@babadad’s “thanks” thread got removed.

@fmf said
I think you may be addressing moonbus.

I'll remove it, it wasn't interesting anyway, I think

@torunn said
I'll remove it, it wasn't interesting anyway, I think

It was fine but it was moonbus, not me, who was talking about the ethics of mentioning someone's real name.

@moonbus said
Stees, you've been here long enough, you should know this by now. Revealing information which could identify a person in real life is very bad forum etiquette and against ToS. There are people on here who, for reasons which concern no one else, wish to remain unknown to others here. If such persons reveal their names in private forums or PMs, then that information is expected ...[text shortened]... llowed (Robert, Graehme, Sting) -- that simply won't work.

'nuf said.

Kind regards, @moonbus

You have a point and I would uphold it, but your analogies are once again way off of the mark.

“sting” is a name immediately identifiable with one individual, “Dave” [name used redacted] isn’t.

I regret even joking with Stees about this because if I hadn’t then the invertebrate who alerted Stees post, in a vain attempt to make it look like I had done so, wouldn’t have had the low level inspiration to act as they did.

On a personal perspective; it was one of the lowest, most nefarious and most mean-spirited acts of forum vandalism I’ve seen in my 14 years here and the person who did it should be ashamed of themselves.

@fmf said
I am baffled as to why this OP would be alerted.

It’s because is pierces the conscience of the weakling who alerted the original post.

I knew it would get alerted, I know the type.

@fmf said
It was fine but it was moonbus, not me, who was talking about the ethics of mentioning someone's real name.

Thank you, but I really didn't have anything to add to the conversation. Names don't mean much to me here - many of you have very common names. I share my real name with 9 968 women in Sweden and it is considered a common name. It means 'little mother'. 🙂

@torunn said
Thank you, but I really didn't have anything to add to the conversation. Names don't mean much to me here - many of you have very common names. I share my real name with 9 968 women in Sweden and it is considered a common name. It means 'little mother'. 🙂

“divegesster” is unique I think.

It is a very old name dating back to the days when Catalonian geesters use to dive for oysters along the Delta de l'Ebre.

@divegeester said
You have a point and I would uphold it, but your analogies are once again way off of the mark.

“sting” is a name immediately identifiable with one individual, “Dave” [name used redacted] isn’t.

I regret even joking with Stees about this because if I hadn’t then the invertebrate who alerted Stees post, in a vain attempt to make it look like I had done so, wouldn’t ...[text shortened]... m vandalism I’ve seen in my 14 years here and the person who did it should be ashamed of themselves.

Hypothetically: suppose someone with a common name, such as Harry (name redacted by @moonbus), were a member of a public platform/forum (RHP, FB, whatever) and had a wife (we'll call her Sally) (not her real name). Suppose Harry contracted a STD and had to go into hospital for treatment but did not wish his wife to know this. Suppose his wife found out about it at the online forum because someone else happened to mention that Harry's going to hospital, and the wife put put two and two together from other posts and realised that it was her Harry and not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry. This could potentially ruin a marriage. A lot of iffs, I know, but a plausible scenario, and reason enough to prohibit any unwanted revelations of private matters online.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

just call me Dave

@moonbus said
Hypothetically: suppose someone with a common name, such as Harry (name redacted by @moonbus), were a member of a public platform/forum (RHP, FB, whatever) and had a wife (we'll call her Sally) (not her real name). Suppose Harry contracted a STD and had to go into hospital for treatment but did not wish his wife to know this. Suppose his wife found out about it at the ...[text shortened]... lausible scenario, and reason enough to prohibit any unwanted revelations of private matters online.

As I said, I uphold your point.

Your analogies however are farcical.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Why do you even care? And why do you keep prying into people's medical situation?

@badradger said
just call me Dave

As you like, piggy.

@shallow-blue said
Why do you even care? And why do you keep prying into people's medical situation?

@reservation247 is odd. He contends three things all at the same time:

[1] he has repeatedly claimed that I am mentally ill

[2] he believes people with mental illness should not be mocked for their chess rating

[3] he tries repeatedly to mock me for my chess rating

@badradger said
just call me Dave

"Dave's not here."

@divegeester said
As I said, I uphold your point.

Your analogies however are farcical.

Not farcical. A dating web site once lost control of its database; real names and web names were revealed, and it ruined some marriages.