Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Real identity vs C2E alias

  1. #1
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,566
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Real identity vs C2E alias

    All,

    Over the years, people here have used their online alias. Often times, we have come to know who this person is. Unless they have expressly said that their private name can be used, or it is used in a news report and can be verified to be the alias on C2E, do not use it in conversation.

    Using it, and also the person's employer, is online bullying. Debate the points, not the poster nor his or her employer. I will hand out 5 day suspensions if this proves to be true.

    Thanks.
    Ow

  2. #2
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,030

    Default

    when people with an online alias that have a full name and an employer that is well known primarily through the efforts and activities of that poster on this forum and who posts using "we" and not "i", should the responder not be equally as free to be equally inclusive in responding?

    and if the conversation is "sometimes we" and "sometimes i" in the same thread and there is a clear continuation/connection between the two, how and to who should other posters respond and/or exclude?

    and if the poster is unclear as to whether he is posting a personal opinion or his employer's opinion (whether or not they are the same and even if that lack of clarity is not necessarily intentional), is it not fair to request that clarity in a response?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    when people with an online alias that have a full name and an employer that is well known primarily through the efforts and activities of that poster on this forum and who posts using "we" and not "i", should the responder not be equally as free to be equally inclusive in responding?

    and if the conversation is "sometimes we" and "sometimes i" in the same thread and there is a clear continuation/connection between the two, how and to who should other posters respond and/or exclude?

    and if the poster is unclear as to whether he is posting a personal opinion or his employer's opinion (whether or not they are the same and even if that lack of clarity is not necessarily intentional), is it not fair to request that clarity in a response?
    I’ve never thought about this before but just because someone says we, I don’t think anyone else should assume that the “we” is justified and correct unless otherwise verified. Just address the poster. I could, and probably have said “we”, and most assuredly if my spouse saw my statement I’d probably learn, once more, that I shouldn’t put my words in someone else’s mouth.

    Moreover, no actual “we” would ever be in full agreement of the “we” usage in the context of a c2e thread.
    Last edited by KC; 16-01-2018 at 09:27 PM.

  4. #4
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,566
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    To clarify,

    This is not about people who have used their real name, and identified him / herself as so and so representing such and such organization. They have voluntarily removed anonymity and are using C2E to advance their, and often times, their organization's message and goals.

    This is more about people here who remain relatively anonymous, or have not identified their employer, nor have referenced their employer's goals, values, or identity.

    Thanks for raising this need for clarification.
    Ow

  5. #5
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,566
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    To answer:

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    when people with an online alias that have a full name and an employer that is well known primarily through the efforts and activities of that poster on this forum and who posts using "we" and not "i", should the responder not be equally as free to be equally inclusive in responding?
    Yes

    and if the conversation is "sometimes we" and "sometimes i" in the same thread and there is a clear continuation/connection between the two, how and to who should other posters respond and/or exclude?
    It needs to be up to the original poster, who has blurred the lines between the employer's position and his or her own, to clarify. You can feel free to ask the appropriate probing questions in this case.


    and if the poster is unclear as to whether he is posting a personal opinion or his employer's opinion (whether or not they are the same and even if that lack of clarity is not necessarily intentional), is it not fair to request that clarity in a response?
    Yes

    However, I should warn posters that start to represent their organizations, especially when they are in leadership positions. You may post things like, "this is my personal opinion", but be forewarned. When you speak on topics that your organization is involved with, it is to be expected that people will assume you are speaking for the organization as well. I've seen it before, and it has landed people in hot water.
    Ow

  6. #6

    Default

    I think it should also be noted that while it is thus with the Internet that; ‘anything you do or say WILL be used against you’, it’s just plain common sense and civil (both often lacking on the Internet) to cut a poster slack for mistakenly, or mistakenly assuming, that they could say “we” when they should have said something more accurate like: “I” or “three of us”, “most of the people there thought...” and so on.

    On a similar vein of ridiculousness is the typical headline saying “Canadians think...” or “Edmontonians believe...”, etc. This generalizing of positions is common and expedient practice though obviously intellectually flawed thinking.
    Last edited by KC; 17-01-2018 at 06:33 AM.

  7. #7
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    I think it should also be noted that while it is thus with the Internet that; ‘anything you do or say WILL be used against you’, it’s just plain common sense and civil (both often lacking on the Internet) to cut a poster slack for mistakenly, or mistakenly assuming, that they could say “we” when they should have said something more accurate like: “I” or “three of us”, “most of the people there thought...” and so on.

    On a similar vein of ridiculousness is the typical headline saying “Canadians think...” or “Edmontonians believe...”, etc. This generalizing of positions is common and expedient practice though obviously intellectually flawed thinking.
    KC, we’re (Admin and i) not talking about personal opinions on general or specific topics and the generic use of the royal we. as an example, i may have an opinion and post about air connections between edmonton and europe or the appropriateness of power being provided by a municipally owned utility company. it will be pretty clear those are personal opinions even if I illustrate my point with non personal/business experience. if tracey bednard were to post about air connections between edmonton and europe, because her job is to be eia’s public spokesperson/representative everything she says needs to be eia’s position, not hers, even should she choose to say “i” and not “we”. it would be the same for tim la reche in regard to epcor. they can’t divorce themselves for their convenience or their employers. they are still free to post to their heart’s content in the singular or the plural but need to be responsible in the singular and the plural either way. most of us have employers or businesses and can choose to post their positions whether or not we concur but again clarity in both those areas helps the rest of us respond appropriately. at least that’s how i see it.
    Last edited by kcantor; 17-01-2018 at 08:38 AM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •