4 ms·

Because the distinction on how common and acceptable your name is just seems too absurd for a ban-able offence. Note: If legal name is Charles Jones Jr. then J

Because the distinction on how common and acceptable your name is just seems too absurd for a ban-able offence. Note: If legal name is Charles Jones Jr. then Junior Jones is acceptable. That isn't the same as saying prefixing Junior in front of anything is ok. Also lumping friends, family, co-workers together doesn't fit for everyone. I'm known primarily by Skyler, Sky, Skydogg, and Pyrodogg. All in 'real life', among different groups of people. Who is to say that Pyrodogg isn't my common name if you're talking about the 80+ members of my hackerspace? Sure, it's my online moniker but it has migrated back out into the real world as my "common name" with those people.

jsdalton 15y ago
Well, I can understand them requiring you to pick one name as your primary name. While e.g. a feature that allowed you to present a different name to different Circles might be a good one, I don't think it's unfair of them not to implement such a feature. That said, the gray area here -- and the difference between the stated policy and their actions -- is the problem. Per their policy, I don't see why you couldn't use "Pyrodogg" as your name, if that is in fact what you're most frequently known by. I guess it's not a "full" name (first and last) but I don't see anything in their policy that explicitly prohibits that. But I guess what people are saying is they would take action against you if you went that route -- in which case, the problem is one of enforcement rather than policy, no? Don't get me wrong, I think they are mucking this up -- I'm just not convinced (yet) that their stated policy is as bad as some of the criticism is making it out to be. Most of the rules make sense (no impersonations, no special chars, etc.), so I don't get why they can't just say, "Call yourself whatever you want as long as it doesn't break these rules."
- nknight 15y ago
  It's clear that their stated policy is not the same as their actual internal policy. If it were, the outcry would be half the size it is. Google is lying about what their policy actually is, plain and simple. Questions of anonymity aside, the much of the outcry is because of the severe dishonesty being displayed by Google.

jsdalton 15y ago

Well, I can understand them requiring you to pick one name as your primary name. While e.g. a feature that allowed you to present a different name to different Circles might be a good one, I don't think it's unfair of them not to implement such a feature. That said, the gray area here -- and the difference between the stated policy and their actions -- is the problem. Per their policy, I don't see why you couldn't use "Pyrodogg" as your name, if that is in fact what you're most frequently known by. I guess it's not a "full" name (first and last) but I don't see anything in their policy that explicitly prohibits that. But I guess what people are saying is they would take action against you if you went that route -- in which case, the problem is one of enforcement rather than policy, no? Don't get me wrong, I think they are mucking this up -- I'm just not convinced (yet) that their stated policy is as bad as some of the criticism is making it out to be. Most of the rules make sense (no impersonations, no special chars, etc.), so I don't get why they can't just say, "Call yourself whatever you want as long as it doesn't break these rules."

nknight 15y ago
It's clear that their stated policy is not the same as their actual internal policy. If it were, the outcry would be half the size it is. Google is lying about what their policy actually is, plain and simple. Questions of anonymity aside, the much of the outcry is because of the severe dishonesty being displayed by Google.