As the only person commenting here so far using my full name as my HN handle, I'll agree that there's a big difference in how one acts when using one's real name than under a pseudonym (even one based on your full name). I only maintain the habit because of my journalistic background - bylines are like gold-dust to me, even if they're on HN ;-)
In my case, I back away from "crazies" and flamewars pretty quickly, remain civil at (almost) all times, and apologize (or ignore) quickly even if I really want to tear the other party a new one. But I think this is a good thing. The constant invisible axe swinging around in the room helps me keep my words and manner in check, lest I get cut.
I definitely think having your full name attached to your account makes you double check what you post - however I will still speak my mind on certain topics, even if they may seem a bit odd to post about.
I only recently decided on this route after 17 years of going by nicknames/handles. I think I am mature enough now to know how to handle what I say, and will always think twice about what possible future employers might find or anyone else from my personal life. If they have an issue with what I post under my full name, then so be it, but at this point it has been a rational decision to do so.
The strange thing for me is that my name is a very common one, but my handle is more or less unique. I hand out my personal email address which incorporates my handle, so I'm very easy to Google when using it.
By comparison, if I used my real name, I would be practically anonymous, drowned in the sea of other people using my name, including a well-known footballer and a journalist, both of whom generate huge numbers of search hits.
That's a great point that hadn't come to mind before. I'm lucky to have an uncommon but not unusual name so it just about works. If my name were more "generic", I would probably take the same route as you.
I have found the opposite - by using a handle on a debate site, I've been able to float very taboo topics that have ended up being pretty illuminating and illustrative that I never would have engaged in if I was 'protecting my name and keeping away from the crazies'.
One example was in an online debate about a report of necrophiliac abuse of cadavers in a funeral home. Highly emotive topic and sets off the rage in most folks. But myself and a few others were able to look at it a bit more discretely - and through discussion examined where the harm lay: not to the person whose body was so affected (as they're dead) but to the family should they find out (you may disagree, but this helped illuminate something for me about 'bags of chemicals' vs 'human being'). This isn't to say I think necrophilia shouldn't be a crime, but that where the harm is done is somewhere other than the knee-jerkers think it is. Ultimately discussion of this ultra-taboo topic gave me insight to the human condition and was another brick in the understanding-how-things-are-instead-of-how-they-look edifice.
If I had've used my real name in a discussion like that, I would never have pursued it. Some people are blinded by rage and emotion and advancing an unpopular viewpoint is simply inviting someone stupid in the middle of a rage to do something harmful to you without rationally thinking about it. These folks are also the ones that believe that being offended gives them the right (or even the duty!) to harm you.
Comments
As the only person commenting here so far using my full name as my HN handle, I'll agree that there's a big difference in how one acts when using one's real name than under a pseudonym (even one based on your full name). I only maintain the habit because of my journalistic background - bylines are like gold-dust to me, even if they're on HN ;-)
In my case, I back away from "crazies" and flamewars pretty quickly, remain civil at (almost) all times, and apologize (or ignore) quickly even if I really want to tear the other party a new one. But I think this is a good thing. The constant invisible axe swinging around in the room helps me keep my words and manner in check, lest I get cut.
I definitely think having your full name attached to your account makes you double check what you post - however I will still speak my mind on certain topics, even if they may seem a bit odd to post about.
I only recently decided on this route after 17 years of going by nicknames/handles. I think I am mature enough now to know how to handle what I say, and will always think twice about what possible future employers might find or anyone else from my personal life. If they have an issue with what I post under my full name, then so be it, but at this point it has been a rational decision to do so.
The strange thing for me is that my name is a very common one, but my handle is more or less unique. I hand out my personal email address which incorporates my handle, so I'm very easy to Google when using it.
By comparison, if I used my real name, I would be practically anonymous, drowned in the sea of other people using my name, including a well-known footballer and a journalist, both of whom generate huge numbers of search hits.
That's a great point that hadn't come to mind before. I'm lucky to have an uncommon but not unusual name so it just about works. If my name were more "generic", I would probably take the same route as you.
I have found the opposite - by using a handle on a debate site, I've been able to float very taboo topics that have ended up being pretty illuminating and illustrative that I never would have engaged in if I was 'protecting my name and keeping away from the crazies'.
One example was in an online debate about a report of necrophiliac abuse of cadavers in a funeral home. Highly emotive topic and sets off the rage in most folks. But myself and a few others were able to look at it a bit more discretely - and through discussion examined where the harm lay: not to the person whose body was so affected (as they're dead) but to the family should they find out (you may disagree, but this helped illuminate something for me about 'bags of chemicals' vs 'human being'). This isn't to say I think necrophilia shouldn't be a crime, but that where the harm is done is somewhere other than the knee-jerkers think it is. Ultimately discussion of this ultra-taboo topic gave me insight to the human condition and was another brick in the understanding-how-things-are-instead-of-how-they-look edifice.
If I had've used my real name in a discussion like that, I would never have pursued it. Some people are blinded by rage and emotion and advancing an unpopular viewpoint is simply inviting someone stupid in the middle of a rage to do something harmful to you without rationally thinking about it. These folks are also the ones that believe that being offended gives them the right (or even the duty!) to harm you.
One example was in an online debate about a report of necrophiliac abuse of cadavers in a funeral home.
OK... but let's say that most topics in HN are of a different kind. I doubt you will receive severe stalking because you, say, praised Emacs =).
(For the record, "I'm not worthy" (at least yet) to put a link or my real name in HN.)
I doubt you will receive severe stalking because you, say, praised Emacs =)
Oh mannnn, you haven't been in a vi/emacs flamewar yet have you?! ;-)
I joke. Or do I..