Anonymous/Burner Accounts and CD Etiquette

[Nathan Streeter]

I firmly believe that CD should foster the kind of environment where people only need anonymous/burner accounts to discuss highly personal issues... not to discuss the hot topics of CD and our culture. I posted this back in the hugs & handshakes thread:

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

It seems like throwaway/burner accounts are becoming far too common now... I understand their use for posts seeking help in a (seemingly) toxic team situation, but other than that, I'd like for people to either 1) be willing to 'own' their opinion or situation, or 2) not post that, if it's really too controversial to attach to your name and team.

Part of enabling people to do 1 (to 'own' their opinion) is to not jump all over someone for posting differing views. Challenge or debate them, but keep the discussion respectful and full of GP. For me, Gracious Professionalism is FIRST's/Woodie's twist on Bible verses like:

You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. Leviticus 19:17

Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:17,18,21

So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider this me challenging this viewpoint to avoid perpetuating a narrow view. I agree and disagree... I'm guessing you're not surprised though, Chris. :-)

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Homophobic opinions aren't treated with such disdain because they are unpopular - the viewpoints expressed actively perpetuate the oppression of LGBT peoples. Freely expressing such viewpoints without anyone challenging them creates an environment that fosters, tolerates, and perpetuates such intolerance.

I'm all for people being able to share and post viewpoints... and for people being able to challenge them. My problem comes when "challenging viewpoints" ends up equating to a group of people demeaning and insulting a person. This happens a lot on the internet and in large groups of people. It happens to both sides on various hot topics of the day, depending largely on which side is the norm in that social context. This "group shaming" happens less on CD than other areas of the internet, but it still happens too much here.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

It's important to not think of these ideas as just "controversial" or "unpopular" opinions when they actively do harm to members of our community and to society in general. This is why such statements are taken so negatively by many. And I would hope people wouldn't view a bigot in the same light as a tolerant and accepting person!

What is interesting to me here, is that you're both rallying around being "tolerant and accepting," while in the same breath saying that certain ideas and views should not be tolerated. In some ways I agree... I believe that there is a difference between being controversial (an idea that is simply unpopular to the group) and being wrong (an idea that is objectively wrong)... but both groups of people should be treated the same way... with respect and graciousness. In my mind, a terse one-liner is most often demeaning and less often respectful and gracious.

I'd also like to underline and point out a couple other things "on the side." First, I don't like that it seems now that anyone who doesn't hop on the LGBT train with both feet and advocate for them on all issues seems to be tossed into the category of being a homophobic bigot. I disagree with a number of the issues that have been popular for LGBT people, BUT I don't think they're any less human. They're still real people that have real struggles and face real oppression from true bigots and bullies. Pretending that there are two categories (LGBT-Advocates and Homophobic Bigots) is really quite short-sighted.

Going a step further, I'd say that not only is categorizing anyone not firmly behind LGBT issues short-sighted, but it's also actually enforcing oppression of people with different moral views. It can make people with different moral views feel inhuman or stupid (perhaps because those specific or similar words are often used!). By your argument, it seems that it would also be right for individuals that label people as "homophobic" or "bigot" to be challenged for fostering, tolerating and pertuating intolerance.

My view? Everyone should be treated with the utmost respect and grace. This means really hearing other people, really considering their views, and really trying to stop bullies to keep everyone safe. It doesn't mean that no one will feel insulted... there are other opinions all over the world, and people need to learn how to deal with that. Trying to create an environment where no one needs to deal with anything that might be negative about them doesn't help. It's exactly the same as the "everybody's a winner" mentality not promoting individuals and teams to challenge themselves and improve capabilities.

[JohnBoucher]

I am struggling to understand how all this translates into the "Non-Chief Delphi" world. If you don't want accountability, how do you express your opinions? Do you sit in meetings and not contribute?

If you have a different opinion or can correct misinformation, why not just do it?

[mathking]

Originally Posted by JohnBoucher

I am struggling to understand how all this translates into the "Non-Chief Delphi" world. If you don't want accountability, how do you express your opinions? Do you sit in meetings and not contribute?

If you have a different opinion or can correct misinformation, why not just do it?

Well put. We should all strive to learn how to express our opinions well. And to understand that just because you express your opinion well doesn't mean others will not or should not criticize it.

[JamesBrown]

I am a big supporter of tying your name to your CD account. I have been posting on CD for 11+ years, and have never had a need to state an opinion that I did not want tied to my name. I view CD as a professional environment, and try to act accordingly.

The first part of the discussion is allowing people to use an anonymous account to state their opinion without tying it to their name. Specifically to the hypothetical in the original post. I agree, a members personal opinions, political, religious, moral, or otherwise, should not effect their standing in the community as an expert in their field of expertise. This is exactly why this opinion should not be brought up in a professional setting. As soon as you bring these unrelated opinions into your professional life you run the risk of people changing their opinions of you.

I have no need to know what Karthik's opinions are on anything non-robot related, and I don't care to know. For the same reasons I don't share mine. I apply the same attitude at work, and in all arenas outside of personal discussions with select people. I would strongly advise that everyone does the same.

For example (since it keeps coming up) if you have strong opinions about the LGBTQ+ community, if they do not directly effect FIRST then you do not need to state them. If they do directly effect FIRST, then you need to be confident enough in your stance to state your opinion, if you aren't then you need to evaluate your opinion. In general, if you aren't willing to have your name tied to an opinion, then you have no business bringing it up in a public setting.

The second part of this, is allowing someone to bring up a difficult or controversial topic without fear of repercussion. I see a need for this, and I would love to see FAHA revived for exactly this purpose, This would allow users to as these types of questions freely without fear of reprisal. At the same time the moderator oversight would insure that the system is used in a professional manner, and is not abused.

The third argument that I have seen is that the issue is with the red and green dots. First, I promise they are really just dots. Second, I have to say, I would much rather see the reputation system eliminated along with anonymous accounts, than see the accounts stick around.

[b.arci]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

I am a big supporter of tying your name to your CD account. I have been posting on CD for 11+ years, and have never had a need to state an opinion that I did not want tied to my name. I view CD as a professional environment, and try to act accordingly.

The first part of the discussion is allowing people to use an anonymous account to state their opinion without tying it to their name. Specifically to the hypothetical in the original post. I agree, a members personal opinions, political, religious, moral, or otherwise, should not effect their standing in the community as an expert in their field of expertise. This is exactly why this opinion should not be brought up in a professional setting. As soon as you bring these unrelated opinions into your professional life you run the risk of people changing their opinions of you.

I have no need to know what Karthik's opinions are on anything non-robot related, and I don't care to know. For the same reasons I don't share mine. I apply the same attitude at work, and in all arenas outside of personal discussions with select people. I would strongly advise that everyone does the same.

For example (since it keeps coming up) if you have strong opinions about the LGBTQ+ community, if they do not directly effect FIRST then you do not need to state them. If they do directly effect FIRST, then you need to be confident enough in your stance to state your opinion, if you aren't then you need to evaluate your opinion. In general, if you aren't willing to have your name tied to an opinion, then you have no business bringing it up in a public setting.

The second part of this, is allowing someone to bring up a difficult or controversial topic without fear of repercussion. I see a need for this, and I would love to see FAHA revived for exactly this purpose, This would allow users to as these types of questions freely without fear of reprisal. At the same time the moderator oversight would insure that the system is used in a professional manner, and is not abused.

The third argument that I have seen is that the issue is with the red and green dots. First, I promise they are really just dots. Second, I have to say, I would much rather see the reputation system eliminated along with anonymous accounts, than see the accounts stick around.

This.

I feel mostly the same way, with one exception. That is, if people do feel the need to express their opinion about something (say, an educated guess about the viability of a mechanism), they should be tolerant and respectful. This does not mean one shouldn't outright disagree with something, it just means they have to express their viewpoint respectfully. Said person also shouldn't be worried about hurting another person's feelings (that is not tolerance, that is trying to be politically correct --- which isn't needed in a community where opinions shape how they innovate); as stated earlier in this post, opinions simply need to not condemn/bully a viewpoint. This will lead to better community engagement, I think.

P.S. I hope this isn't ironic because it seems unprofessional; I was trying to be professional.

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

The second part of this, is allowing someone to bring up a difficult or controversial topic without fear of repercussion. I see a need for this, and I would love to see FAHA revived for exactly this purpose, This would allow users to as these types of questions freely without fear of reprisal. At the same time the moderator oversight would insure that the system is used in a professional manner, and is not abused.

I agree with you that in some situations there is a need on CD to allow people to post anonymously. However when I see someone creating a throwaway account and post in several threads and express their opinion, then I have a problem with it. Accounts without team number or name should be restricted to only be able to post in the thread that they started and nowhere else. I don't know if that is technically possible.

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

I agree with you that in some situations there is a need on CD to allow people to post anonymously.

Maybe it's time to bring back FIRST-A-Holics Anonymous.

[gblake]

I realize that I'm trying to sweep back the ocean, but ...

I think it would be a good idea for people, in general, to stop worrying about the team someone is on when discussing anything, anywhere, unless the explicit topic being discussed is that person's team.

I know that there is a big, deep, and broad pool of sentiment that connects what individuals do to to observers' opinions about the entire team that *happens* to include that individual; but please; teams rarely get to choose their members, and teams with non-trivial membership rolls are going to be full of diverse attitudes about plenty of boring and exciting subjects.

If, in general, we spent more time discouraging a mindset of forming judgments about "teams", instead of "individuals", and invested less mental energy in viewing teams as mono-cultures (or in pushing them to be mono-cultures), I think this thread's topic would lose an important bit of urgency.

Blake

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by gblake

I realize that I'm trying to sweep back the ocean, but ...

I think it would be a good idea for people, in general, to stop worrying about the team someone is on when discussing anything, anywhere, unless the explicit topic being discussed is that person's team.

I know that there is a big, deep, and broad pool of sentiment that connects what individuals do to to observers' opinions about the entire team that *happens* to include that individual; but please; teams rarely get to choose their members, and teams with non-trivial membership rolls are going to be full of diverse attitudes about plenty of boring and exciting subjects.

If, in general, we spent more time discouraging a mindset of forming judgments about "teams", instead of "individuals", and invested less mental energy in viewing teams as mono-cultures (or in pushing them to be mono-cultures), I think this thread's topic would lose an important bit of urgency.

Blake

I can tell you that, with only a few exceptions (generally, people I know and interact with regularly at events), I have no idea what team anyone is on here on CD, and I rarely look at the team number unless it's specifically relevant to the thread in question (most often if the location in the top right of a post indicates Minnesota and I want to see which event the team is going to or how close they are to me so I can get them appropriate help).

I would actually support "burying" the team number a bit - put it in the individual's profile instead of at the top of every post. That way if I care, I can click on to the profile and find it but it's not right out there for me to are on every post.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by gblake

I realize that I'm trying to sweep back the ocean, but ...

I think it would be a good idea for people, in general, to stop worrying about the team someone is on when discussing anything, anywhere, unless the explicit topic being discussed is that person's team.

I know that there is a big, deep, and broad pool of sentiment that connects what individuals do to to observers' opinions about the entire team that *happens* to include that individual; but please; teams rarely get to choose their members, and teams with non-trivial membership rolls are going to be full of diverse attitudes about plenty of boring and exciting subjects.

If, in general, we spent more time discouraging a mindset of forming judgments about "teams", instead of "individuals", and invested less mental energy in viewing teams as mono-cultures (or in pushing them to be mono-cultures), I think this thread's topic would lose an important bit of urgency.

Blake

Very well said.

However, in life you will always represent your 'team'.

Say for instance I work for Nasa. If I go on a message board with "Nasa engineer" in my bio whatever I do will reflect the company. Or, if I wear my Nasa uniform and rob a bank. Guess what Nasa looks very bad.

The bottom line is your actions usually do not just reflect upon yourself. Its definitely something I struggle with time to time.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Very well said.

However, in life you will always represent your 'team'.

Say for instance I work for Nasa. If I go on a message board with "Nasa engineer" in my bio whatever I do will reflect the company. Or, if I wear my Nasa uniform and rob a bank. Guess what Nasa looks very bad.

The bottom line is your actions usually do not just reflect upon yourself. Its definitely something I struggle with time to time.

Thanks for the compliment, but I will respectfully disagree.

No you don't represent them just because you are wearing a shirt. Observers might choose to decide you represent them, but the fact of the matter is that you don't. More broadly, John and Jane Doe aren't authorized to represent the totality (or whatever is the right term) of every organization that they belong to.

If I put on a NASA shirt to rob a bank, am I representing NASA? No, I'm a bank robber who is wearing a NASA shirt.

I'l bet you a vary large amount that if you name an obnoxious, vile, or despicable sentiment, attitude, or behavior; that at least 9 out of 10 times you can find someone employed by NASA who believes or does it. Do they represent NASA, no, unless ..... I decide to let them represent NASA in my own mind.

Again, I realize that I am trying to sweep back the ocean; but it would nice if observers would put more effort into deciding not to let individuals become the representation of groups.

Acknowledging that it does happen is one thing. Saying that it *should* happen is another. Saying that we expect it from each other, and reinforcing and/or rewarding that expectation, is being lazy.

Turning down the "you always represent your team" mantra would lower the impetus to create anonymous accounts in some discussions.

YMMV
Blake

[logank013]

Originally Posted by gblake

Thanks for the compliment, but I will respectfully disagree.

No you don't represent them just because you are wearing a shirt. Observers might choose to decide you represent them, but the fact of the matter is that you don't. More broadly, John and Jane Doe aren't authorized to represent the totality (or whatever is the right term) of every organization that they belong to.

If I put on a NASA shirt to rob a bank, am I representing NASA? No, I'm a bank robber who is wearing a NASA shirt.

I'l bet you a vary large amount that if you name an obnoxious, vile, or despicable sentiment, attitude, or behavior; that at least 9 out of 10 times you can find someone employed by NASA who believes or does it. Do they represent NASA, no, unless ..... I decide to let them represent NASA in my own mind.

I think he same applies to frc though. If I'm a student on 234 and I'm wearing an 1114 shirt, then am I representing 1114 (sorry for using 1114 again )? I would say no. It's different if I'm wearing a 234 shirt and am a member of 234, then I am representing my team in my opinion. If I go onto CD and post a lot of stupid things while having 234 as my avatar, team number, and in my signature, then people will wonder why I'm even on my team. People would probably wonder what we've been learning at robotics from our mentors about the real world and professional environment.

Now how I act isn't a direct representation of what I learn at robotics because I can decide what to listen to and what not to listen to but the impact I have on my team's image would still get some negative feedback. In the fall, we did many presentations of what you could do in the robotics world. I was in charge of the Chief Delphi presentation. The users of Chief Delphi on my team all agreed that even having the disclaimer that says your opinions don't represent your team doesn't actually work. What you say with your team number attached still affects the opinions of others about your team.

My hypothetical is this:
In my opinion, I really love 1114 and I think a lot of that reason is because I think Karthik is awesome. With that said, if a lot of 1114 members were on here trolling and posting unjustified opinions, then my opinion of 1114 would definitely go down and I'd start to question what happens on 1114 (This is not what happens on 1114! This is just an analogy).

Do you understand what I'm saying or do you disagree with this. If you disagree, feel free to say it. CD has always been about professional discussion and constructive criticism so I'm not afraid to hear you opinion. Thanks.

-Logan

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by logank013

I think he same applies to frc though. If I'm a student on 234 and I'm wearing an 1114 shirt, then am I representing 1114 (sorry for using 1114 again )? I would say no. It's different if I'm wearing a 234 shirt and am a member of 234, then I am representing my team in my opinion.

Actually I would go out on a limb and say by wearing a tshirt you are representing their team. Here is an example.

I have a 254 sweatshirt. On my last day in St.Louis my mom and I went up in the arch. It was on the chillier side so I wore the sweatshirt. As soon as I walked out of my room it was noticed. All of the people around me thought I was a member of 254. Just in the hotel I had 3 people come up to me. Some saying how cool "my" robot was or asking questions about it. I throughout that day got very good at saying that I was not a member of the poofs but it was pretty funny. In the end through a day in STL I had around 10 people come up to me. If I behaved badly, did something stupid, or was rude to the people coming up to me many would assume I was a member of 254 and gain a bad opinion of them.

So be careful who you trade those tshirts too

[logank013]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Actually I would go out on a limb and say by wearing a tshirt you are representing their team. Here is an example.

I have a 254 sweatshirt. On my last day in St.Louis my mom and I went up in the arch. It was on the chillier side so I wore the sweatshirt. As soon as I walked out of my room it was noticed. All of the people around me thought I was a member of 254. Just in the hotel I had 3 people come up to me. Some saying how cool "my" robot was or asking questions about it. I throughout that day got very good at saying that I was not a member of the poofs but it was pretty funny. In the end through a day in STL I had around 10 people come up to me. If I behaved badly, did something stupid, or was rude to the people coming up to me many would assume I was a member of 254 and gain a bad opinion of them.

So be careful who you trade those tshirts too

Never really thought about that. That actually makes a lot of sense though. I feel like if someone wore an 1114 shirt at an IN competition, people would probably know they aren't on 1114. But at worlds, anyone could be from anywhere.

[jajabinx124]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Actually I would go out on a limb and say by wearing a tshirt you are representing their team.

I agree. If you wear another team's t-shirt you are representing their team, so I also urge other folks to keep in mind what they say even when they aren't wearing their own team t-shirt during competitions, but another team's t-shirt.