>
>> What's to stop someone from taking another person's 'real name' in the
>> forum (or, for that matter, on Battle.Net)?
>
> This issue is hardly unique to Blizzard's forums, and allowing people
> to post with fake names obviously does nothing to mitigate it. If
> anything, "RealID" lowers the chances of someone using a false
> identity!
Right.
I'll call a spade a spade, thank you. ^_^
>> (I'd call the latter cause for a class action lawsuit,
>
> You'd have to find a real schiester of a lawyer to waste time on that.
Like one of the law firms who gave EA 5 harsh doses of reality? 7:^|
(Too bad they didn't take. The SIMpletons) 9_9
> Blizzard is not obligated to let people post on their forums...
Just like we're not obligated to purchase their games? 7:^|
I'll buy (more) PC games from the retail shelf when the current crop of
penny pinching DRM-obsessed thugs stops treating their paying customers
like criminals/cash cows.
I purchase (or, if they're freeware, download) games to have *FUN*, not
to watch my computer slow to a crawl and crash every five minutes.
And, let's face it, do I really want to buy the same FPS or Fed-Ex quest
RPG over and over again? -_-U
Signed,
Warewolf
who wants to play a genie or Buzzsaw Girl in the next 'virtual universe'
he visits.
Adam Russell
>
> to >> grant *them* the right to disseminate
>
> and I think you're on target under the DPD.
>
> And the problem with the law is as soon as they change their privacy
> disclosure, in timely compliance with the DPD, anything you submit afterward is
> subject to the new policy.
>
> Not a lot of teeth to it. It merely requires timely disclosure of a policy, and
> adherence to a self-imposed policy (and a few other details, of course).
>
> I understand what you are saying, in principle, but the idea that you have a
> "rights" to information on someone else's hardware is bonkers. What you have,
> is a protection against abuses should they choose to violate their *own rules*,
> their privacy disclosure, regarding that information.
>
> Which makes this a clear case of, if you don't like it, make a formal request
> to them to delete all your information from their forum system, and walk.
> Better yet, tell them to wipe your software keys and registration, too.
>
> If that is worth it to you, and enough other people threaten the same, this
> policy won't last out the week.
>
You are right. Its gone already.
Morgan
> We have HIPAA in the States for medical data, but data privacy is very
> piecemeal here. It's almost all based in common law, or worse, tradition. We
> get explicit privacy rights in our bedrooms, our banking, and our medical
> decisions. Everything else is up for grabs.
>
> Does the 'Data Protection Act' warrant you ability post messages on a public
> board, on someone else's computer, in anonymity? Or does it just protect your
> personal data and identifying data, data which is necessary to secure
> transactions or proffessional services, from dissemination and/or sale?
The company is legally obligated to protect any personal data (data that
can identify you as an individual).
> I would be surprised that it would assure you of not having to give your full
> name when leaving data on someone else's private message board, and I would
> imagine that any TOS regarding posting on that board would be tough to fight.
>
> I'm curious. Is there an explicit part of the law that you claim protects you,
> or are you just saying that Blizzard is violating the spirit of the law?
Pretty much just the spirit of the law yes. I doubt that they are
actually breaking the law as they would use their TOS (as you said) to
exempt themselves.
Peter Huebner
says...
>
> On 7/8/2010 2:47 AM, Jane Doe wrote:
> > But you know what? Sometimes protecting your rights means giving up
> > something you truly love.
>
>
> BTW, I would never have dreamed there were so many drama queens here.
I guess the 'right' to slag off people anonymously.
Anybody can play the daft game without ever going to post on the forums
if they feel it may reflect badly on them in RL.
I've played a mmorpg for years and never posted on the forums (because I
intensely dislike the web-forum format).
If I wanted to do so, I'd be happy to post under my own name. As I do
here. I can't stand hatemongers, dramaqueens, griefers, and trolls who
ply their trade while feeling safe by not being identifiable. In-game I
can always /ignore them. Once upon a time everybody on usenet posted
under their own name, and yes, I've been here long enough to remember
that. LOL, I can in fact remember the first kid from Aussie on this very
ng. who turned up here with a 'handle'. I sent him an email pointing out
that nobody would take him seriously unless he posted under his name.
His reaction, predictably, was to be very rude, and he turned out to be
a hard-of-thinking troll in the end.
To me Blizzard's policy seems entirely sane, considering that they feel
they're being overrun with rudeness & drama on their forums.
*Privacy_concerns* would immediately arise as far as I am concerned, if
Blizzard would use the connection to the game server to extract personal
information off the client. I'd be the first to yell and scream and jump
up and down and call for boycots.
But that is clearly not the case here. You decide to post on their
forums. You put your name to it. It's their house, and they can make the
rules about who sits at their table and what the rules of conduct are.
If you want to talk about WoW anonymously you can always go to usenet
and start/join a wow group or go to some gamers' forum that allows you
to do so anonymously.
Right?
-Peter
Lance Corporal Hammer Schultz
> While I agree with you on the concept of rights, I very much disagree that it
> will be effective, and that this is a blessing that should be greeted with
> cheers.
>
> I would personally opt out, if I were a Blizzard customer.
So would I! I never said I thought this was a good idea -- I even
said I don't like posting about gaming with my real name.
It's now a moot point -- Blizzard has shelved the idea. I think
they'd rather hire more moderators than deal with the bad PR.
--
Hammer
unibalm
<star...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
.....
>
>You'd have to find a real schiester of a lawyer to waste time on that.
coff coff. now that'd be a difficult task
unibalm
<star...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 22:32:42 +0100, Morgan wrote:
>
>> If I'm paying Blizzard £9 a month for a WoW subscription then I expect a
>> decent level of customer service. This includes access to their forums
>> with the option to post without displaying my real name.
>
>This is now a moot point since Blizzard is backtracking. But being
>able to post anonymously to a community forum is not something implied
>in a contract when you buy a software product. When you sign up to a
>forum, you have to accept their terms of use. Just becIuse you *want*
>something doesn't mean it is your right to get it.
you don't get it - probably because by now you don't want to get it.
read carefully: I claim that I have a right to privacy, a right to
keep my name private - and to effect that right I don't post on forums
that demand I post under my real name. Because, I say, the mods/owners
of said forums are out of touch with or heedless of certain realities
which make protecting my privacy important - e.g. the fact that
personnel officers etc. regularly do simple google searches on names
to check out employees or potential employees, etc.
Nowhere have I said that some company doesn't have a right to be
stupid and heedless of such elementary - axiomatically elementary -
facts, and to demand customers use their real names. These rights
aren't contradictory. It's perfectly consistent for me to explain my
POV, which is that such companies *are* stupid, are heedless of
reasons why a huge majority of potential customers do *require*
privacy, and so *will* dump their product.
unibalm
wrote:
exactly. or to continue flogging the dead horse "unreasonable for B
to expect people not to exercise that right." (by dumping B)
> If
>you disagree then that's your opinion and of course no less valid than
>anyone else's in here.
according to the maxim that because speech is free, every opinion is
equally "valid" under that rule. Which puts the bar as low as it can
go.
Ross Ridge
>they'd rather hire more moderators than deal with the bad PR.
I think forum adminstrators around the world were praying that Blizzard's
plan would work and set a new norm for the Internet. Blizzard already
has more employees working in their customer support division than any
other part of the company. They much rather be letting moderators go
(or moving them to more productive jobs) than hiring more of them.
Maybe they should just scrap their forums entirely, or just limit it to
strictly technical support. I can't imagine more than a small fraction
of their customers have anything to do with their forums anyways.
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
db //
Zank Frappa
> Giving your full name, especially if the name is rare, is a *tiny*
> step in the wrong direction if you have reason, or just a
> predilection, to fear these things.
Wait, what - a *tiny* step? You have to look at the bigger picture.
A full name is where all ID thefts start, period. A name gets you an
address, an address gets you court records and county records. Court
records gets you a birth date, an address, and all kinds of other info
that might be helpful. County records could even get you a Social
Security Number with a bit of luck and skill, property tax info, and
lots more specially if you are an active member in your community.
A www.pipl.com search can get you a wealth of information that can make
what public places give you seem mundane. Search yourself and if your
name is not common the results will shock you.
To hell with anyone who thinks we want that kind of info on pages
available to everyone who reads one of the most popular forums in the
world.
Kyle Haight
Many people no longer understand what a right is, and use the term much
too broadly -- often equating any policy with undesirable effects with
a rights violation. Blizzard may well be doing something foolish
and bad here, but that doesn't automatically translate into violating
anyone's rights. Put bluntly, there is no such thing as "the right
to play World of Warcraft", or "the right to post anonymously to a
web forum". Blizzard owns the forum, and they have the right to set
the terms of use -- even though they may be exercising that right
foolishly. They're entitled to be foolish, just as the right to
free speech covers the right to say idiotic things.
I guess the issue is partially moot now, since Blizzard has apparently
backed down, but the point about rights is still worth making.
--
Kyle Haight
Kyle Haight
Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I didn't say that I had the right to it. I said that I had the right to
>privacy. I do not expect to have to surrender this right in order to
>post to said forums.
In other words, you think that you have a 'right' to set the terms of
use for property (a web forum) which you do not own. You don't, any
more than you have a right to free speech in my living room. If you're
in my house, and I don't like what you're saying, I can ask you to leave.
If you don't, I can call the cops. And I can do this regardless of
whether you think my standards of acceptable conversation make any damn
sense or not.
--
Kyle Haight