Actually, Laura, any admin could reactivate the Cindy account in about 10 seconds. But Cindy said she didn't want that.

So far, I don't mind most of the pseudonym stuff, but I too worry about it getting out of hand. It is something that loses its charm fast.

I think it's only fair to note that culturally pseuds have only been used for jokes like FLO, and that there may be some residual bruising from Schmoker's abuse of multiple identities.

I don't think there's been any harm here at all, but I understand the discomfiture.

I think the discussion that ensued after the question was asked and answered is unattractively petty.

Unattractively petty is a harsh way to describe people discussing what does or does not make them uncomfortable, isn't it?

B.org's a pretty un-pseudish place, with a history of abuses attempted by people with psueds.

I don't see what's petty about people airing their feelings -- it's not like they're all ganging up on you.

I was just thinking about that, incidentally. How much less regularly-named we are at b.org than we used to be in our previous incarnations. Since TT encouraged it, we tended toward the name-sounding names, even for pseudonyms.

But anyway. I didn't really see anything problematic about the discussion. I think it's a real issue we need to deal with as a board. We've been fortunate in that we've been able to deal with the abuses in the past. And yeah, we're pretty un-pseud by nature.

For me, personally, I didn't have much problem with the (non-abuse) pseud use as it's been so far. But I come from a background where our real-name culture is a lot more uncommon than a pseud culture. So my mileage probably varies.

I like the pseuds. More ferrets.

Pseuds are fine as long as someone you like, someone who groks b.org culture and is riffing on it is doing it.

How do you explain that to the first person that bothers everyone?

there may be some residual bruising from Schmoker's abuse of multiple identities.

Yes. That's why I told msbelle, etc. that it was me, and right away. That's why I apologized. That's why I planned on not using it anymore, once msbelle expressed her discomfort. Now? I'm not so sure. I haven't broken any rules or points of etiquette. I wasn't here to stir up the board.

Furthermore (and granted, nobody but the admins or at least DX may know this), but when I corresponded with the admin account (because I was having password trouble), I used my regular email account, and signed my real name. DX (who has my email address, already) responded. I don't know if the other admins were aware or not, but there was never any intent to be up to dirty tricks.

Unattractively petty is a harsh way to describe people

ita, I didn't call the people petty. I'm sorry that it read that way. I think unpetty people do, from time to time, engage in coversations that are petty. To me, this is just that sort of case. Given that I mentioned publically--at b.org--that I was thinking of doing this before I did it, and that as soon as I realized it was an issue for anyone, I said, "Oh sorry, that was me and I won't do it anymore" publically--I found the continuing discussion petty. I still do. That may be harsh. It is also honest. Again, I don't think msbelle's concerns were petty. I think all the ensuing post-mortem, after I said, "Sorry, was me and I won't do it again" was petty. I just do.

The irony of how I found out about msbelle's post is... well, too rich to be believed. Anyhow, I also think the discussion on whether or not people like the name when it's used for anything other than a joke is petty. Not the people. The topic. What kind of conversation is this: "I like your name. I don't like yours. You can use your name in this circumstance, but in that one, it displeases me. I like it when this so-and-so makes up fake names, but not when the other so-and-so does"? A Buffista conversation, apparently.

Many of you don't think it's petty. Fine. We disagree. Keep having the conversation. I'm not stopping anyone. I'm expressing my opinion on its merits.

B.org's a pretty un-pseudish place,

It's full of both real and psuedonyms: Theodosia, Nutty, flea, scrappy, meara, vw bug, Cashmere, Miracleman, DX Machina, jengod, minion, Kalshane, Gandalfe, Trudy Booth, Gleebo, Gloomcookie, DebetEsse, Wolfram, shrift, onecoldcanadian, JohnSweden, UTTAD, Narrator, Monique, Polgara, thessaly, Java cat, Maytree, le nubian, NoiseDesign, aurelia, Burrell, Vortex, Darth, Typo Boy, Madrigal, the robots, the ferrets, Clovis, and I don't know who else.

Pseuds are fine as long as someone you like, someone who groks b.org culture and is riffing on it is doing it.

How do you explain that to the first person that bothers everyone?

I'm thinking the "someone you like" comes so much into play here, that it is really sad. I could see if I'd been, "So and so's mother has a hairy nose." But I didn't. I posted about raisins, ferrets, Wonderfalls, and Kristin's Angel/SOS campaign. Damn. So disappointing.

It's not going to be someone's name that bothers "everyone." It's going to be their behavior, or at least, that's the only thing that can be called on the carpet.

...

Personally, I'm more concerned by Sophia not only revealing friends' protected back channel, but mischaracterizing it as well. I'll speak to my own reasons for doing things, and would appreciate not being spoken for, Sophia, particularly when you're mistranslating something from a locked LJ entry to here.

For anyone who is interested, when I asked ita to reset my id, I did so, because even though quite a few of the people here are so very dear to me, and even though I honestly think this is *the best* spot for Mutant Enemy-centric conversation on the internet, the dynamics drive me up a wall. Given my life is very full, I was wasting far too much time driving myself up a wall than is healthy. When Angel's cancelation was announced, and then with all the Wonderfalls excitement, I figured I'd had enough of a break that the Natter and Bitches habits were broken, and I could post in topic-only threads, and be happy while seeing Angel out. No board beats b.org at M.E. topic. But then I was made aware of the conversation in this thread and lather. rinse. repeat.

I'm trying to remember the last time someone who followed the rules had to justify (not just explain) his or her choice of a user name, or his or her posting or not posting and I'm coming up blank.

I'm trying to remember the last time someone who followed the rules had to justify (not just explain) his or her choice of a user name, or his or her posting or not posting and I'm coming up blank.

Umm, happened to me just two weeks ago. Not my name, but I had to justify posting in Press.

I also think that the conversation had moved to the general from the specific regarding people with multiple log-in names.

Cindy, I didn't get the impression the discussion was about you, except insofar as your pseud started people thinking about pseuds in general. To tell you the truth, I had forgotten who you were, since I am terrible with names, until you did the "Becoming Morally Outraged and Flouncing Off" thing you ALWAYS do, and I suddenly went, "Oh, right, this is THAT Cindy." (I am right aren't I--this is the "Wearing corsets" final shot person? or am I remebering wrong--did I mention I was bad at names...)