Anonymous/Burner Accounts and CD Etiquette

[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.

[Lil' Lavery]

I saw this thread title and the first couple posts before I left for work this morning, and I ended up stewing on it during my commute and for good bits of an all day meeting. As a result I have some points that I really want to hit that I now see have already been broached by previous posters (and in many cases, better described by these previous voices). My apologies for duplicating some discussion points, as well as what is likely to be quite a long post in general.



TL;DR - I think most concur that "burner" accounts have gone out of control, and should be reigned in. However, not all anonymous accounts are the same, and we need to understand why they have become more prevalent before anything can be done to address the root causes.



Hiding your identity or team association when posting on Chief Delphi is not an entirely new phenomena, but it certainly seems to have become more frequent in recent years (and perhaps increasingly so in the past few months). There were cases of this dating back quite a while in Chief Delphi history, and some involvement in some of Chief Delphi's most notorious (and sometimes entirely deleted) threads. So why is it more common now? I don't know if there's a single answer to that question, but I'm willing to pose a few hypotheses as to reasons why.

For one, the moderation's approach to anonymous duplicate* accounts seems to have changed. I remember at least one instance where an "anonymous" poster that was criticizing the build philosophy of three notable teams had their posts applied to their "main" account by Chief Delphi administrators. I know one moderator stated on one of the FRC-community webstreams that more people apparently hide their IP behind proxies than they used to, so perhaps this is a reason for the change in moderation philosophy. I also know of quite a few other notorious anonymous threads/posts that seem to have been deleted, with very few examples (that I can find) of these threads from further in the past still existing. I know some of these still get deleted in 2016, but subjectively it at least seems like more survive than they used to.

*It's worth noting that there's no rule against anonymous accounts, but rather a rule against duplicate accounts

Secondly, there are far more "pseudonym" accounts than there used to be. Until 2008, it was basically just Car Nack. When Looking Forward started, there was some contention about the legitimacy of that account, but Brandon put out notice that it was pre-approved by administrators. Now, there's a slew of accounts dedicated to predictions for different regions. While this motivation for anonymity is largely different than the "burner" accounts, it may be setting a precedent to newer posters that anonymous accounts are part of the Chief Delphi culture. Even more troublesome than the prediction accounts may be the seemingly tolerated/semi-celebrated "troll" accounts like WestCoastBestCoast and RivetMan (funny as they may be).

Third, the internet as a whole has changed a lot in the past decade. When many of the seasoned FRC veterans first created Chief Delphi accounts, social media was a vastly different entity than it is today. Generation Z is growing up in a world where Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc. are a part of their default social interactions. Virtually all of them already have outlets where they can share their opinions with accounts tied to their real world identity. Further still, even their FRC teams have accounts on many of these platforms, reducing the need for Chief Delphi to be a central FRC hub for sharing team news, robot photos, reveal videos, congratulations, etc. What uses do these students then have for Chief Delphi? Aside of specific technical discussions, it's easy to see where anonymity may be valued in the remaining FIRST-specific cultural and ethical discussions that occur on CD. In a social media-driven world, forums and message boards' anachronisms are often valued simply for the potential anonymity they afford.




Beyond just the question of why these posts are more frequent, there's a wide variety of reasons these posts happen in the first place. Like I said earlier, there are the pseudonym prediction accounts and troll persona accounts. And as other people mentioned, it's one thing to create a "burner" to seek advice about internal team issues when you wish not to call direct attention to your team over these potential dysfunctions. We used to have FAHA for these types of posts. While there may be biases with these posts, anonymity is pretty much a necessity for helping these posters work towards a resolution when they don't know of other avenues to turn. Similarly, there are those who are afraid of consequences to their team (or possibly themselves) for taking an unpopular stand on FIRST culture-related issues. In some cases, this can be understandable, as legitimate disagreement with the "Chief Delphi hivemind" can be somewhat intimidating. In other cases, it's rather disgusting as posters try to hide behind anonymity to take pot shots at other posters or teams. Then there are those who use anonymous accounts to shield themselves (or their teams) from taking unpopular stances on general societal or other issues. This is where "Political Correctness" (or as I refer to it "Not Being a Jerk") gets dragged up, and conversations can get mired in lengthy debates.

Given the different avenues of why a poster may chose to create a "burner" account, we as a group can try to address as many root causes as possible. In some cases, it may involve moderators changing how these accounts are handled. In others, we have the power to set the culture ourselves. In the most obvious sense, you see plenty of these burners accounts loaded with red dots. That form of dissuasion may or may not work. But we can also strive to create a climate in which people are less driven to create these accounts in the first place. Namely, Chief Delphi can attempt to be a community in which diverse opinions are given more room to breathe, even if the majority of individuals disagree with them. That doesn't mean that opinions go unchallenged (particularly those that are hurtful or oppressive), but rather than people are more willing to engage in honest discussion rather than snark, shutdown posts, or over-the-top rhetoric. We can realize that sometimes the Chief Delphi groupthink can be rather intimidating, and that many lurkers and new posters end up discouraged when the collective slams down on them immediately. We can realize that there are large groups of the FRC community that aren't active posters on Chief Delphi, and both that they may have valid opinions that differ from the CD consensus and that they may read our words without typing a response. We can realize that there are plenty of those who read CD but are discouraged to post because of the type of atmosphere created towards those who disagree with the collective or the most revered posters. While these consensus may have been reached for entirely beneficial reasons, we can work towards trying to be more inclusive of those who may not (initially) agree. Hopefully then, people won't feel as much need to shield their teams from their words.

[gblake]

Folks

My point earlier was emphasizing the difference between being a member of, or affiliated with, an organization, and being the authorized voice of an organization.

No one needs to educate me about the logic behind a team wanting every member to always be on their best behavior. That's obvious.

What I am recommending is that we, as observers, don't over-emphasize it.

If there is little room for well-founded disagreement, protest, or boat-rocking in our mental image of what a good team's members should do/be, then I think we make a mistake.

When someone wants to (or does) express something controversial, worrying about team image should take a back seat to worrying about the strength of the argument. If the argument is strong/sound the person advancing it should feel confident that their team image will be enhanced, not harmed.

I hope that ethos permeates all of STEM robotics activities outside of CD, and CD. Except in situations where entire team populations are explicitly supposed to be judged, let's stop nagging people about their individual actions reflecting badly on their team. Let's choose to judge teams by the actions of the members authorized to represent the whole team, and let's judge individuals as individuals.

Doing this should reduce the number of anonymous accounts a little bit. Maybe a lot.

Still sweeping back the ocean,
Blake

[gblake]

If you wear another team's t-shirt you are representing their team, ...

This just makes me want to scream, "No! No! No!", in the most gracious and professional manner I can muster.

But I won't.

I understand that this is conventional wisdom, and that it is often repeated by many as if it were a fundamental law of the universe, like F = MA, but ... let me ask, "What makes it true?".

If you said many people might mistakenly decide that you, or any other individual in a team shirt, are always an authorized representive of an entire team; and that those people need to be reminded to avoid making that mistake, I would agree.

But a claim that you (or any random member of the team) actually represent an entire team, or other organization, simply because you have one of their old shirts on ... Nope, I don't buy it.

Can someone convince me?

Blake

[EricH]

Originally Posted by gblake

If you said many people might mistakenly decide that you are representing a team, and that those people need to be reminded to avoid making that mistake, I would agree.

But a claim that you actually represent an entire team, or other organization, simply because you have one of their old shirts on ... Nope, I don't buy it.

Can someone convince me?

Blake

I can't convince you--I think the first part of the quoted section sums it up.

You are not representing that team--but you are perceived as representing that team. The difference between perception and reality can be rather fine, in some people's minds. Just as an example, it is entirely possible for a ref crew to be thoroughly unbiased (as a crew), but be seen as biased for or against a team or two because X happens and Y happens--they're completely independent events, but it happens in such a way that the refs appear biased.

"I think, therefore I am", when applied to others, becomes "I think you are, therefore you are". That's... unfortunate, in some cases. Not so unfortunate in others. (And... in some special cases, it actually becomes the truth. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.)

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by EricH

You are not representing that team--but you are perceived as representing that team. The difference between perception and reality can be rather fine, in some people's minds. Just as an example, it is entirely possible for a ref crew to be thoroughly unbiased (as a crew), but be seen as biased for or against a team or two because X happens and Y happens--they're completely independent events, but it happens in such a way that the refs appear biased.

A lot of the difficulty is being an LRI or a head ref is managing the perception of impartiality. I know I can be impartial when inspecting robots, but it can be difficult to walk up to a team I know well and not have an outside observer say "well, he's friends with that team, so...". It's not that big of a deal for me most of the time, but when a question comes up in the playoffs, it can be tough. It's one of the big reasons I'm careful about who I ask to help me during the playoffs - having inspectors keeping an eye on the queue from different teams or from teams that aren't playing that afternoon can really help!

The short of it is, perception is just as important in these situations as reality. If someone has reason to perceive you have an affiliation with a group, then you are representing that group whether you (or the group) likes it or not.