Alfred Neumann

[paul wheaton]

Alfred,
Has nobody asked you to change your display name in the past?
It is time to change. This time, pick something that is not obviously fictitious. Perhaps "Alfred Neese" ??

[Thomas Paul]

I thought we allowed any name in MD!

[Jason Menard]

Al doesn't only post in MD.

[PowerDrunk Moderator]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I thought we allowed any name in MD!

Apparently not, Thomas. In my former persona of Alfred Neumann I was busy replying to one of your posts when that persona was shut down.
I'm about to leave this forum because of the behaviour of one of the moderators (which one I'm not sure). Would anyone care to offer a defense of this behavior before I leave?
Alfred Neumann

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by PowerDrunk Moderator:

Apparently not, Thomas. In my former persona of Alfred Neumann I was busy replying to one of your posts when that persona was shut down.
I'm about to leave this forum because of the behaviour of one of the moderators (which one I'm not sure). Would anyone care to offer a defense of this behavior before I leave?
Alfred Neumann

I'm not sure what "behavior" you are speaking of. If you could point this out maybe we can address the issue if it so warrents.
MD is the only forum that we currently don't inforce our Naming Policy so as long as you are sticking to MD, you can have whatever name you want (Even PowerDrunk Moderator). But, once you leave MD and start posting in other forums, you must adhere to the Naming Policy. We give a certain amount of grace period to allow someone to comply with the policy, however, if there is no complience, then a Sheriff will probably lock the account. At that point, you can either sign up with a new identity (preferrably one that follows our simple little policy) or you can Email one of the moderators on the Ranch and ask that they unlock your account if you change your display name.
I hope that clears up some confusion.

[Jason Menard]

I just got back from vacation, but this thread, posted while I was gone, seems pretty clear to me. The naming policy is now enforced in MD as well as all other forums. You also post oustide of MD, so this isn't really even an issue in your case.
Personally I have always valued you as a member of the community and have enjoyed reading many of your posts. Unfortunately though, we as moderators cannot apply rules to some people and not to others. The naming guidelines exist for a reason, and this has been discussed in great detail in the JavaRanch forum.
You have been asked on many occasions, including at least once by myself, to comply with our naming guidelines. You have chosen to ignore these polite requests. We are forced to make these requests to many users on a daily basis, and very rarely do we get any hassle over it, so you are not being singled out. Ideally you would simply change your name to comply with the site policies. I hope you choose to continue to remain a member of our community.
[ December 29, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Jason Menard]

And lest I forget to perform my moderation duties....
"PowerDrunk Moderator",
Welcome to JavaRanch! We don't have many rules here, but one that we do have is our naming policy. Please change your display name to comply with this policy. Thanks in advance, and we look forward to seeing you around the Ranch.

[PowerDrunk Moderator]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:

I'm not sure what "behavior" you are speaking of. If you could point this out maybe we can address the issue if it so warrents.
MD is the only forum that we currently don't inforce our Naming Policy so as long as you are sticking to MD, you can have whatever name you want (Even PowerDrunk Moderator). But, once you leave MD and start posting in other forums, you must adhere to the Naming Policy. We give a certain amount of grace period to allow someone to comply with the policy, however, if there is no complience, then a Sheriff will probably lock the account. At that point, you can either sign up with a new identity (preferrably one that follows our simple little policy) or you can Email one of the moderators on the Ranch and ask that they unlock your account if you change your display name.
I hope that clears up some confusion.

Thanks, Greg. Perhaps you will humor me a little more? A quote from the naming policy link:

It is possible that you are uncomfortable about using your real name on the web. This happens. In that case, feel free to display a fictitious name. Just make it look like it could be real - like "Al Swensen", "Roberta Cheeny", "Anand Singh" or "Xiao Wu".

'Alfred Neumann' was my ex-persona, chosen specifically after I read this passage in the rules. Someone apparently doesn't find me compliant. Frankly I don't see how? Other than by an arbitrary decision by someone in a position of power that my chosen name 'appears' fictional.
Albeit my chosen handle has a joke embedded in it. Has Javaranch decided to outlaw a sense of humor? If so, I suggest that you put that in the naming policy also, in order to steer all japesters away.

[PowerDrunk Moderator]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
And lest I forget to perform my moderation duties....
"PowerDrunk Moderator",
Welcome to JavaRanch! We don't have many rules here, but one that we do have is our naming policy. Please change your display name to comply with this policy. Thanks in advance, and we look forward to seeing you around the Ranch.

Actually you won't. At least under this name, which will confine itself to MD.
Gentlemen, you are enforcing unwritten rules. The written rules permit names such as 'Alfred Neumann'. Read your own rules and tell me otherwise!

[Gregg Bolinger]

I stand corrected on the naming policy in MD. I forgot we were now inforcing the Policy in MD. That was my mistake for pointed out the opposit.
The second line of the policy states

Obviously fictitious names may be locked out

That is why 'Alfred Neumann' was subject to the policy.

[PowerDrunk Moderator]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
I stand corrected on the naming policy in MD. I forgot we were now inforcing the Policy in MD. That was my mistake for pointed out the opposit.
The second line of the policy states

That is why 'Alfred Neumann' was subject to the policy.

And how is 'Alfred Neumann' obviously fictional? Pray tell?
My current handle I will grant you. But that was only adopted under provocative necessity.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by PowerDrunk Moderator:
'Alfred Neumann' was my ex-persona, chosen specifically after I read this passage in the rules. Someone apparently doesn't find me compliant. Frankly I don't see how? Other than by an arbitrary decision by someone in a position of power that my chosen name 'appears' fictional.

The following passage from the naming policy applies here:

No names of celebrities or fictional characters.

[PowerDrunk Moderator]

Sorry Jason. You are wrong. Since we're all being little barracks-lawyers here I am forced to point out that Alfred E Neumann is a fictional character. Not so simple Alfred Neumann.

[Jason Menard]

I'm moving this to the JavaRanch forum, as this is now basically a discussion of naming policy.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by PowerDrunk Moderator:
Sorry Jason. You are wrong. Since we're all being little barracks-lawyers here I am forced to point out that Alfred E Neumann is a fictional character. Not so simple Alfred Neumann.

The fact that we are having this discussion proves that it is obviously fictional. :roll:

[PowerDrunk Moderator]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

The fact that we are having this discussion proves that it is obviously fictional. :roll:

I agree. Though fictional is too narrow a word to describe this discussion (and the action which began it). Surreal comes closer.
BTW, I have now left MD and am inflicting my fiction on other portions of Javaranch. Just wanted to point that out in case one of you is itching to pull the trigger. Again.....
[ December 29, 2003: Message edited by: PowerDrunk Moderator ]

[Michael Ernest]

I'm more concerned with Paul Wheaton's comments that he communicated his concern some while ago and says he received no response.
I don't get the 'surreal' take at all. If you're fond of the handle, ok, but choosing not to respond to a moderator -- not to mention The Moderator -- sure makes it seem like you're evading a policy decision.
You sound deeply attached to the handle, so I don't know what else to suggest here. You've made it clear that this handle is not your actual name, and whether you choose to reveal that or not, protecting a name others will tell you is obviously false should be reason enough to reconsider.

[paul wheaton]

I tried to talk to you about it several times over the last month and you wouldn't talk to me. This thread is one attempt.
Using names that are obviously fictitious (or borderline) inspires other folks to try their hand at a fictitious name that might not get nailed. Yup, lots of fun wasting bartender and sheriff time to try to get people to follow our motif.
Naturally, the volunteers don't like spending time on name policy stuff, but the ones that do it recognize the value of it.
The more borderline stuff there is, the more time that gets wasted. So my thinking is that we just need to crack down more on the borderline stuff right away. This way, there will be less new stuff inspired by previous bogus names and the volunteers can spend more time talking about Java and less time playing name police.
I've read some of your stuff and you seem like a reasonable enough guy. Surely you would have to agree that we have been fair and decent with you about this. Normally a bartender nips this sort of thing in the bud. Or a sheriff. But I guess your account needed my personal attention.
I'm the guy that closed your account.
I tried to get your attention privately about it, but you did not provide an e-mail address. I tried that damn PM stuff and got no response. I tried to get your attention publicly about it, but you did not respond there either. I talked to other bartenders and sheriffs. They said that they had tried to talk to you about it, but you would not respond.
So I'm trying to manage this place and in order to make things smoother I make decisions. In this case, a decision was made and I tried to make things smooth for you, but, well, here we are.
After 700 posts I hope you've come to the conclusion that the folks here are generally pretty decent. I hope that you feel comfortable enough to, maybe, possibly ... use your real name. I know that there are lots of people that started off here with a pseudonym and later changed to their real name and are glad they did. Several people have told me that they have bumped into people at work, conferences or other places and were asked "Are you the same _____ _____ that hangs out at JavaRanch?"
I think that using real names is something that benefits on-line communities and off-line communities. If nothing else, maybe you would at least like to give it a try. Maybe a week. Who knows, you might like it.

[PowerDrunk Moderator]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

I'm more concerned with Paul Wheaton's comments that he communicated his concern some while ago and says he received no response.

No. It was clear that Mr. Wheaton either hadn't reviewed his document recently or was operating on opinion, not the written rules.

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

I don't get the 'surreal' take at all. If you're fond of the handle, ok, but choosing not to respond to a moderator -- not to mention The Moderator -- sure makes it seem like you're evading a policy decision.

Perhaps the Moderator should more carefully look before He pulls the Trigger? Did he do it out of personal pique? Because I chose not to answer what I consider an arbitrary overreach by a moderator. All I ask is that you live within your own rules. Not your opinion of what those rules are.

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

You sound deeply attached to the handle, so I don't know what else to suggest here.

Not really. I could change to 'Al Neumann' easily. Gentlemen, you are overreaching. And a little group of you are now engaging in a textbook case of groupthink.

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

You've made it clear that this handle is not your actual name, and whether you choose to reveal that or not, protecting a name others will tell you is obviously false should be reason enough to reconsider.

This would not have come up had I not been terminated arbitrarily, but since it has now acquired some notoriety I should reconsider?
Perhaps some of you ought to rethink how you use your authority? That is what is being questioned here.
BTW, why don't you pull the plug on this provocative identity? It would feel good, make your day. I dare you.....
[ December 29, 2003: Message edited by: PowerDrunk Moderator ]

[paul wheaton]

Perhaps some of you ought to rethink how you use your authority? That is what is being questioned here.
Well, I own this site. I can pretty much do anything I want here. I have some ideas on what makes a good community and some of these ideas are contrary to what other people think are good ideas, and yet the community seems to have grown despite that.
BTW, why don't you pull the plug on this provocative identity? It would feel good, make your day. I dare you.....
Done.
BTW-- you should know that this forum is the only forum on JavaRanch where people can post without being registered.

[paul wheaton]

a little group of you are now engaging in a textbook case of groupthink
I suppose that is possible. I know I've seen what you call "groupthink" and it can be a bad thing. I suppose that would be how some of the worst things in the world have happened, a bad idea is presented and a bunch of people agree with it, afraid to say anything contrary to what appears to be what the group desires.
In this case, I think this is more like my thinking and I've had about 80% support, 15% apathy and 5% dissention. Not quite the same as group think. And I know that just because a majority favors it, doesn't make it right either. But I think this is more like "artistic vision". I got the idea of doing things a particular way. Other sites have different vision. My impression is that most of the folks that hang out here favor my vision over the vision that the other sites offer. Some tolerate this way of doing things and hang out here despite my "vision".
I like to think that I've been open to ideas and suggestions, and this very issue has been discussed several times. I even remember a guy that was furious with the policy a long, long time ago and about six months later he sent me an e-mail apologizing for what he said. Apparently he tried it my way for a while and determined that I was right. I really liked getting that e-mail! (maybe I should dig it up, print it and frame it. It isn't often that a person gets a message like that.)

[Eric Pascarello]

Did someone here wake up on the wrong side of the bed since the day he was given his real name. I think he is cracky because of the holiday season, but who knows.....
The one reason I like posting on this board is that I feel like I know someone better then IAMSTUPIDCODER or DUMBCODER or HOT_BODY69.
I started out on the forums with the name of A1ien CNEUFOS then changed my name to Al Ian. Heck they knew my real name was Eric but they did not complain because I answered every question in the forum and made that made up for my lack of my real name.
After doing this for a month or two, I realized I should use my real name since people were calling me by my fake name and it felt strange. I feel like I am making a difference by volunteering here.
This board got me a job out in the real world because people saw the difference I made and my knowledge of programming. I thought I would say my 2 cents. Now I am going to crawl back into my hole of forum #20.
Eric
[ December 30, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Jason Menard]

In Japan, it is the custom to remove your shoes when entering homes and even some places of business. Westerners don't always catch on to this at first and occasionally the host must explicitly ask someone to remove their shoes. Many of the Westerners living in Japan have adopted this custom for themselves. When they receive a guest into their home, even another Westerner, they ask that person to please remove their shoes. In almost all cases, the guest simply complies with their host's request and removes their shoes. I know this from first hand experience.
What almost never happens is for the guest to pretend he didn't hear their host ask them to remove their shoes, maybe because they felt that it was an arbitrary request, or because they don't see any particular reason why they should remove their shoes. They don't have a long drawn out argument with their host, after all, it's a simple request and shows respect while visiting someone else's house, right? It's not like this isn't something asked of all visitors, so the guest normally doesn't feel they should be receiving any special dispensation or that they are otherwise being singled out. Similarly, the guest rarely if ever launches into a tirade accusing host and his family of abusing their positions as host and making unreasonable demands of their guests. The guest does not point out to the host that what the guest is wearing on his feet should not be subject to these rules for some reason or another. No, the guest usually simply respects their host's wishes.
It certainly is a fascinating and respectful culture the Japanese have.
[ December 29, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Michael Ernest]

I can't remember the last time I've been accused of groupthink. Perhaps I should print out and frame that.
So here's my take on my own alleged goose-stepping here. Paul Owns This Site. I have debated various points with Paul over quite some time now. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. Sometimes I completely ignore what he says for lack of interest, time, or desire to hash things out on a site where I am merely a volunteer. I suspect Paul takes my advice when it suits him, rejects it when it doesn't, and ignores it for whatver reasons he may have.
Here's something I struck from my previous post because it seemed a little hard: JR is not a court of law with an appellate system; it does not have a prescribed set of checks and balances, a Constitution, nor a Bill of Rights. It's just a website owned by just a guy.
There is for me no principle to fight for here. A false name that is ruled 'obviously fictitious' by the guy who owns the rules is just that. The counteraccusations of surreality and groupthinking and whatnot, after 15 years of my own life spent in and around bulletin boards, chat sites, etc., etc., register as a combination of frustration and petulance.
The 'Powerhungry Moderator' responses seal the deal for me. It's childish behavior. Who wants to get behind that?

[paul wheaton]

No. It was clear that Mr. Wheaton either hadn't reviewed his document recently or was operating on opinion, not the written rules.

I had not reviewed my document recently. So just now I went and took a look. Looks okay.
And, yes, I am operating on opinion instead of the written rules. I guess that's what matters when you own da joint. It's cool to be me! But in this case, I think what I'm making a stink about is fully documented. Your statement shows concern over that point, but I cannot see where the problem is. Perhaps you were thinking there was nothing to discuss since I should just lock out the account? I guess the document does not mention trying to help folks make a transistion, so that would be inappropriate for me?

Perhaps the Moderator should more carefully look before He pulls the Trigger? Did he do it out of personal pique? Because I chose not to answer what I consider an arbitrary overreach by a moderator. All I ask is that you live within your own rules. Not your opinion of what those rules are.

Personal pique? Sounds french! I don't know what pique is, but it sounds like it must be fun.
If you are saying that I did it cuz you pissed me off, I don't think that's it. I'm not pissed. I did it in an effort to solve other problems.

This would not have come up had I not been terminated arbitrarily,

Arbitrarily?

[Al Neumann]

Originally posted by Paul Wheaton:
Perhaps some of you ought to rethink how you use your authority? That is what is being questioned here.
Well, I own this site. I can pretty much do anything I want here. I have some ideas on what makes a good community and some of these ideas are contrary to what other people think are good ideas, and yet the community seems to have grown despite that.
<pulls plug. Phhhttt.>

Unfortunately I had just finished a long, deeply felt, and sincere reply to your long, deeply-felt, and sincere post above. Guess what happened?
Why not experiment and try it yourself? The post went to the elephants graveyard of dead posts.
Then think how it might feel to have that happen to one twice in a afternoon.
No time left this afternoon. I might be back for further comment this evening. Or not. Season's Greetings to all.

[David Weitzman]

Unfortunately I had just finished a long, deeply felt, and sincere reply to your long, deeply-felt, and sincere post above. Guess what happened?
Ouch. Occasionally that would happen to me for one reason or other while using IE, but Mozilla Firebird seems to do a good job of actually keeping form data when you press the back button.

[paul wheaton]

"Al Neumann" might have worked if you started with that and never made a reference to Mad magazine. We would have all just thought it was your real name and we would have never thought more of it.
But now, pick something else. Now that we've had to go to all this trouble, publicly, it is clear that "Al Neumann" is not a real name.
Whatever you pick, make sure you don't say "this is my fake name" or something like it.
And, again, I suggest you try your actual name. At least for a few posts. You won't know if you like it unless you've tried it for a bit.
I'm not trying to crush your creativity, or crush you, or anything like that. All I'm trying to do is build a certain kind of community in a certain kind of way.
I understand you're pissed, which is why I tried to talk to you about it earlier. I wanted to make it clear that your name will be changed, but I wanted to work with you to find a smooth route that you would be comfortable with.

[David Weitzman]

Note that I used to have a fictitious name, although not obviously. It was David Garland, conveniently reusing my first name and fitting in well. The last name was taken from piano player Red Garland. You would likely get along fine using either the Alfred or the Neumann, but not both together.

[Alfred Neese]

Interesting afternoon. To say the very least.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Al Neumann:

Unfortunately I had just finished a long, deeply felt, and sincere reply to your long, deeply-felt, and sincere post above. Guess what happened?

To tell you the truth, I really don't care about your long, deeply felt, and sincere reply. We just want you to follow the simple rules. The owner of the site has asked you to change your name. It isn't that complicated. Paul wants a professional atmosphere for his web site. If you don't want to abide by Paul's rules then there are other forums that allow you to use any name you want.

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by Alfred Neese:
Interesting afternoon. To say the very least.

Wasn't that hard was it?

[Alfred Neese]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

I can't remember the last time I've been accused of groupthink. Perhaps I should print out and frame that.

Perhaps you should, at that.... Very few people think of theirself that way. And yet the term has resonance because it describes an aspect of human behavior.
Even the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson think of themselves as reasonable despite appearances to the contrary. Not that I would compare any of you to those two gentlemen in any but the most general of ways.

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

So here's my take on my own alleged goose-stepping here. Paul Owns This Site.

What 'alleged goose-stepping'? To be honest the next time I imply that someone is a facist will be the first. 'Authoritarian' is my term. I find it far more precise.

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

Here's something I struck from my previous post because it seemed a little hard: JR is not a court of law with an appellate system; it does not have a prescribed set of checks and balances, a Constitution, nor a Bill of Rights. It's just a website owned by just a guy.

The admission of this fact by yourself and Mr. Wheaton is a marked improvement to this debate. From my POV at least. Contrary to the previous point that you are contrained to a certain behavior by a set of rules, it is now conceded that you are free agents capable of making your own choices.
Your objection to the 'PowerDrunk Moderator' handle are well-taken, but you mistake the motive I think. It's not 'pissed' or petty but rather acid. When someone reasonable (like Paul) does something like this they ought to have their feet held to the fire a bit.
I suspect I have as much experience with online forums as anyone posting here dating back to the old USENET and have reached some conclusions. One thing I believe is that a modified 'King Log' approach is the best one for moderation in most forums. If something absolutely leaps out at you by all means react to it. But don't go looking for trouble.
In my opinion Paul went looking for trouble this time. Doesn't mean he's (or any of you) a bad guy or unreasonable generally. Just unreasonable in this case and possibly others like it.
Anarchy can destroy online forums, but what is not always well understood is that too much control can do it also (less often I will admit). What is more common is a kind of creeping sclerosis. I would like all of you gentlemen to carefully consider that idea overnight.
I submit that I have established a record as a careful and thoughtful poster in my time here and that my opinions are deserving of some respect and weight, not the rather contemptuous dismissal which some of you have dealt.

[paul wheaton]

While I agree that too much moderating can destroy an on-line community, I really don't think we have that problem here. If anything, we err on the side of too little moderation.
I think the real mistake here (given the tool of way-back time machine) is that I probably should have heeded the advice of other moderators and admins long ago: do not allow anonymous posts in MD. I think that if we had done that, we probably would have cracked down on ovbiously fictitious names in MD a bit more too. Thus, the account would have been closed at 10 posts instead of 700 and your pain would have been less.

In my opinion Paul went looking for trouble this time

I did? I dunno, I had this thing about the names when I set the forums up for the first time. I think I've always been clear about it. You've just slipped through the cracks for a long time. And it's been brought to your attention often enough, I surprised that you're so upset about it. I would think your attitude would be more like "well, they finally did it. I knew it was coming sooner or later. I guess I'll just have to make a new account."
I thought you might take the old account and change the name. Keep that 700 post ranking and all. But, well, here we are.

my opinions are deserving of some respect and weight

I think we were trying those roads, but you wouldn't respond. I guess I was looking for at least enough respect to talk to me about the issue. Perhaps privately. I could tell you what I wanted and why. You could tell me what you wanted and why. And we could find some comfortable ground. All could be smooth. But that didn't work, so what tools do I have left to meet my needs?

[Thomas Paul]

Personally I think we are wasting way too much time on "Alfred Neumann". Either you will abide by the policy or you won't. If you will then great and we are happy to have you. If not then goodbye. The policy is not new and you have been warned countless times.

[John Smith]

Gees, Alfred Neumann looks like Rodney King surrounded by the sheriffs and deputies in this thread, who are proclaiming their responsibilities to uphold the law of the land.
I respect your right to set the rules, trailboss, and I believe that you are a reasonable fellow, but in this case I agree with Alfred, -- you were just looking for trouble and you certainly found it. If anything going to affect the image and reputation of JavaRanch, it's not what names the ranchers decide to use, but what kind of ranchers gather here and what they have to say.
A thread like this causes a lot of damage and leaves a footprint in the sand for a long time. Even if it convinces a thousand of Alfred Neumanns to change their names, JR loses, along with you. You don't want to go down this path.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
I respect your right to set the rules, trailboss, and I believe that you are a reasonable fellow, but in this case I agree with Alfred, -- you were just looking for trouble and you certainly found it.

You will have to explain how we "were looking for trouble"?

[John Smith]

TP: You will have to explain how we "were looking for trouble"?
In this context, a "trouble" is a venture that yields a negative rate of return.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
In this context, a "trouble" is a venture that yields a negative rate of return.

I still don't get it. We asked him to change his name. He ignored us. We asked again. He ignored us. Paul tried to email him. He PM'ed him. He posted a note in MD. Paul was ignored. So Paul closed his account. If by "negative rate of return" you mean that we get rid of a guy that doesn't want to play by the rules then you and I have a different defintion of "negative rate of return".

[Philippe Maquet]

Hi everybody,
I fully understand Paul's position, but Alfred's pain as well (loosing 700 posts must be so hard).
So I have a stupid question : when an account is closed, is there any technical mean to reopen it ? Alfred would then change his displayed name on the reopen account and we all could forget this.
What do you think ? Too simple or simply impossible ?
Tomorrow, it's New Year. A happy end would be so nice !
Best regards,
Phil.
[ December 30, 2003: Message edited by: Philippe Maquet ]