Incognito Profiles

Thats sounds like a question to ask people on twitter

I think it'd be pretty humorous to see someone stalk me here, half the map sites don't even acknowledge that my address exists.

Nice location, if I didn't know better you would be in the creek down the road from me, got loads of geese in it

Hehe, guess I could have put a state on there too, but I doubt anywhere named goose creek is really going to want to stand up and claim it.

What funny is that goose creek itself around here is more a stagnant creekbed amidst a swamp full of things that bite.

Nuthin much worser then a goose bite

Sounds enjoyable, I was born in an area that has lots of biting things, many of them would go ahead and eat the dog.

I have nothing interesting to say about me.

art, your profile starts out a lot like one of my instructor's introductions.

I believe it went something like this, "I'm Ensign XXXX, and I have a Ph.D in Mathematics, and that's all you need to know about me. Let's begin."

Though having nothing to say about myself is why my profile is blank and I use facebook only as a way to waste time and depress myself by reading narcissism in action.

And I would definitely not  post what state you lived in. They could really zero in on you with that info......

Find me first, than I"ll moon anybody who wants to look. On a side note I'm willing to share all the info you want about me if you donate to my coffee fund I'm gonna have to stop drinking it day after tomorrow otherwise thanks. If you believe this I am going to sell you my igloo in Calcutta.

'slightly disordered but mainly sober'

"I, on the other hand, have a degree from the University of Life, a diploma from the School of Hard Knocks, and three gold stars from the Kindergarten of ...".    - Captain Blackadder

A lot of people see it as a joke...but this is exactly how pedophiles, stalkers, rapists, burglars, etc. "pick" their targets...people who piss them off...and stupid enough to include real data about themselves...so tracking is made easier. For an example, we had a professor here recently who's games were showing very close to engine use...he was crucified in the "cheating forum", but he was stupid enough to put his real name, place of work, etc...all innocently right? Well, one of the main accuser in the "cheating forum", was threatening to "visit" his place of work, inform his boss, post stuff about him at the university etc. You can imagine where this can lead to...

...the net can be used for good and evil...best to err on the side of caution.

I have quite opposite opinion. I think that fair chessplayer has nothing to hide and everybody has the right to know his/her opponent. I expect that anonymous user at least introduces himself/herself privately - it should go without saying when game or tournament starts, but it rarely happens and i find this silent behaviour extremely impolite.

A lot of people willing to cheat create anonymous accounts, don't introduce themselves and then it takes days/weeks (live chess) or months/years (online chess) to get rid of them. Cheaters are like athletes or bodybuilders abusing drugs. The difference is that drug abuse doesn't guarantee a success only by itself, cheating athletes still have to work really hard and they bear whole responsibility if they get caught: they are stripped off medals/titles they have stolen and their names are publicly known. Chess.com however tolerates anonymity of cheaters, which is naive.

This is the main reason i consider anonymous users untrustworthy. I recommend not to invite them into groups/teams and tournaments, unless they introduce themselves. And ofcourse, kick them immediately out when their profile/bio appear to be fake.

Btw, the cheating professor - he started as honest user, but perhaps he was tempted/encouraged to cheat later. I think his bosses should know his true character, just because he works with students: teachers and professors should be exemplars for their students and pupils. I know an example from my neighbourhood: teacher got the immediate push from grammar-school, because he was caught stealing butter and rolls in groceteria. He was my cousin's class master. No big deal for the police, but his boss made quick conclusion. Although this teacher used to be respectable person before, nobody stuck up for him.

 Polar_Bear said:

I have quite opposite opinion. I think that fair chessplayer has nothing to hide and everybody has the right to know his/her opponent. I expect that anonymous user at least introduces himself/herself privately - it should go without saying when game or tournament starts, but it rarely happens and i find this silent behaviour extremely impolite

I think there are good arguments here from both sides. However, I disagree about a player's right to know his/her opponent, except, perhaps, for the rating. While it is certainly more interesting to know a few details about one's opponent, and while a friendly, polite greeting may produce a more pleasant atmosphere for play, it is no one's official or social obligation to provide these.

If someone doesnt want to give personal info thats fine by me, I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with those who do give personal info, as long as its honest/true. I do have a problem with people who give info thats not even required and lie about that info ! Such people have a clear character flaw/defect and I would prefer to have nothing to do with them.

Having nothing to hide doesn't necessarily entail that they should disclose their identities to random people, and that "right to know your opponent" simply doesn't exist. if you find that "extremely impolite", it seems to be your problem. I find it rather amusing to find people get actually offended by not knowing about someone's identity. Whenever an oponnent "offends" you like that, just make some moves and try to enjoy the game, this is what chess is about.

The expectation is unreasonable, unrealistic and completely out of touch with the realities of normal safe interaction on the internet.  Given the types of things Polar_Bear has said he would do with people's personal information based solely on conclusions he draws I'd never for a moment consider identifying myself to him even privately, despite having no reason to believe I'd fall under that shroud of suspicion.

Polar_Bear wrote: