Another Reason for Real Names on Badges?

[kevin_standlee]

At the risk of starting *ahem* a flame war, I would like to point to an article about what is formally being called "online disinhibition effect," which is how people are apt to say things with less restraint online than they would in person. (And my thanks to Cheryl for pointing me at it.) In short, people flame more often online than they do in person.

Now I personally think this is more common when the person doing the flaming is behind a pseudonym. (By which I mean that nobody reading what you write knows who you are in real life; this is not the same thing as someone who has an odd handle but puts his/her name in his profile -- the rough equivalent if printing someone's real name under their fan name on a membership badge.) I sign my own name to these posts, so just possibly I'm showing a bit more restraint.

I was particularly interested in this extract:

...In face-to-face interaction, the brain reads a continual cascade of emotional signs and social cues, instantaneously using them to guide our next move so that the encounter goes well. Much of this social guidance occurs in circuitry centered on the orbitofrontal cortex, a center for empathy. This cortex uses that social scan to help make sure that what we do next will keep the interaction on track.

Research by Jennifer Beer, a psychologist at the University of California, Davis, finds that this face-to-face guidance system inhibits impulses for actions that would upset the other person or otherwise throw the interaction off. Neurological patients with a damaged orbitofrontal cortex lose the ability to modulate the amygdala, a source of unruly impulses; like small children, they commit mortifying social gaffes like kissing a complete stranger, blithely unaware that they are doing anything untoward.

It occurs to me that there are a series of typically fannish behaviors that fall into this same description, characterized by an utter lack of ability to read emotional cues and emotional signs. Does this really mean that science fiction fans need to have their heads examined?

Comments

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

You know, every time this subject comes up, someone raises a variation of what you wrote. I guess I'm going to have to be horribly fannish and digressive and try to include as a footnote something like the following:

I don't mean that you should be obliged to put the name on your birth certificate on your badge if that is not the name by which you are commonly known and by which other people call you commonly and that you can be easily identified by. For example, local fan "Spike" Parson's given name is Patricia, but if you put that name on her badge, most people wouldn't know her by name. If you're better known by your pen name, you should use that, not your legal name.

There is a difference between pseudonymity and anonymity. The former is common enough. The latter tends to be pernicious, as people get the impression that they can avoid their actions having any consequences. (See DDB's comment above.)

I don't know how many ways I can say this without being misunderstood. I ended up writing what turned into a huge article for Argentus #6 on the subject of membership badges. I spent quite a few words on the subject of "badge names" trying to apply common sense.

I'm perfectly aware of good reasons for wanting to remain behind a pseudonym. What bothers me are people using that pseudonym as an excuse for being anti-social.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

But how does the membership division separate what is a anti-social badge name from one that is more informative? Put a space in to explain why you want a different badge name and decide if is a good enough reason or not?

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't put a space on a membership form; however, I would tell people that if they put something in the "fan name" space, whatever their "real name" is (and that means what I think was called a "use name" earlier) will also appear on their badge in smaller type. I would put the burden on the individual member to have to convince Registration that there is a compelling reason not to include the member's common name on their badge somewhere.

And yes, this means it is a subjective judgement call by someone in Registration, and you can't handle it by a computer program in a cut-and-dried manner. Sometimes it's justified; sometime's it's not. I gave examples in my article of both sorts of cases.

I'm pretty sure the idea that such a decision has to be made using subjective human judgement is absolutely horrifying to many people, particularly since fans don't have much common sense; indeed, it seems to be a marker for fannishness that we expect life to be a series of absolute yes/no decisions like a computer program.

Hmmm

[cmdrsuzdal.livejournal.com]

Trying to convince registration of what name you might or might not be permitted to use seems like a recipe for headaches and hurt feelings and probably no better than having a few antisocial people hide behind pseudonyms.

FWIW, I always use my real name. But I'm sympathetic to folks who have their own reasons to not want to do the same.

-Espana Sheriff

Re: Hmmm

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Having seen the harm that "a few anti-social people" can do to a convention, I don't think I agree. The problem here is that it requires the people involved to be tactful and diplomatic, and fans are notoriously lacking in such characteristics. And even if the people from the convention are among those rare fans capable of being diplomatic, the people they're trying to talk to may well take the attitude of "I can do anything I want, anytime, anywhere, and you have no right whatsoever to limit my freedom for any conceivable reason! I paid for my ticket and it's your job to serve me!"

I don't exaggerate that much, really, given that I've encountered people with that attitude, most notoriously at one of ConJose's feedback sessions.

Nobody forces you to attend a convention. If the convention's policies aren't to your liking, then you probably shouldn't join it. Conversely, if I'm organizing a convention, I think I can refuse to admit someone who refuses to abide by what I consider reasonable rules of conduct. (Yes, there are certain classes of such discrimination that are wrong and/or illegal, and I'm not talking about any of them here.)

Mind you, I'm probably a hopeless old fossil here, since the conventions drawing the most number of people are things like anime cons, which, even when fan-run, seem to take the "show" and "ticket" approach, and most of their attendees do seem to be me to be ticket-buyers who expect entertainment for their admission ticket than convention members joining a community. (The latter was why I started attending SF conventions.)

FWIW, I always use my real name. But I'm sympathetic to folks who have their own reasons to not want to do the same.

And so am I, as I said in that article. What I'm saying is that you can't really make a bright-line distinction here. I've worked on too many conventions to think that one-size-fits-all, no exceptions, is likely to work in this area. But fans detest shades of gray, I'm afraid.

Re: Hmmm

[cmdrsuzdal.livejournal.com]

Oh, don't get me wrong; I've had to deal with anti-social people at cons myself. I'm guess I'm just not convinced that there was a greater percentage of those who were being anti-social because they were/felt anonymous over ones who do it because they're just that way ;)

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

If a person is a real anti-social turd a lack of a space for a badge name won't stop him/her. For that matter it does not stop me. My pseudonym will arrive at my mail box just fine and in all my years of using it no one has noticed the discrepancy between the name on my check or credit card and the name I put on the registration form.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Is that name you use on your registration the name by which you are commonly known in fandom and by which other people will recognize you, or is it some random name-like string of characters to which you will not answer and will look at me strangely if I try to call you by it, even though it's printed on the badge? The former is a "real name" in my opinion. The latter is not.

This inability of people to see this distinction thoroughly muddies the waters of these discussions.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

It is the same name I use here. Matthew Mishalak isn't my legal name, it is my fan/writing name. A lot of people assume it is my real name though.

But say I was a turd and didn't want to put down my name on a form that didn't include a pseudonym space. Easy enough, pick something just similar enough to my own name that at quick glance would look like it. Pay by check. And that's if I get one early. No one asks for ID when a person pays by cash at the door. I've done that a few times.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

It is the same name I use here. Matthew Mishalak isn't my legal name, it is my fan/writing name. A lot of people assume it is my real name though.

That's what DDB called a "use name" and it counts as a "real name" to me. Note that I've never said legal name (or if I did, I didn't mean it). I mean the name by which you're commonly known in the community and by which you can be commonly identified.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

But say I was a turd and didn't want to put down my name on a form that didn't include a pseudonym space.

I'd treat "Matthew Mishalak" as the name to put in the "name" space on the form in this case.

No one asks for ID when a person pays by cash at the door. I've done that a few times.

You'll get no complaint from me about this. Besides, you're not being anti-social by hiding behind a non-use name.

It may sound otherwise, but I've objected to conventions demanding government-issued photo ID even when the person at the registration desk knows me personally. This is done "to be fair and impartial," but it's stupid and loses track of what the purpose of the ID check is for. For a pre-registered member, it's to confirm that you are who you say you are and can pick up the member's materials. If the registration desk person (or someone of authority at Registration) knows who I am, there's no need to request photo ID. (Note that if the reg staff don't know me, I don't balk at showing something to establish my credentials.)

[julesjones]

But it does get into the "prove you're you" problem when people demand photo ID for a use name that is not the same as that on your legal ID -- which I've encountered when paying on the door, not just as security on pickup of pre-reg. Pity the name on my photo ID is the one nobody in fandom can remember even when they know what it is (as in, some of my closest friends can't remember it, including the one who has the same surname...).

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

But it does get into the "prove you're you" problem when people demand photo ID for a use name that is not the same as that on your legal ID -- which I've encountered when paying on the door, not just as security on pickup of pre-reg.

Believe it or not, given my desire for people to have a name on their badge by which they are known within the community and to which they will answer, I'm sympathetic with you. I don't know why someone should need to provide photo ID for a membership purchased on the door for cash. I've never heard a convention provide a reasonable justification for doing so. I've concluded that we have a lot of people for whom Your Papers Please is a Way Of Life.

[julesjones]

The trouble is, people interpret "real name" as "legal name, as shown on your real world photo ID". And then insist on putting that on the front of the badge, along with the "badge name". Now, I have no problem with putting the legal name on the *back* of the badge and insisting that the front of the badge include a name you are commonly known by in fandom, but I'm not happy with the insistence on publicly associating both names. A badge with a membership number prominently displayed is enough to identify someone who's being enough of a problem that it's necessary to find out what their legal name is.

[trinsf.livejournal.com]

Yeah, what you said. I have a friend who uses his legal name for work, and has another name that he's been using for years elsewhere. It's not a funky "fannish" name. In fact, it sounds so much like a legal name, there are many people who do not know that the pseudonym is not his legal name. He doesn't do it to be anonymous; he does it for reasons of work/personal life separation. At this point, it has the status of a legal alias, I believe.

I've always had my legal first name on my badges at events, and everyone in my family does pretty much the same thing. (This past Baycon was difficult because of that, though; I actually had someone ask me if my badge was "an homage [to motogrrl]". "No," I replied, "that's my *name*."

[howeird]

Anonymity would mean having a blank name badge.
:-)

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

A name by which you do not answer and by which you are not commonly known in the community is functionally the same thing as a blank badge.