If you look at a couple of posts there, you'll notice that name calling exists nevertheless. I challenge you to read the discussion here [1] and check the name

If you look at a couple of posts there, you'll notice that name calling exists nevertheless. I challenge you to read the discussion here [1] and check the name calling and ad hominem attacks from (maybe) people with their real names. Next problem: Asking for legal looking names doesn't solve the problem of anonymity. If I am able to change my name to Bob Smith without hitting a filter (at least for a while) I still can be an asshole without any connection to my 'real name'. The _only_ thing the policy right now _can_ do is prohibiting people from using an obvious pseudonym. I cannot be darklajid, but I can be Bob Smith. Both are not my real names, the former is my handle ~everywhere~ online. One is me, one is crap. No way around that unless you're going to verify papers/ids, and now feel free to throw "Papiere bitte" references at me. So the whole 'we need real names' and 'we hope that this improves our community' is crap. But the most idiotic thing is to make exceptions. Forget about the standard samples like 'Lady Gaga' and '50 Cent': We already hat a couple of threads here about people that used their pseudonym, were suspended and (by bullying, rounding up the media, having contacts inside of Google) got an exception. What? Why? They are allowed to be different, because...? Bottom line: The current rule is - useless - arbitrary (I'd like to put this up as 'discriminating', but yeah.. G+ is not a right, yadda yadda) Ben, suspended on G+ ;) 1: https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8z...