We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Should Member's Real Names be Required to Comment on Authenticity?
Should members be required to use their confirmed real names to comment on authenticity or any controversial or possibly defamatory topic? This is something that's been discussed on and off and I think it's time to require it.
For members and the public to be able to determine who's expertise to listen to, I think they need to know who that person is. And when a dealer or his inventory is called out, it's only fair that he knows who is making the accusations.
Net54, a highly respected sports collecting forum, requires it for members who want to contribute to controversial discussions. And while it may limit the number of registered members, the vast majority of people who use community sites only read it—they don't register and contribute—so the site's value to the autograph community will still be high.
In fact, it should be even higher, because everyone knows the person behind the opinion.
Real name membership won't be required for everyone. Just members who contribute to authentication, controversial or possibly defamatory topics on AML.
Your thoughts?
Tags: real member names
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dane on
-
I think that it should be a defamation issue. If someone is merely posting a link or reference to previously known (but maybe not known to a new individual) information, then they should be allowed to maintain their pseudo-anonymity. As an example, if someone posts that a COA is on the eBay banned certification list (which I still don't know where to find, mind you), then that is public knowledge (supposedly). By contrast, if someone were to say someone only sells fakes, then that could be slander and potentially libelous, so their name should be attached to the post to protect the site from any repercussions.
As for authenticity, I don't think it should be mandated, but perhaps encouraged, for individuals to have their names attached. The main reason is the usefulness of the information. Some people like to keep to themselves, and maybe their collection consists of two or three specific people, so they would have significant knowledge on the subject matter. They might be inclined to not post at all if they didn't want their identity known.
Another issue might be related to the authentication process itself. PSA and JSA both have groups of authenticators, and for the most part, they remain anonymous. I think that if someone comments on an item being real, it might create a backlash effect if that item is determined by someone else to be fake.
I guess to sum up what I'm saying:
Yes - slander/libel/comments on individuals/companies
No/Maybe - authentication/comments on single signatures - posters will need to avoid disclosure of who the item is from. If this is disclosed, it would go into the "Yes" category.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael T on
-
@Dane
You can find eBays list of approved and banned COA's here. Just scroll to the bottom and expand the 'Certificates of Authenticity (COAs) and Letters of Authenticity (LOAs)' section.
http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/autographs.html
(or you can simply search ebay's help system for autographs.)
@Chad
I agree. When any of us comment we are simply giving our free opinion and in all cases it is simply that- an opinion. It is not fact nor should it be taken as such.
Maybe it would be best if everyone had to give their confirmed real name. I suspect it would change the tone of this site and that might prove to be beneficial in the long run.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on
-
I think you're right, Michael. I think it would change the tone and reduce the wild west element.
-
Permalink Reply by Chad B on
-
It would not make a difference to me. When I comment on a piece or a dealer, I am simply giving my free opinion so beware you may get what you are paying for.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on
-
Personally I could care less but isn’t that why we have a moderator? To make sure that inappropriate posts don’t happen in the first place? My only concern would be for people who would like to discuss their collection without their friends and neighbors knowing about it. Or people in certain occupations being stalked by criminals, employees, students and anyone else who can just Google their name and see what they do in their spare time. Dealers need to be protected but so does the honest law abiding member of Autograph Magazine Live!. Why not just suspend or ban members who cross the line?
Looks like that whole Clint Eastwood thing really created some concerns.
-
Permalink Reply by CEE GEE on
-
This is a great answer here...there is one thing including myself all collectors are....extremely protective of there collection...believe it or not besides members on this site my stuff is pretty much unknown to almost everybody...
-
Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on
-
Let's separate the authentication issue from the controversy. Personally, I think it is cowardice to attach anyone in writing, especially when hiding behind a ficticious name. I would have preferred that the posts that ended up on that Eastwood discussion were never allowed to be exhibited. If there is a way to censor those, I wish it would happen because it has nothing to do with what we are trying to accomplish here.
as for authenticity opinions, I am not sure what benefit it would provide to have transparency with the names. If anyone wants to know who I am, they can friend me and I would be happy to tell them. I only comment on signatures that I have been studying and collecting for the past 30 years, and I am not making any money off of this. so again, I dont see the need to change the policy on authentication opinions.
-
Permalink Reply by CJCollector on
-
I think everyone should be using their real names no matter what the topic is.
A person calling himself Missing Link shows up and starts posting photographs and a bunch of other nonsense hiding behind a pseudonym. That garbage should be deleted or that person should reveal who they are.
If I, or anyone else here, is going to get criticized or ripped, I want to know who I am dealing with. We already have enough scammers and cowards to deal with.
-
-
I just found out that we can make the member's real name and any other information private, so it's only visible to the member and us.
-
-
Im ok with that Steve.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on
-
Some time ago I was resistant to this type of change for a number of reasons. One of the primary reasons is my collecting is a hobby, I.e., part of my personal life, and I prefer that business associates, family, etc. not being able to peer in on my hobby. I'd prefer if colleagues cannot easily stumble across chat board conversations... It would be very easy for someone to take something the wrong way as a casual observer.
The next concern is, if you have a unique name, I would be easy for someone to find you and where your goodies are located. It may have a chilling effect on showing off pricey items.
All that said, I believe using real names has become necessary. There are too many hit and run attackers hiding under fake names or spreading disinformation. We have seen more of this as the site grows in popularity. Did you ever notice how when a forgery style is exposed, some new member comes out of the woodwork to dispute it and claim they received one just like it in person? These are forgers or theirs friends attempting to spread disinformation.
And, then there are people who may not be malicious, but who just don't know what they are talking about. The use of a real name allows observers to decide who has more credibility among those rendering an opinion.
I think Net54 is an excellent model. You are supposed to use your real name, but characters are allowed in order to make it so the name does not come up on Internet searches. For example, J@mes Jones.
My vote would be to create two levels of membership. Verified members would be those who use their real name and it has been verified. Verified members would have some sort of star or characteristic to identify them as verified. Then there would be unverified members. Unverified members would be able to post as verified members, but their posts would be subject to quick deletion should they post controversial, confrontational or unsubstantiated information. This is essentially the same model Net54 uses with good success.
And yes, I will be changing my name to Steve Z@relli shortly. Not that it was ever a secret to begin with.
-
-
Any information you provided would be private and only visible to the admin. I don't understand how you think Steve Cyrkin is going to start spamming your phone with texts. And I'm sure there are alternate ways to verify identity as well.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
