I did not want to write again. But there were too many questions and an effort to prove me a liar that I need to reply again. I promise this would be my last reply on this topic, in any situation. If there will be more questions and comments, which I should reply since those would have valid reasons, I will simply keep myself away from Bangla Cricket with broken heart. I would like to add few notes here (some may be repeating, but this would be the last, so please allow me).
1. The last reply with some answers again nullifies the previous argument that most if not all questions were answered. In my reported posts my concern was not only the nick/real name matter but mainly resizing of the pictures, images in the signature etc, which have not been taken care of in time, but furious comments (What issue? It is not your right.......) could be readily available on my post.
2. I was reporting posts to the moderator since I considered those posts violated members’ right to know about the content of those posts by the poster. I never asked to change the policy only for me or to let me know the real names of those nicks. Simply, a general invitation to all would serve the purpose. The 1st post of this thread has generated curiosity and prompted to search to know more about them. By introducing these nicks as authors, the poster has also made their anonymity and privacy vulnerable. By the post, the anonymity of the authors is no more respected by the poster. It is a violation of their right at the same denial to introduce their articles is a violation of my right as a member.
3. I did not ask any members about the nicks and real names by u2u or posts. One member willingly sent an u2U earlier regarding this and I acknowledged that. He again reminded me in this thread and I replied him again. Other than that I reported some posts only, which I frequently did to see that my most favorite site will maintain the best quality without any flaws. I know it is the responsibility of the moderators, but members have also been encouraged to do so. In several occasions I have been thanked for these. It is our Super Moderator, who advised me to withdraw his real name from one of my post showing some unconvincing reasons, although his nick name appeared in Arnab’s post in a different thread of the forum. When it came in the form of a personal request, I honored that since I am also anonymous in the board. I clearly mentioned that-“I like to remain anonymous, and if find somebody to be the same, I honor “. I have not changed my ideology. Check it here ( also see below)-
4. I accepted the authors’ right not to disclose their real names in the u2u and also in my post. Why are you mixing it up with my concern that “It is members right to know from the poster about the content of his post”? I do not persist any more after knowing the policy of the board to know about the authors real names, who do not want to disclose. I complained only about policy related to poster-turned-authors who already disclosed their identities both in message board and articles but still claims anonymity. However, since they are giving us time and presenting articles. I accepted that also. But if somebody introduces some nicks as authors it is my right to know “who is who” from posters. If I know that he will not be doing that and would deny members right I do not hesitate to be commanding, if and only if he is not a moderator. Please again note that I replied to the post of Chinaman who was speaking as a member only……., it was very clearly distinguished in his post.
5. When there is a thread Write Articles in this site
, why should the forum be flooded with the similar threads? Is it not the violation of posting guidelines? There were invitations by the Super Administrator in that thread to all. Starting a new thread to invite some specific nicks introducing them as authors gives the chance to smell something.
6. The only statement blacked out while replying to my first response by Chinaman was- " I know some or all of them are contributing for articles." I speculated it to be intentional, which seems to be correct after the last reply. I in the very beginning mentioned that I know it. I was informed it by a member, as I mentioned. But to honor the privacy, I can not disclose and did not do that. When the article on n-tier system was published, I could find the real name of the author. I could immediately know from the u2u message the nick of the author. I wanted to congratulate the author for the great article. I could find Agentsmith already starting a thread Front Page Article;
wherein he stated that he does not know the nick of the author. I know it, but could not use u2u as a reference. I then searched by the authors first name and could see the Arnab’s post wherein the nick of the author and the real name could be correlated.
Author's real name was used there, although the post was moderated, the name still remained there. It gave me the impression that the author may not hide his name. The policy was not announced anywhere till then and also the author did not mention anywhere that he wants to remain anonymous. So I used his name. But upon request from him, I removed it later although the name still appears in the Arnab's post. See my post in this thread.
If I know something from a forum, but cannot post it when necessary is equivalent to me of not knowing. For respect of authors' right as an ordinary member, I could not quote nick/real names together, but you could know all while wrting as a member. This was surprising! It is not anything useful or truth, which extracted from a G-rated environment cannot be quoted in other thread. U2U are private messages and I do not feel that it should be used as a reference. But if the names are found in a thread and cannot be quoted elsewhere for discussion, it is unprecedented.
Other than this, I did not verify/collect/unyield and ………. any of the other nicks and real names. (There were some exchange of u2u between Chinaman and me, wherein I was asked whethere I am some......... named person or not, or ... something else with giving option to reply or not. I also replied to his frank u2u with utmost sincerity even informing the bad health I had been passing then and seeking suggestions. I just hope that it has not been defined as verify/collect.... etc. Although such personal matters should not be discussed from both of us in BC website. From my side I beg apology). Although some can be found in Introduce Yourself and in some other threads.
In several occasions, I mentioned in posts/u2u many times about the unbelievable dedication and excellent moderation ability of Chinaman. He was to me a man of the ideology, which we the cricket fans really need. This is why I was more interested on him. It was so exciting to me to know the nick of the great article by the author and I congratulated him immediately. I was the first to voice, when Chinaman intended to quit his responsibility as a Super Moderator. I feel comfortable to find no gap between the nicks and the real names, it is simply my personal demand and some even moderators (I would not mention the name) also have the same feeling. This was my simple and innocent demand. I am not a writer and may not express the things in the right way. But you have that ability. Why should you become so furious handling an ordinary member? Did I really make much trouble for the board? Please, if you feel better, or consider me irritating or as a trouble maker, BAN me, but I earnestly request you not to smell rats here. It is as innocent as anything truly innocent in this earth.
7. I could remain silent after Chinaman’s invitation to some nicks, which might be the wisest. I agree that I could not control my emotion. However, the whole matter was not dealt in an intelligent way. My first query about the nick/real name was not answered, although there was a change in policy (Thanks to you all again to start to include the nicks of the willing authors in the articles), it was not informed to the forum. I had to appear again with the repeating question to know about it. And immediately after my post, I could unfortunately see a Thread “Foul Trouble” from “Who is online”, which was accessible only to moderators and had the topic ID next to the previous thread where I raised it and just before the thread “Foul Trouble” started by me. It gave me the impression that I am treated as a “Foul”, although I was informed in a reply to the thread by one super moderator that I was not the subject of those discussions. It was later also informed by u2u by Chinaman as well. Note the wording of the topic, “foul”. Is it helpful for a G-rated environment?
Reference threads are (please look at the topic Ids):
I was sorry to find that moderators were shown as guests and their activity can be monitored. I in the 2nd post again brought the attention on the vulnerability and one super moderator also agreed on that. But what were the consequences? This thread was moved to moderators’ only accessible area and my “search” function simply disfunctioned. I requested Chinaman to see the matter. According to his suggestion I tried all the possible ways to activate “Search” option and failed. His conclusion was not pleasant at all and later on I observed that this trouble arised for the reason of mishandling of the thread by Chinaman. He then moved that thread back to the forum. Before moving, I was not even notified. Whenever I was asked/requested/suggested I did not hesitate to follow Chinaman’s advice for deleting, editing … any of my posts, although in all cases none were in violation of posting guidelnes.
But now see, the text there is edited by him. If some visitor reads that thread, he/she should consider that there was some violation of posting guidelines in those posts. But it was NOT the case. There was nothing objectionable there. The edit reason mentioned justifies the moving back the thread to the forum, but NOT the editing. I personally think more than twice before posting any message and try to follow the posting guidelines as much as possible.
8. I honor privacy and at the same time I am careful to maintain it for myself. If someone wants to remain anonymous, he/she should be careful not to disclose it. If it can be known from an open forum, it no more remains anonymous and private.
There are people in the board of different ages and profession. It is always interesting to me to compare the change in creativity, progressiveness, depth of thinking, approach etc in the course of time. The emotion, expression, submissiveness of people changes with age, profession and individuality. Is it a crime to try to know about people with available data? This is the only reason I wanted to correlate the nicks with the real names. I have no idea how I can use the real names for any ill motives!
In conclusion, I am very much faithful to the moderators and administrators and therefore Report Posts frequently to the moderators, with only one motive: to ensure the best possible quality of the site and the environment, which helps me to have some really good enjoyable time. I again repeat that “I like to remain anonymous, and if find somebody to be the same, I honor “
[Edited on 26-6-2004 by abhs : To rearrange the correct links in places, add few more sentences and typos]