it is all too ironic....as if names mean a thing. Ideas matter, Richard, not names. I refer Richard Drake - which may or may not be an assumed name, because everyone who is not speaking or printing or filming is equal - to the case of the t distribution...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sealy_Gosset

Yes Richard Drake, I agree with most of the posters on this thread that you are very wrong. I believe that there is a touch of the bully in trying to remove the protection of (relative) anonymity from those who seek it. Is that partly why you "jumped on" my very first post on this blog in order to to defend Richard Betts, even though my comments were quite mild and in accord with those of a succession of subsequent posters?

There are many legitimate reasons to desire anonymity, for instance as already mentioned due to a distinctive surname or employment circumstances. Forums like these allow reticent, timid or less assertive people to speak up, to be heard, to contribute to and enhance the democratic process. I cannot see any downside to that. The issue of trolling is entirely separate and is dealt with by effective moderation.

Hmmm... Richard... CA, WUWT, Twitter? Analogy time :)

Swingers Club
Gay Club
Train spotting club (meets in a Church Hall every Weds rain or shine)

And you seem to want to turn them into a Debating Society? A society without Chatham House rules?

BH is not WUWT, CA or even a collection of Twitter feeds. BH is BH.

WUWT is too noisy with too many egos on show. And it does have a mob mentality.
CA is too boring. I respect it, doesn't mean I have spend my days there.
Twitter? I have no facebook or twitter presence. Deliberately so. For me they are an inane distraction.

You seem to want to transform these locations into your own image?

And forgive me if there appears as inverse snobbery, do you want to turn the BH Comprehensive into a Grammar school?

Creating a Sixth Form Common Room where in fact we have a Playground?

The internet is a wonderful thing. All the energy you expend on this (and it appears to be significant)? Perhaps you should consider starting up your own club with your own rules? That is a positive suggestion meant with good intentions.

This blog is an equilibrium. You change one element there will always be consequences. I just do not think you have made a case yet that any results from prodding the equilibrium would be an "improvement".

Anyway, the one person who sets rules is silent. He will decide the journey and whether losing some of the "unruly mob" will be of greater benefit in picking up more cultured passengers. You are obviously lobbying for change :)

I have to agree pretty largely with Jiminy Cricket and with Shub, TBYJ and others.
The Bishop Hill blog is fine as it is; even the trolls who visit regularly but infrequently are polite and have a certain comedic gift. If BH were to be run on Richard Drake's rules, I for one would have no place in it as most of my knowledge (apart from that from the Arts and Humanities) has been hard-won outside any recognised course of study and I have no clique of relevant influential or knowledgeable peers. And I still have no idea why Richard D wants to bring in these changes as he has not put forward a single convincing reason for such a change.

As much as I dislike trolls hiding behind nicknames, it is a fact of life on the internet, has been since the early days. There are ways of dealing with them, tried and tested. I can understand those newer to internet debate might want to remove that aspect, since it's annoyed me since the NNTP days or 20 years ago and before.

Asking people to put their full names to their comments is just a convoluted 'appeal to authority' - my full name on the end of a post should not lend - or detract - any truth to/from it. We should argue the content or a post and not the author. The only reason I can see for having full names is so that lazy people can dismiss/adulate people on the basis of their name, rather than reading what they have to say. And that's why Climate Science is in the trouble it is, so let's not repeat?

Richard
You assume too many things.

I didn't assume what you assume I assumed, in particular, that you knew anything about the 'Paul M johanna fracas'. I don't know why you assume I assumed that. On the other hand from the start you assumed that I was trying to ban pseudonymity. I pointed out that wasn't remotely the case but even now you say:

If you think your mission is to drive away contributors and be left only with those who agree with you on anonymity ...

Great rhetoric against Richard Drake. The only problem is it's based on a untruth that I've been correcting here (and everywhere else I raise this issue) and one that I consider damaging to my reputation. Libel and defamation, as it's called. You haven't apologised for that but, it seems, denied any relevance or force it might have - exactly the kind of behaviour that those in 'climate orthodoxy' believe 'deniers' indulge in. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Having got past that pons asinorum, let's look at four kinds of pseudonymous actors we encounter far too often on climate blogs: the troll, the deep troll, the sock puppet and the reverse sock puppet. Those are my terms, two of them borrowed from more general usage. Such phenomena, taken together, are one of my biggest motivations for a change in blog culture and moderation. Does anyone want to have a stab at defining the four types? (If not, I may assume this is a discussion for another place and another day.)

Whoops, missed the second page! 'Pologies to all who have chipped in since Saturday. But discussion of trolls, deep trolls, sock puppets and reverse sock puppets will I'm sure go some way to helping people to understand my motivation, beyond the most basic thing Paul Matthews said at the start:

One reason for using real names is that it encourages a more civilised debate by making people more accountable for what they say.

Are people saying that this isn't true, as tested in fora where real names are indeed expected, or are they saying that they don't think it matters?

I think what helps people be accountable is not the use of a pseudonym, but having to become a member to post comments. It makes no difference if Paul, Dick or Harry knows what string of characters designates the real me in real life.... if the owner/moderator can stop me from posting by disabling my access if I don't follow the rules, then that is what makes people civil.

The whole debate about real names/nicknames, that's an irrelevant sideshow.

The real argument is should we take away anonymous commenting on the forum, and that's one for the Bish. If the signal-to-noise ratio was getting low, I'd be for it, but I don't believe it is.

The whole debate about real names/nicknames, that's an irrelevant sideshow.

I can tell you're an IT person, YJames, because with a vast sweep of the hand you dismiss profound issues that are well worth consideration of the blogosphere's brightest for months, if not years, all because you think you've found a neat technical fix that will render the whole problem irrelevant :)

I agree that registering and gaining a password that protects one's chosen name on BH is a good option for everyone to have, pseudonymous or not. But Paul Matthews has spoken to me and on this blog of another forum where real names are required which is considerably more polite than this one and (I believe Paul thinks) considerably more intelligent too. Is this kind of testimonial and its implications rendered irrelevant by the possibility of registration on Bishop Hill? Are all forms of lowlife such a deep trolls and reverse sockpuppets rendered inert by this one socio-techno trick? I think not.

You asked a good question in your first post on this discussion on the meaning of real name and its relationship with traceability, James, which I certainly haven't forgotten. I thought I'd start with Shub, who I think is the longest-standing BH contributor with something to say on this matter, who has always (as far as I know) used a pseudonym here. Rather than try and answer all - and I was expecting more, not less, objections and anger than received so far, though not I have to admit as much misrepresentation of my position. That I think has been silly and made progress painfully slow from my own point of view. But I do expect to take this for months, if not years, as long as the host allows and the silence from others doesn't become oppressive :)

Richard here is an example: "pons asinorum".

I think that can be intimidating to many people. I had to look it up, as I never studied latin.

Though it is not directly related to real names, it is related to who you are and how you feel comfortable communicating. Using that latin does not add anything, but I think on many forums it creates a barrier between equally intelligent people with valid opinions, but who have not had your exposure.

Some of the best projects I have worked have not been the politest or the most civilised.

Just because it makes you feel more comfortable doesn't make it more productive.

Tension (hopefully positive, but not exclusively) is one the greatest facilitators of ideas.

I can tell you're an IT person, YJames, because with a vast sweep of the hand you dismiss profound issues that are well worth consideration of the blogosphere's brightest for months, if not years, all because you think you've found a neat technical fix that will render the whole problem irrelevant :)

Hah, perhaps. Also, I have been involved in internet 'discussion' for over 20 years now, and the problems of anonymity and traceability are not new problems to me. I've seen all manner of 'solutions', none of which were entirely successful.

For my personal observation, when you try to outlaw anonymity, yes you gain politeness, but at the same time you develop staleness. What people may perceive as more politeness and more 'intelligence' is simply confirmation bias - all they see is people who have the same temperament as themselves - of course they suddenly enjoy it more and get more out of it. The group has been moved in the direction of exclusivity and rarification. The so-called 'sixth form common room' effect. We all love people most like ourselves.

Unfortunately, these groups dissipate quickly. Yes, they are polite, and conflict is genteel and good-natured. And boring. People don't hang around. Especially if the trolls have gone elsewhere, and the good fight needs to be fought on other fronts.

I prefer the umpire-adversarial system where the mods are sitting there, mostly not interfering as long as the discussion stays within certain bounds. Trolls and anonymity are allowed, at least for a while. The usual way these sort of groups deal with trolling is that the troll posts, regulars reply to the points made by the troll. Now if the troll keeps posting, completely ignoring the arguments previously posted, then the mod bans that troll. This means at any single moment, there may be active trolls on the board. So what? They'll either comply, be converted to a proper poster, or be silenced in time - but they have to be given a chance.

In my experience of internet groups, these last longest, have the most throught-provoking discussions, and yes, have interludes of banality while equilibrium is established after some trolling or flaming. But they work the best, and are most entertaining.

Just after penning that I rose from my seat in the pub (on my way to a meeting in the City, just drinking coffee, not whisky, he explained, not entirely convincingly for those ready to find him guilty of all manner of misdeeds and lack of sobriety by now :) ) and saw this quote on the wall from Finley Peter Dunne:

Drink has never made a man better, but it made many a man think he was better.

I laughed as two things jumped out at me:

1) For drink read pseudonymity. That pretty much sums up my view.

2) How cool to find this in a pub, whose main purpose is to serve drink.

We need that lightness of touch here - which comes from admitting the weaknesses in one's own position. I wonder if the majority contingent on this thread think that they have done that yet, to sweeten and make more convincing their advocacy of pseudonymity? Or is this a solemn battle to the death, with all manner of techniques allowable, including out-and-out misrepresentation of the opposition, with no regard to its feelings or reputation more widely? Lightness of touch requires humility. Admitting that Paul Matthews had a point in his introductory post would do the trick. Or whatever weak spot you choose - just not painting this matter as black and white, with grim faces, no quarter given.

But RIchard if you were going to have 100 people in a room (different backgrounds) and wanted them all too enjoy themselves and for something "positive" (whatever you define that to be) to arise for many of them... then DRINK is exactly what you want.

Drink is a great social leveller ;-)

Of course he had a point, and you make good points yourself. Nobody is denying it. But from long, grim and bitter experience I fear there is no 'solution' to the problem of trolls and unaccountability on the internet. All variations on control and condition have been tried before. There are as many good arguments for anonymity as there are against it. I've tried both (having run many forums myself) and they all have damaging consequences.

I get uneasy when the answer to a perceived problem is posited as MORE control. Isn't this what the problems with climate science are all about? An ideologically-driven erosion of the freedoms of others? Are you surprised that we (as a group of thinkers) oppose yet more arbitrary rules?

J Cricket: I didn't say that I agreed with the quote on the wall as regards drink but that it made my laugh - not least because I think it applies even better to pseudonymity. I agree that for a group of people - for instance at a wedding - there is nothing like alcoholic beverage. The 'postle John obviously felt the same, as this was the first miracle of Jesus he reports in his gospel, turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana, after everyone has clearly already had quite a bit of the stuff to drink already - except the wine Jesus made was far better than the original. Enough to make an American fundamentalist teetotaller spin around their hermeneutical spiral.

OK, I admit it, I included 'hermeneutical spiral' precisely because you objected so strongly to pons asinorum. I happen to like it if I have to look up someone else's turns of phrase and if I learn something thereby. But pons asinorum said something really important about how I view this debate. We either remain in the shallows or we go deeper. Call that elitist if you like but please ask yourself as you do whether you want elites who fly our airplanes and design our bridges - or do you want the anonymous amateur who turns up out of the blue given equal chance in those areas too? I consider this subject as requiring the blogosphere's finest brains, as I've said. In that sense I'm close to James, who says the task of improvement is impossible. I don't agree with that but if you were to add "Based on mediocre thinking ..." then I certainly agree. You can't I think have it both ways. Either this is a hard problem or it isn't. James and I say it's a hard problem. So we need to get out of the shallows and start to think more deeply.

TBYJames:

I get uneasy when the answer to a perceived problem is posited as MORE control.

Me too. But let me probe that statement a little. When Andrew Montford, also known as Bish, wrote this three days ago:

Note: This post is about sub-global hindcasts. Comments on radiative physics or other off-topic subjects will be snipped.

was that an example of the kind of increased control that you are objecting to, or that I am advocating, or both?

No, because that kind of control is content-targeted. It makes sense to divide discussions into their own topics, and to control where such conversations take place, and to trim comments that move away frmo the original topic and veer into unrelated areas. The Bish wasn't saying "don't have the radiative physics discussion". He was saying "don't have it here"

The sort of control I am objecting to is the one which is based on attributes other than content, i.e. your name, traceability, previous history, qualifications, membership etc.

Where I think we differ is I believe you lose too much by trying to filter out uncommitted or disingenuous posters, and the small price to pay for having them is worth it. You are still angling for some sort of 'smart filter' which I don't think exists.

I started using this pseudonym several years ago when I began contributing to message boards on the subject of animal experimentation, which as a practitioner I was defending. The use of my real name in such circumstances was somewhat undesirable, particularly as at that time my security staff were advising me to examine my car before I drove it away in case someone had made any unwelcome additions to it.

When I began commenting on climate change sites I continued the practice, becase as TBY has said, my employer would have objected and certainly in my current consultancy role being branded by some of the internet louts as a "denier" would be potentially bad for business.

Richard, I think, has said that we live in a society with freedom of speech. Unfortunately that has been under threat for a long time and the "thought police" now effectively prevent freedom of speech in this country in a whole range of areas. Just read the media: arrested for reading the names of the Iraq war dead at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, arrested for reading parts of the Old Testament in a public place etc. etc.

I shall continue to comment with a pseudonym until it is safe not to have to do so.

I may sign on as Barry Woods. But how does anybody know if I'm actually a granny from Aus

I tend only to look at the name, if someone us particularly interesting, or irritating!

As a few of you have met me. You know that I am real
Behaviour matters most, not what you sign on as.. lots of very civil people that are anonymous
Lots who are not anon, who are obnoxious, in blogs/forums and every type all over the internet...

And there definstely those who do need to remain anon

"I can tell you're an IT person, YJames, because with a vast sweep of the hand you dismiss profound issues that are well worth consideration of the blogosphere's brightest for months,"

Playing the man. That is why I use a pseudonym, to use one's real name encourages googling and quite aside from the potential for mistaken identity it allows the discussion to stray into ad hom areas. "You can't ask that question, you are only an oxfordshire housewife". If one has some claim to 'authority' that's fine, I don't mind people using what seems to be a real name. But we are all equal on a blog. Answer the points, don't play the man.

Now, why can't we measure CO2 feedback? Do the models apply the water vapour feedback to the natural variations, or is it reserved for use only with CO2 sensitivity?

Rhoda, was one of my objections farther up the thread. Why do you need a name? The only possible use is as a shorthand so a lazy person can know quickly who to dismiss out of hand without reading, or who to read carefully.

It's a mini version of the 'peer reviewed paper' argument.

This way you have no idea if I'm a peer-reviewed climatologist or a road sweeper. You are forced to read what I say, how I say it. If you object to my points, you have to come clean and not be deferential to may in case I'm some distinguished boffin. With not a care to where I've come from or who I hob-nob with. That's a sort of equality I like.

Monbiot is president of an organisation that organised activists trolling delinpole blog, and which has Delingpole in a Deniers. Photo Hall of Shame...

See Sceptic Alerts post at Bishop Hill

Moonbat is almost affectionate in compariosin, but I agree not helpful.

logicophilosophicus: your testimony is helpful, thanks. Not encouraging but expected. There is a price to pay, potentially, for using one's real name. But does this mean nobody should? What would climate blogs be like if we never again saw names like Judith Curry, Willis Eschenbach, Steve Mosher, Richard Betts, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre and so many others? Is there anyone pseudonymous who would prefer never to see them again? Who would not want to thank such people for what they have given of themselves? (Some would, I feel sure, but will never admit it. Their aim is to destroy. They invariably use pseudonyms as they seek to do so. My proposals are partly because of such.)

If there's a price to pay for using one's real name - but most importantly to raise quality generally - I am arguing that there should be additional curbs put on those who use pseudonyms in three areas:

1. Defamation
2. Distraction
3. Division

To be clear there should be (and already are) curbs on all contributors in these areas. Barry Woods is right of course than someone using a real name can be obnoxious just like anyone else. But I'm arguing that there should be less tolerance for such behaviour in the case of the pseudonymous. (Not zero tolerance, as I said earlier. Everything's a matter of degree. That was careless talk on my part.)

Although BigYinJames says he's run internet fora for 20 years I don't know of any forum which has allowed pseudonymity but made explicit such a policy. I think it's worth consideration, an experiment worth trying. It's likely to encourage more people to use real names, not least because of the protection offered on defamation. But even if it didn't achieve that I feel sure it would improve quality, not least because it would be harder to get deep trolls and reverse sockpuppets off the ground, to manipulate and confuse the discourse.

Note that I want pseudonymity. Because, as Barry has said, some people have to be pseudonymous in the climate area. Those people are heroes to me. But because some heroes are pseudonymous the converse most certainly doesn't follow. Some of the worst offenders in the climate blogosphere use the 'freedom' of pseudonymity.

Pseudonymity can add spice as James indicates but attracting the right people is key to that - real name use is no barrier to wit and controversy if you manage to engage the right people. Would Christopher Hitchens ever have been boring on a forum, if he'd chosen to use one? What we need is more independent thinkers, not the license that often comes with the internet version of pseudonymity.

But I do want pseudonymity. Would the 'curbing' I advocate lead to something better than we have now? I don't think we know, because it don't think it's ever been tried.

All this bypasses the question James and others have raised - what constitutes a real name. I think that's pretty simple in practice. You have to be prepared to convince the host or moderation team if the question arises, without complaint. For most people that's not hard. Those like bender on CA who are known to the host, who also knows good reasons for them to remain pseudonymous, are close to those using a real name to my mind. But if someone thought to be like that then let others use the same pseudonym - or more likely adopted one or more sockpuppets themselves - they would be strongly curbed. This happens already of course.

I'd like to return to motivation for all this. But in mentioning defamation, distraction and division I've been more specific about how the pseudonymous would be curbed. Many of those using pseudonyms on Bishop Hill would be completely unaffected, because they behave in a model way already. The dedicated miscreants are bound to complain. But thanks for the feedback, whatever.