Should We Be Using The "Cloaking Device"?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,774
    This is just my own observation, but I find the 'cloaking device' (hiding behind anonymity) on this board to be a true bother and anti-constructive.

    I think a lot of ill spoken rambling would not find a post here if we all showed our faces, so to speak. If one has to be anonymous in order to post here, I tend to take what they say much less seriously, because I judge what is being presented by the person presenting it! Words apart from the personhood do not have much credibility with me, no matter what the content is.

    I, personally, am out to build a network with those who believe and think alike, and I only know (and connect) with those who put their real names (and emails if possible) on here, which are very few.

    Therefore, I am presenting the challenge to get real!
  • When I started my blog back in 2002, I felt the need to remain relatively anonymous (I used only my initials in my tag) due to my employment situation, and my uncertainty with how my co-workers would respond to my development in thought. Not long after my departure from that job one year later, I chose to come clean with my identity.

    While I understand the desire to protect one's skin in the 'real world' by not revealing one's identity in the 'virtual world', when I was semi-anonymous I fought the temptation to use my mask as a wall, behind which I could hide and launch verbal grenades. Sometimes I succeeded, sometimes I failed.

    My view is this: regardless of the level of anonymity chosen, it behooves one to write as if one were acting in public. However, whether that means being on one's best behavior or not ultimately rests on the individual.

    One thing that people may not realize about the Internet is that it is a public square that occasionally disguises itself as a closed room. If you provide just enough information (or others provide information about you) even as you try to maintain anonymity, someone will discover your true identity despite your efforts.
  • Well said, Aristotle... We should never post anything we would be ashamed to claim.

    Janet.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I am rejecting your challenge to get real.

    In this age of Google and internet stalkers, I don't know how anyone CAN give out personal information online. There are a lot of psychos online, and ESPECIALLY in religious cyber-realms. Frankly I don't want some nutjob I disagree with coming to my apartment to "settle it". I don't want harassing phone calls from trads who think I'm wrong about the old Mass, and I really don't need someone taking a disagreement with me to my church. Now all that information CAN be put together by someone willing to do the research, but I'd rather not give them the opportunity. To put it simply, I'm paranoid. If I interact via e-mail with someone, I always include my name and position, but there's no reason I should give out more than I do.

    And honestly, I think you're ridiculous to demand more from people, Francis. You have my handle on here, why would it matter if you had my full name? If you identify me as "Gavin" or as any other pseudonym I use for e-mail addresses, does it make a difference? You know who I am: I'm Gavin. You know Cantor. It's no different from Mark Twain. There wasn't a real author named Mark Twain, but we can identify Samuel Clemmens as such inasmuch as he wrote under that title. Frankly, Francis, I thought your name was a pseudonym at first. But it doesn't matter, since the pseudonym is the person. We don't have anyone on here who's signing on as "Musicgeek101" posting garbage and another "IluvMass102" agreeing with them. Everyone here holds to their name or a pseudonym and it's by that which we know them.

    My real first name is Gavin, I'm a 20-something, I work and live in West MI, and I'll be returning to finish my B.Mus in the Detroit metro area in a few months. That is WAY more information than you need to interact with my arguments. Or better yet, if I said my name was Michael Russel and I live in Buffalo, NY, how would that lie make my arguments any stronger than if I used the handle "RCOrganist"? Sorry, Francis, but handles, pseudonyms and full names don't make a difference when it comes to the issues.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    And let me add, that I've run into "fans" from when I had my blog. I'm just as identifiable by my speaking style as I am by my first name. To put it shortly, we don't HAVE anonymity. If Cantor were to launch into a rant full of cuss words, it's just as damning on him as it is on Francis or Jeff Tucker. In fact, it's more so because Cantor has a blog in his name. Just because we can't respond to a person's birth name doesn't mean we can't respond to the person if we have an identifier.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    I understand what Francis is getting at, but I also agree with Aristotle.

    I'm a newcomer to the conservative music/liturgy blogisphere, and my employment situation is just shaky enough that there are some who would leap at the opportunity to "expose" me in an effort to jeopardize my job security.

    Much of what I say on these various blogs is an exercise in "thinking out loud," testing my ever-developing perspective on the more orthodox end of Catholic issues in the areas of liturgy and music. While I make every effort to self-edit, I'm not always successful. Overall, I hope that my contributions to this forum and other blogs that I frequent are of value, or at the least are well-reasoned and insightful.

    "David Andrew" is in fact my first name, and my chosen confirmation name, so to that extent I'm being as honest about my identity as possible. In other threads here and on other blogs I've made references to churches in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, thus providing another identifying tag. I've also made rather general comments about my current parish (size, demographics, "cultural" atmosphere), and my relationship with the staff and the pastor.

    I've told my pastor that I participate in these blogs and forums, and I assure him that I never say anything so uncharitable as to cause scandal (at least I hope that's the case). I've never specifically identified the parish by name.

    At some point I may go so far as to fully identify myself, but will do so because the circumstances warrant. In the meantime, I hope that we don't begin to force people "out" or worse, take action to "out" them here or on any other blog.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,774
    I knew there were reasons, but I couldn't figure out what they were since I have never disguised myself on any post. I guess I follow the general guide of letting my Yes be Yes and my No be No. All I am saying is that I cannot take anyone seriously in what they say without knowing who they are and what the believe. After all, to go to the extreme, and I do not direct this to anyone here, Satan is very good at quoting scriptures.

    I think what really bothers me is this duo identity thing that seems to exist today on the internet, but moreso, that gets put into our corporate and personal lives and trust is destroyed. It's a real problem, and I can only 'connect' with those I know and trust.

    Aristotle: I don't thing anyone should ever purposely misbehave, cloaked or not.

    Thank you for your comments.
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    This is a pretty interesting discussion, and an issue that I've struggled with for a number of years.

    I have a number of identities which are active:
    - As a citizen and family member
    - As an employee of a large company
    - As a parishioner, RCIA leader, chorister, and chant schola director
    - As a book author and publisher

    One of the things that's challenging at times is how these might interact. Most of the time it's no big deal, but there are occasional conflicts that can arise. For instance, in my book I don't say anything about my employer, lest that create a conflict of interest with my job. At work, I tend to not say anything about my religion (unless it's in a personal relationship context) because it might lead to misperceptions that aren't useful.

    But online, all of these are muddled together. If you do just a little work, it's not hard to find out who I am in all these contexts. So it's probably more about me being paranoid. My kids don't worry about this kind of stuff at all.

    Here's some principles I've created for myself over the years:
    1. Behave as if everybody knows your name. Hiding behind anonymity is unreliable.
    2. If you're ever tempted to say something anonymously, it's probably because you wouldn't want to say it in person. Leave it unsaid.
    3. Take accountability for your actions. If you wouldn't do it In Real Life, don't do it online.
    4. Assume that anything published anywhere on the internet is permanent. It is. It's impossible to absolutely retract anything.
    5. It's ten times harder to create a good reputation than a bad one. Make that a hundred times.

    Therefore, I've learned to be very cautious in my postings. I've been monitoring all the (rather vigorous) discussions on this forum but generally decline to say anything because of the above principles.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    It also takes some practice. It takes time to get used to these web venues, to figure out the culture, etc.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    "I guess I follow the general guide of letting my Yes be Yes and my No be No."
    I find that rather self-righteous and offensive, but I'll assume it wasn't meant as such.

    "All I am saying is that I cannot take anyone seriously in what they say without knowing who they are and what the believe."
    As I've said, you know who I am. You know who David Andrew is. You know who Cantor is. Do you need my Social Security number to interact with me? Blood samples? Should we correspond by snail mail along with a signed photo of me writing the letter and a fingerprint so that you "know who I am"? Come on Francis! All of us listed have online identities, well established through publishing at various places, and we are well known. Others are getting started under pseudonyms. You can not SERIOUSLY say that the use of a pseudonym is a barrier to communication! And you know what we believe, it's what we're writing! I believe the use of pseudonyms is merely another extension of identity. So again your charge that you "don't know" someone is ridiculous.

    And David, keep your alter-ego, the mild-mannered organist, well hidden. I HAVE in fact been nearly run out of a job over plainly sensible comments made on a blog being identifiable as mine. There's no sense in getting people angry over the term "standard funeral fare" (I actually had complaints about that!) just to please someone who's looking for ways to conveniently ignore your argument.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,774
    Gavin:

    I am simply trying to understand your thinking and giving you my own thoughts. You may do whatever you would like, I am simply expressing my thoughts and observations about the problems with anonymity from my own perspective, but don't let that bother you. Believe me! I know that there are a lot of political undertones in church positions, and you do whatever you think you need to do.

    Gavin, actually, you are one of the most transparent ones here, so it is not you I have been speaking about. It is those who try to connect and refuse to reveal anything about their own preferences that get my goat.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Fair enough Francis. I don't know whom exactly you're referring to, but I'll trust you have a legitimate beef with their use of the forum's relative anonymity.

    I will say that I think the anonymity can stand in the way of forming professional relationships, which is partly what I'd assume the forum to be about. But towards that end I'm always happy to converse by e-mail with others here. Just that I'm not going to be giving away the personal information willy-nilly.
  • G
    Posts: 1,397
    I must say this topic is one reason I am so looking forward to the chant intensive, the next colloquium, etc.
    I will enjoy putting a face with with a screenname, whether that screenname consists of an alias, a pun, a single initial, or what is on your social security card.

    When I first came to the internet, in order to protect the anonymity of my family and friends should I discuss them, I had of necessity to protest my own.

    Later I, like Gavin, was almost run out of a job for criticism of a colleague. The criticism was nothing I would not have, and DID not express in staff meetings, but the language was slangier and less temperate, (though I still don't think it was offensive to anyone without a guilty conscience...) and there was no vocal inflection or body language to nuance the expression.

    Live and learn...

    Anyway, although anyone here is welcome to correspond with me if they wish some bona fides, and my full name and location could probably be easily divined with a simple online search, on this board I will remain "G."

    Geri

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • francis
    Posts: 10,774
    You have nailed it, Gavin. It stands in the way of professionalism.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    Two other little thoughts come to mind.

    It's equally easy to shun someone from a board because of their inappropriate, contentious or provocative posts without giving them the opportunity to "make it right," regardless whether or not their ID is "cloaked." I take for example the article written by the young man who was clearly deeply hurt by his experiences working as a musician in the Catholic Church. If you go back and read that thread, there are comments that have now appeared that ID the young man by first name, and people are saying very charitable things about him and where he is now. I don't know if he'll ever appear on our forum, or if he's already among us under a "nome-de-web."

    Secondly, even though I have at times engaged in sarcasm, vinegar and what could be considered a "less than professional" demeanor, I'd like to think that WYSIWYG in terms of who I am. If (no, when) I attend my first CMAA event, I'll happily tell people what my online ID is. I think that's another good litmus test; I don't think I've ever said or done anything so shameful as to want to deny who I am in person.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,774
    I think we need to give each other space to speak and be spoken to! I will ALWAYS respond back, even if it takes time, because I like to truly consider everything that has been said and answer most honestly and from the heart. If we cannot even represent our true selves here on this forum, than everything here is nothing but hot air! CMAA can provide the canvas, but it is up to us to paint something worth looking at and considering.

    ps. I have never met a vinegar yet I haven't been able to swallow. ...now throwing acid and then turning and running, is a different thing altogether... especially if your wearing a ski mask!
  • Cantor
    Posts: 84
    What I think is unfortunate is that many of us don’t meet each other. I’ve meet a couple other people whose blogs I read, and it’s always interesting.

    Having met many NPM folks, including higher-ups, I think the “meltdown” that occurred on the NPM email list some years back (BMP, are you reading?) might have been averted had there been some real-life contact among the parties concerned.

    We all need to take the emotions we feel from online interactions with a grain of salt. Is it 80% of human communication that’s non-verbal?

    I am myself in person, and if I meet someone at a convention, I’ll “de-cloak” and introduce myself. But I can’t do it online for professional reasons; it would limit my ability to say anything “unofficial” about my parish or its members. Having the pseudonym allows me to be myself online in ways that a my real name would not allow.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,774
    thanks, cantor... hope we meet someday.