If you don’t know the reference, you can start at this link.
Quoting Dr. King, then:
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”
…
I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
THAT is what anonymity allows in a world that still isn’t colorblind: The ability to be judged by your actions and your speech, the content of your character, rather than what you look like, where you come from, or what your name is. Until men and women can learn to debate the substance of ideas rather than malign the source in an effort to ignore the facts, anonymity is perhaps the only true way to get honest feedback and conversation.
That is why the internet has become one of the last great bastions of intelligent conversation, free from Big Brother media and mainstream spin. Is it also a cesspool of idiocy? Of course, but that’s because of idiocy itself (as Chastity notes at that link), something that some people just can’t seem to give up.
Freedom comes with the risk that someone will be an idiot. It’s a small cost to allow people to dodge prejudice.
Blizzard’s RealID isn’t the end of the world, but neither is it wise. It is a step away from my dream of a meritocratic community and an interesting game world. It is yet another piece of the puzzle of the bizarre corporatocracy in our fraying country, and a look at the arrogant mindset of those who make the rules and who have the money. The strangest part of all this isn’t that Blizzard is doing this, it’s that they honestly don’t seem to understand the implications.
Or, perhaps the scariest part is that they do understand the implications, and are simply seeking to make a buck, and think the risk is worth the reward.
I disagree, and it will be interesting to see where things go from here.
Oh, and for what it’s worth, I find much to like about the Austrian school of economics. It strikes me that anonymity is valuable for free markets to work as well. Honest feedback is generated from simple demand and supply, where business relationships are defined by the simple feedback loop of “purchase” or “no purchase”. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand of the market” is concerned most with what people do, not with what they look like. Actions, not prejudice, seem to produce the most productive results in a positive feedback cycle.
Tish Tosh Tesh 
Playing Devil’s Advocate… given the size of WoW, this move, attaching real names to gaming personae, might be the shove that gets gaming accepted in the mainstream. People worry about a potential boss Googling them and finding posts about retribution spec paladins, but maybe when the smoke clears him finding that will be no more important than discovering you are a Red Sox fan or like Gerard Butler movies or listen to classical music. Perhaps being a gamer will just become another fact instead of a definition.
I, too, have a dream…
Part of me wants to view their position in a positive light, but most of me just see the trappings of business and profit, which are rarely ever in the interests of the people. We will, as always, have to wait and see.
“Perhaps being a gamer will just become another fact instead of a definition.”
I agree, that would be nice. Considering the prejudices we still haven’t got past as a society… I doubt that it will happen, but it would be nice. No argument there. 😉
I also doubt that they are thinking altruistically. I never expected them to, to be sure, but corporations don’t make big moves to make society better, they move to make money.
This really isn’t about the way we gamers are viewed by society though. It’s about the foolishness that is asking people to reveal this details in a day and age where we are constantly reminded about the dangers of the internet, the dangers of identity theft, and the dangers of both together.
It creates a very real danger when random jackass #6 that threatened your life because you don’t agree with them about some mundane detail. Before now, it was just an empty threat unless the guy had some serious computer skills. With this, in Blizzard’s world, random jackass #6, if he turns out to be regional psycho #3, can just come to your house and do whatever craziness.
I mean honestly, I could cruise the forums with a pen and paper after this goes live, and with a little persistence, probably get a loan or a store credit card.
Good post and I think you hit on something really important to me.
You have no idea what it’s like to be able to debate with people, when they take you more seriously because they don’t know that you are a woman. I will miss that.
Your comment holds no merit because you are a woman. Now tell me your RealID so I can stalk you and we can both get on the news.
It’s about both, Tech. Identity theft (edit: as well as stalking and workplace issues) is what I consider the “clear and present danger”, and a troublesome one…
…but the social ramifications for debate and prejudice are just as serious, and perhaps longer lasting as they are broader and the effects show up in quieter and more pervasive ways.
That’s why I posted twice in one day on the same topic. 😉
Spinks, you’re right, I’ll not know what it’s like to be a woman… but I can understand that it’s a potential problem. That’s why I’m concerned. I don’t have personal experiences like you have, but I feel for you.
I’m not sure you will see that effect for years though. I doubt very many people with established lives who’s work or family doesn’t accept gaming will utilize any web based RealID services.
The people who are gonna be hurt by this socially are the young folks now who opt-in, talk shit, and then get googled down the line. In that sense though, the trend the are following isn’t much different than Facebooks, so maybe the lesson has been learned by some.
“I also doubt that they are thinking altruistically. I never expected them to, to be sure, but corporations don’t make big moves to make society better, they move to make money.”
I’ve been in small and big business over a decade and I can attest to this. This move was not one where the motive was to create an environment for more productive dialogue. It’s foolishness to think that the revelation of your name will make you intelligent and well-reasoned. I have no idea how they claim to have goten from A to B.
@ Spinks: I’m not a woman, but I’m married to one. She often reminds me that I, as a man, will never understand what it’s like to go shopping at night or walk to my car from my evening college class. These proposed plans affect women more than anyone else in the community and that sickens me.
Your quote to start your post is about the most appropriate I’ve seen and further proves that the manifest intentions of Blizzard are an untrue front and only a sign of things to come in the future if we can’t stop this from happening. They are not concerned with the best feedback available from their community, they are concerned with profits.
I find myself at the opposite reasoning, although I agree with you on how bad Real ID is. People are more likely to be prejudicial when they don’t see people. Tech’s reply is funny in that he’d never say it to her face. What does the classic burglar do before he robs someone? He puts a mask.
I think it’s when you actually see someone as someone, that’s when walls break down. That’s why so many people love a thing as absurd as a march. Anonymity is Invisibility, and everyone knew that the invisible man ended up mad.
“I think it’s when you actually see someone as someone, that’s when walls break down.”
That’s the problem, though. When you see someone as “a woman” or “a Republican” or “an Asian”, reasoning and empathy stop at the label. When those labels are missing, the convenient pegs on which to dismiss arguments are gone, and actual reasoned debate can happen. Of course, it won’t always settle out that way, because some people are determined to be jerks, but prejudices don’t even let the process start. That’s the point and the etymology; “pre judged”… there isn’t any thinking or acceptance of “someone” beyond that point. The decision has already been made to ignore or support that person, completely independent of the actual debate being discussed.
I agree, when you see someone else in sympathetic light and understand that they are more than the sum of their labels, you’ve made progress… but history and current events show that such isn’t something that comes easily. It also has to be something driven by the individual, not by peer pressure or social engineering. Empathy is not something the State can create.
Labeling the “other” lets people argue themselves into the weirdest rationales for idiotic behavior. It’s my thought that the absence of labels lets ideas and actions stand on their own, rather than being filtered through pigeonholing prejudices.
Absolutely, thugs hiding behind masks who objectify other people are a problem… but again, objectification is *driven* by labels and prejudice. That’s an internal thing that is aided and abetted by allowing more labels.
As with so many things, anonymity is a dual edged concept, to be sure. It is a defense for the innocent as well as the malignant. Yet, the absence of anonymity isn’t a holy land of civility, but rather, a land of defenseless potential victims that is still populated by villains who simply don’t care about the rules in the first place. And yes, this is very similar to the arguments behind the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I’d rather err on the side of defense, and if trolls slip through, muzzle and ban them. Actually set hard and fast rules and enforce them inflexibly and efficiently. In the absence of thought police (and we *don’t* want to go there), consequences for actions are the only lever we have to keep people civil.
Most importantly, public shame means nothing to trolls, and in fact, many feed on it. Putting their name to their behavior will allow for some level of accountability, but if the hope is that the forums are self-policing, counting on a sense of shame, you’re counting on the ability of trolls to care in the first place.
They do not care.
In the meantime, attaching a name to their victims does nothing to stop their behavior. It may make it worse.
It’s a question of accountability and defense. They have it completely backwards. Trolls should be held accountable by the system, since that’s where the power to ban and enforce resides. Defense should be left to the individual, because they cannot enforce consequences of bad behavior. Sure, they can countertroll or turn the “evil eye” at the villain, but neither is productive.
They are removing the defense from the individual, and asking them to be the enforcers. That simply will not work.
It’s very tough to argue against a post built on a quote by MLK and it makes me look like a villain. I’ll still try though for the argument’s sake.
I would argue that you cannot have a real meritocracy without names. If you want to judge people based on their actions and accomplishments then anonymity is a huge hindrance. Sure those can be pinned on a screen name instead of your real one – but then only positive action will ever be remembered because you can switch personas at will.
[…] Tesh writes about the ideal of the internet as a raceless, classless utopia. Now, you won’t hear a lot about the utopian ideals of the internet these days, but being able to log into a place where people will judge you just on what you said and did there is something that many many users prize. It strikes me that anonymity is valuable for free markets to work as well. Honest feedback is generated from simple demand and supply, where business relationships are defined by the simple feedback loop of “purchase” or “no purchase”. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand of the market” is concerned most with what people do, not with what they look like. Actions, not prejudice, seem to produce the most productive results in a positive feedback cycle. […]
I would like to quote Stabs:
“The current advocacy of being open about your name by Blizzard staff is corporate think. The top management are enthused about it and trying to justify it on broader grounds than “we want extra money” and so it’s become a moral issue, an anti-troll issue. It really isn’t, it’s just a cash grab.”
It is a lot like the Facebook “LIKE” button. You liked that? Great, you get your personalized ad.
We become transparent personalities, the idea of privacy and why it is necessary really eludes Blizzard. Or as you said, they know about it and put their corporate interests above the interests of their players.
There is no benefit for us players in RealID. We get nothing, no advantage.
But we get all the mentioned drawbacks!
All for the sake of Blizzard’s and their networked partners business interests. They want the totally transparent customer. To make more profit. They will probably tell us it is in our best interest as well. :>
Something else just sprung out at me when re-reading your post: I’m pretty sure that mlk’s dream did not revolve around everyone wearing cloaks and masks to hide the color of their skin but rather about the ability to show yourself without anyone caring what color your skin is.
Taking career women as an example, there are those who make their breakthrough by behaving like men and then there are those who manage to be accepted as actual women. My respect for the latter is way higher than for the former and in my opinion their way is the only one to true equality. Hiding behind a screen name and lies does nothing to further mlk’s dream. The internet has a lot of potential for breaking down barriers, but we’ll never achieve anything if we all simply pretend to be middle-aged, independently wealthy white males.
[…] http://www.pinkpigtailinn.com/2010/07/did-blizzard-just-miss-to-do-reality.html https://tishtoshtesh.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/i-had-a-dream/ https://tishtoshtesh.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/blizzards-f2p-plans-realid/ […]
“We’ll never achieve anything if we simply all pretend to be middle-aged indepedently wealthy white males.”
Hey now, that’s not what we always pretend to be!
I, for example, regularly pretend to be human! Oh the prejudice there is against us juicy chicken breast and thigh creations, even though we are coated in the most golden of batter!
Nugget’s first reaction to this whole Blizzard insanity:
First Thought: Thank the Arches I’m not playing anymore!
Second Thought: Haha, guess I’m definitely not going back for Cataclysm!
Third Thought: Ugh. Please don’t let them get away with this, because where they go, the majority will follow.
(FWIW I was serious about the not all white male blah blah thing… just for once, I don’t feel like rambling. Now that’s scary!)
I’m afraid we’re getting too idealistic on this. Not blaming Tesh or anyone, really. Idealism is good. But this situation has enough bullshit on its own merits, I think. No need to involve great principles of anything.
Blizzard is introducing real word risk where there was none before. That’s as simple and as terrible as the situation is. No need to dig any deeper and it should be stopped and recanted on that simple fact alone.
Julain, I’m just chasing down the consequences. You’re right, it’s wrong before it gets to this, but I think it’s worth thinking the ramifications through.
Scrusi, your second comment does highlight an important distinction, and yes, it would be ideal if we truly had a colorblind society rather than a whitewashed one. There are critical differences.
Thing is, anonymity isn’t about whitewashing, it’s about removing that first line of prejudice, and it’s in the hands of the potential victim rather than the abuser. That makes all the difference; it is an active defense, rather than counting on the jerks to wise up.
It would be awesome if we didn’t need anonymity… but until the prejudices of society are completely abolished by people growing up (not State mandate), it is a valuable tool.
Tesh is right.
More on topic, it’s nice to use the MLK example and say he didn’t need anonymity. In fact, anonymity would have been counter to his goals, in many ways.
The problem here is that MLK is not a universal example you can translate to everyone automatically. MLK felt he needed to improve things and he championed for his people (along many others). In MLK’s calculation, and the calculations of many others, getting rid of his anonimity was not only worth the price, it was a necessary consequence of what he was trying to do. He did it because he understood the benefits of doing it were far more important than the price he had to pay. And he ended up paying the ultimate price for it.
I’m not going to say that posting in a game forum will automatically put people at the same risk as MLK. The stakes are much different. However, just as it happened to MLK, shedding that anonymity opens the door to risks which otherwise wouldn’t be there.
You can’t ask (or force, in Blizzard’s case) people to become potential mini-MLKs just to have a cleaner forum and you can make an extra buck. You don’t have the right. Nobody does. At the very least it should be an individual choice to shed the anonymity.
“The ability to be judged by your actions and your speech, the content of your character, rather than what you look like, where you come from, or what your name is. ”
Amen. I know people can cite examples of real life roleplaying and gaming but, at the end of the day, one of the huge appeals of online gaming to me is the fact that, for all intents and purposes, I exist as my character to the people I meet. Without that, I’m just another guy playing another video game.
[…] I Had a Dream Blizzard’s RealID isn’t the end of the world, but neither is it wise. It is a step away from my dream of a meritocratic community and an interesting game world. It is yet another piece of the puzzle of the bizarre corporatocracy in our fraying country, and a look at the arrogant mindset of those who make the rules and who have the money. The strangest part of all this isn’t that Blizzard is doing this, it’s that they honestly don’t seem to understand the implications. […]
It’s funny but I always felt strange when people would refer to me by my character name and not my real name. It’s like, no dude, I am not Atrocia, I am P—-. Notice, however, I won’t even type out my real name here. Screw RealID. Good thing I don’t play WoW anymore and have no plans to play SC2 or D3.
Yes, there are good reasons voting is anonymous.
I don’t understand why bliz intends to do this – either they are several moves ahead of what I can figure out, or just ‘store all my urine and wear tissue boxes on my feet’ rich bastard crazy.
“I also doubt that they are thinking altruistically. I never expected them to, to be sure, but corporations don’t make big moves to make society better, they move to make money.”
I don’t know if I’ll sound like something with an ‘ist’ on the end, but this is a conclusion that I came up with by myself – who will care if the company goes bust tomorrow and the head guys and their families live under a bridge?
No one! So really it’s the fact that we let these people fend utterly for themselves that comes back to haunt us. It’s not that companies are bad for society – it’s that we as a society leave these people to fend for themselves entirely that comes back to bite the butt of society.
(yes, I doubt they’d live under a bridge, they’d have some money stored away, but they still got that while fending for themselves – same principle applies)
Side note: I will say it’s funny in that quote that he invites judgement upon his children. For their character rather than skin, but he still invites judgement. Why are people any better at judging character than they are at judging skin?