I got a place where all my dreams are dead

Punxatawney Phil apparently saw his shadow. So six more weeks of winter, at least off the grid. (On the grid, well, when I left Caledon and Winterfell, both were saying winter was soon to end. Since I haven't been back to either place yet, I truly don't know.)

In other news off the grid, mutant chickens are growing toothlike nubs. But mostly, I like this story for the very first line of it:

Working late in the developmental biology lab one night, Matthew Harris of the University of Wisconsin noticed that the beak of a mutant chicken embryo he was examining had fallen off.

Errrr. What does a thinking being say to that?

The rest of the story goes a little bit into why this mutant chicken began growing teeth, but the first three questions that popped into my mind were

• Wait. You're mutating chickens for educational reasons now?
• The beak fell off? The hell? How do beaks just fall off??
• So chickens can't grow teeth normally, but you've managed to reinvent the chicken so successfully they can grow teeth on their own? What's next, the pocket shark?

Meanwhile, elsewhere on the grid...

[19:57] [Fxxxxx Axxxx]: There are two MLP ponies inside the elevator at Doomed.
[19:57] [Fxxxxx Axxxx]: One's titler is "My dad just died in RL let me be PLX"

Man, that would be a hard call. On the one hand, you want to support people...ponies...people in ponies...wau, that sounded bad...in their hour of whatever.

On the other hand, My Little Pony avatars DO NOT BELONG ON DOOMED, so...yeah. There's that fine line, painted in bright, sparkly neon, and likely glowing in the dark.

Lofty Pursuits' long-sought-after goal of acquisition and restoration of Victorian-era candy-making equipment will be funded! That's just amazing. Do read the whole story, it's inspirational, and yes, feel free to fund if you can--they set a low fund limit, because they're doing most of the restoration work in-house, but absolutely anything would help. (Oh, and this just in--there's a Girl Genius link, in more than one way. So yes, anyone steampunk-inclined or Girl Genius fan, give to the project! Or spread the word! And remember that website--bookmark it so in six months to a year, when the Victorian equipment is fully restored and in use, you can order authentic Victorian candy! Woot!)

Unfortunately, Mother Henriot's Absinthe Elixir is not doing so well. I and eighteen other individuals are backers, but that's only raised $980 of their stated $10,000 goal. It ould be a shame for that one to fail.

Meanwhile, there's a new form of visual "muting" on the grid. It's not an actual mute, as all it does is count the number of attachments, or the surface area on which those attachments are used, and then render anyone above your chosen figures as a grey ghost in the world.

Of course, my mind immediately leaps to two places: furs, and the catgirls with the big stompy feet and the fluffy tails with the prim-everything wrapped around the base. I can see either category easily falling off the radar with either debug setting.

But we'll see how it goes. I still have trouble seeing this as actual discrimination because you're still able to see their name, interact with them, have them interact with you--there's no actual "muting", per se. But, if they're wearing too many attachments, or there are more attachments covering their avatar than system layers...these settings would remove them from rezzing in for you.

Ever.

This is going to make crowd photography problematic, I think...

gotta get away, there's no point in thinking about yesterday

Logged in this morning to (of course) find my instant messages capped. But I was handed a notecard about the subscribe-o situation by Vitani Jun:

First off, I apologize for such a lengthy notecard, but it's very important that everyone is aware of this. IF YOU ARE A STORE OWNER, please read this!!

If you aren't already aware, Linden Labs seems to have implemented an unannounced server change which disrupts anything that uses scripts with [llGiveInventory], thus claiming it as spam and stopping scripts from giving people items.

This can affect any inworld item such as scripted vendor and more importantly, a subscriber system.

Because of this, many store owners are facing HUGE problems. This also causes problems for people that wish to receive updates from stores but lack group space (or maybe there isn't one available for the store).

****I strongly urge everyone to please sign AND watch this JIRA in hopes that LL will fix this.

https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-7631

IF YOU ARE A STORE OWNER and you own a subscriber system, please [watch or monitor] whatever subscriber you are using. Send out a test notice with an attachment to see if [you're affected] yet. Also please be [wary] of any of your scripted items and vendors that give people stuff.

There is no need to panic just yet, but we do need a plan and to watch this issue.

More info here: http://blog.subscribeomatic.com/2012/01/subscribe-o-matic-llgiveinventory/.

Even if you are in my group and not my subscribe-o-matic, you still might be in another store's subscriber.

I do not know if I might be affected seeing as I don't have as many people in my SoM as some stores, but I am concerned something might happen. I've already sent a test message, and so far I'm not affected.

If something unannounced does happen, it's possible I will be unable to alert people on my SoM only.

****** If you are only in my subscriber, I urge you to either watch my blog or flickr for updates and new releases, or join my group (no cost).

[ni.Ju]
Blog: ni.Ju store updates
Flickr: Vitani Jun's photostream
Group: ni.Ju's in-world group

First off, the Lindens are not going to "fix" this issue; frankly, they caused this issue and they really don't care how it's impacting the grid. Kelly Linden seems to be pretty much concerned in a vapidly surface fashion--so far, all read communication is translating as "I feel your pain, really, but this was necessary. Just send out group notices more slowly, and you'll have no problems. You shouldn't have been doing this in the first place." Which is not something most subscription services do, frankly, though--according to the Subscribe-o-Matic blog--the original subscription kiosk service works well within the throttling of the script function.

(Though also frankly, I don't buy that, because some of the people with the biggest problems are using the original service, so...how are they perfectly throttled back with zero issues? Sounds fishy.)

And second, of course, though this hardly needs to be mentioned--I did make a couple corrections for clarity from the original notecard. It's worth noting that English is not Ms. Jun's first language, so I'm not correcting her from a position of "Jesus, why can't you spell properly?" but "I'm fairly sure you meant wary, not weary here, it's okay".

To wrap things up, though this was originally written in 2008, sadly, it still applies--a round-up of the most annoying profile entries from the Moonletters X blog. Paired with that, when searching for something entirely unrelated, I came across this video from 2010; sadly, the behavior shown in there (especially with the 2x4 launcher/rezzer) still happens, day in and day out, on the grid.

Cue heavy sigh. People are people, but remember what Yonatan Zunger said:

As we got more miles on the system, this was replaced with the concern that people are total bastards, period.

In SL terms, people who launch silly things at you aren't griefers, but they are annoying, and unfortunately, they are everywhere.

in the end, in the end, it's time for us to lose our weary minds

More activity on the JIRA I mentioned yesterday. First of all, SL Universe has noticed the inventory throttling. One user there recommended a work-around--following folks who have profiles online (like Ash Soyinka), because their follow stream will announce new products just as easily.

For me, at least, there are problems with this solution. Namely:

• I try not to use MySecondlife.com any more than I have to. I think it's invasive and I prefer in-world profiles, not that we're ever going to get them back.
• Between updating Tumblr, this blog, Twitter, having an online life, and having an off-line life, I just don't have the time to hit "follow" on every potential merchant I might be on a subscribe-o-matic for.
• Plus, I'll still run into the problem of when I'm accessing the followed feeds--assuming I have time, and assuming I care to even check, then I'm still having to remember to check on at least a daily basis, if not several times a day, to ensure I don't miss any potential release. Who wants to do that?

But some more quotes for a bit:

Messaging systems are an essential way of communicating with customers, who want to be informed of what a business is doing. We use a messaging system like this so that those who don't want to be part of a group, or haven't the inworld group room can be kept informed. This is not unwanted spam, they choose to subscribe, and can opt out anytime.

It would be helpful to know what the cap will be (or is) in terms of rate of sending or number of inventory items, so we can devise some kind of plan of action.

I've 3000 subscribers, who I don't want to loose or abandon because I cannot communicate with them effectively.

~Chrissy Ambrose, maker of jewelry, pumps and boots, and prim nails.

Kelly Linden responded:

With 3k subscribers you will want to send slow enough that it takes ~45 minutes to send 1 item to each subscriber.

A general safe way would be to send ~2k as fast as you can, then wait 31 minutes and send another 2k.

Kelly still doesn't seem to realize--or care about--the basic problem.

Let's take the examples quoted above. Small store, "small" group (I don't consider 3000 to be a small group, but hey), 3000 names on the list. Send 2000 of the names first, then the last 1000 half an hour later.

Right there, before we get into larger stores, there's a problem. First, most subscription systems send all at once, or try to--I mean, the scripting will delay so that a notecard goes to Ally Alucard first, then Bessinda Balustrade, then Connor Cincture, and so on. But most subscription kiosks out there, from any maker, can't specify "only send to the first 600 names on the list", say. They're just not rigged for it.

But let's accept that figure: forty-five minutes to send one notecard to 3000 users. Okay. Fine. That's a pain, but fine.

What happens when you have 20,000 users? What happens when you have 80,000 users? Assuming the throttle rate of five thousand per hour (quoted by Kelly earlier, though even he doubts that this is the actual rate), you're sending each name on that list one inventory item every 1.8 seconds, aren't you? If that figure's even accurate.

Except you can't do that, can you? Because of the total burst throttle, which kicks in when the hour changes over.

Which means the entire process would be easier to simply convert to sending notecards, gifts, IMs, individually--because it's just about as much hassle to do it using a subscription service.

(Also, Garmin Kawaguichi adds this:

21.000 / 0.75 = around 4.5 hours

(Huh. Okay, then. That seems like a long time to me.)

I have 21,000 subscribers Kelly, what do you suggest I do?

~Ivey Deschanel, owner of SN@TCH and the sims that SN@TCH and many other stores rely on; she makes clothing, lingerie, eyes, skins, jewelry, skyboxen, pumps and boots, glasses, wings, hats, gloves, belts, hair accessories, scarves, eyes, tattoos, shapes, and makeup layers, in addition to owning several sims, one of them hosting the Pulse "haunted house" every October, featuring dozens of items from several designers each year.

And an additional from Ms. Deschanel:

Maybe they'll be concerned when most of the major stores and venues can't afford to pay tier on all their sims because they can't make announcements on new releases, sales and events. But probably not. I swear sometimes I feel that they are trying to drive us all away from SL.

Frankly, Ivey? I really don't think the Lindens care. And as I've said before, I think the Lindens are trying to drive everyone off their systems. I still don't have any idea why, though.

Basically don't use a vendor system, and a subscriber at the same time and you'll be ok. After all, why would a store send a notice and then expect vendors to actually deliver items using llGiveInventory. After all, merchants with stores just send out notices saying hi, they don't really expect customers to go shopping after a new release.

~Cara Ametza, part of Treasured Cove Sculpts, selling sculpt maps, textures, scripts, and tutorials--essentially, supplying businesses with items to make to sell in their own businesses, which makes their subscription notices just as, if not more, vital to get out to customers.

I'm also not going to link Alchemy Cyannis' response here, but I do enthusiastically recommend everyone go read it themselves, because it's well worth your time.

And--something I missed the first time out--this comment:

This is extremely concerning for me.

I operate the 7Seas Fishing Game. Every time someone catches a fish, it hits my item server to deliver that fish. At any given point there could be hundreds of fishers active across SL, all hitting my region, all hitting my scripts, all hitting llGiveInventory.

This is not griefing, this is a legitimate use of SL scripting which is being impacted. I don't know yet if our output will hit the throttle, but if it negatively affects my business, I'm not sure what I can do. Load distribution across multiple regions just to avoid the throttle is not easily implemented on this short notice.

~Seven Shikami, creator of several vintage video games playable in SL, and the still wildly popular 7Seas fishing game, which--as of this update--is completely broken by the inventory throttling.

This is a great example of a business which is going to utterly fail if a solution--or even a workaround--isn't discovered, and soon. Because Seven has no idea how many people are fishing off their own servers, or participating in impromptu tournaments, or just standing in some store catching fish because they want to.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of stores who run 7Seas servers; there are hundreds, if not thousands of people who've bought individual servers for their homes as a hobby. There are sim owners who've bought multiple servers to put out on their sims, as a general 'gathering hole' for conversation and fish collecting. It's not a small game on the grid.

But this particular inventory throttling will essentially cap when 5000 requests are sent to Seven, and 5000 fish are sent out; up to one hour later, that throttling will ease, and then if 5000 more requests are sent, and 5000 more fish sent out, the throttling chokes the feed again.

How many people will continue to fish if they don't get fish in return? How many people will pause for even three seconds and consider it might not be Seven's fault? Of course they won't--they'll immediately send an IM or a notecard to Seven, complaining. Which is just going to add stress to this whole situation that's absolutely unnecessary.

leave your home, change your name

I discovered a spelling error in last night's mission run through City of Heroes, and was urged by a love to report it. So I did:

Hero side, from Michael Binocolo, second part of the arc, this sentence: "In all likelihood, they saw the Midnighter Squad as a giant refridgerator for Rularuu." should read "In all likelihood, they saw the Midnighter Squad as a giant refrigerator for Rularuu."

It was a simple mistake, and I took the time to send the little ticket to Support, and went about my evening.

The first missive I got back told me that they'd understood:

I am escalating your petition for review and a Senior Specialist will be in contact with you as soon as possible. You should receive a reply within 24 hours.

Take care,
GM Adonis
City of Heroes Support Team

Nifty.

By the time I got the email back from "GM Adonis", it was nearly time for sleeping, so I made my goodbyes and went to bed. This morning, I awake to find another email:

The issue you are experiencing may be due to the software not working as it was designed. We will be reviewing this ticket as a bug report through our Quality Assurance (QA) Team.

If we are able to reproduce the bug you reported, we will place it on a list of things to be fixed. We will prioritize it based on its impact on the game and players. If we can't reproduce it, we may contact you to get additional information or to provide you with information regarding the game design.

Our QA Team is unable to provide status updates on bug reports. This allows them to focus on quickly addressing bug reports and other issues in the game, so that our players can experience the smoothest game play possible.

Regards,

GM Bunni3

I have some issues with this.

• First, City of Heroes has a "GM Bunni" in the first place? Bunni? With the "i", no less. Dear gods, the horror.
• Second, there's no software issue. It's not a software issue. It's a spelling error.
• Third, of course they'll be able to reproduce the bug, because it's a spelling error. It will show up.

The hell, people.

But then I remembered this happened the last time, where the same form letter was sent to me, and I reacted (in my usual gentle, caring, and circumspect fashion) with a retaliatory screed reinforcing that it was a spelling error, not a software glitch; it wasn't my hardware, my system, or the install, it was a spelling error. Rawr rant rawr. And we went back and forth for three more letters, with my end getting more shrill and their end getting more confused, until I got bumped up (or sideways, or something) a level to a new handler.

And that GM wrote back saying that the first email was the standard letter everyone gets, and thanking me for being so "passionate", but that she knew what I meant, and they'd fix it.

Yes, I do feel slightly bad for making it so personal--so "passionate", as that particular GM put it--but it's still not a software glitch. It's on their end, not mine. Lag does not misspell words.

(Unless you're in SL, where lag can erase entire paragraphs, as well as random words and individual letters. But that's also live chat, not captured quest dialogue, too.)

Fox News turned in an unflattering review of the new Muppet film, and an interviewer brought it up to the Muppets at the London press conference. Miss Piggy's notable (and wonderful) quote on the entire thing: "Yeah, if they take what I say seriously, they've got a real big problem."

Of course, what was Bill Reilly's reaction? "They better watch it." Thus, now we have show hosts on Fox News warning felt puppets to watch their actions. Just let the utter, baffling stupidity of that sink in for a moment. I don't think we've had such a national level of confusion since Dan Quayle started sending baby gifts to Murphy Brown.

In the meantime, there's a new JIRA to watch. (And remember, as always, it's WATCH, not VOTE; at least until the Lindens remove the voting option entirely, just treat it as an unnecessary distraction they won't pay attention to anyway.) This time out, it's something that could potentially effect everyone, depending on where they are.

On the Magnum servers (that would be RC Magnmum 12.01.24.248357), subscribe-o-matic delivery kiosks are being forcibly throttled on the server side. The result? No deliveries are being made from them for upwards of half an hour (or longer; one observation was sixty minutes). Which would be bad enough, but the bigger problem is it's also taking offline all vendors owned by the merchant who owns the original delivery kiosk, not just that one kiosk or vendor.

To get an idea of the impact of this issue, I'll let some merchants speak for themselves:

Chrissy Ambrose:

I was one of the reporters of this issue. It is a major problem for me, as sending inventory to the mailing list, ie notecards, induces people to come and use llGiveInventory objects, such as vendors, gift givers, landmarkers and notecard givers, all of which have stopped working by the time they arrive.

I tested the mailing list on a standard sl server version with no difficulty, but on my other sim on RC magnum 12.01.24.248357, it gives the error message and subsiquent suspension of inventory the last 3 times used.

Fred Allandale, the original reporter of this issue:

Did a few more tests and was able to trigger this condition with llGiveInventory rates as low as 5 per second. The "excessive inventory sent" message occurred after about 90 seconds. One of my customers reported getting the problem with the inventory send rate reduced to 2/second. Once this message occurs, inventory sends are blocked for 30-60 minutes.

Testing in 3 other sims NOT running RC Magnum 12.01.24.248357 at send rates up to 20/second did not trigger this condition. That was the highest rate I tested.

Kallisti Burns:

Just observed the same failure at the rate of 3 a second on the Moonsong sim after two minutes... This was after Fred flagged system owners with details of this issue and recommended this rate as a fix.

Reducing the send rate further to 1 send a second (as two a second also seems to be failing) would mean that any message would take several hours to send to the group as a whole - not ideal when some notices (relating to weekend sales events, for example - much like the one that just failed on me) are time dependent. This is hardly acceptable.

Cincia Singh, a hostess at Smooth (and, as anyone who's ever hosted events in SL knows, she needs solid access to get the word out for events at the club!):

As an SL music venue operator we depend very heavily on the timely sending of notices and gift inventory to alert group members to music performances just prior to beginning; within 10-15 minutes. Severe throttling of delivery in this manner functionally destroys a primary means of communication between venues and guests/group members.

Keep in mind, if you're seeing this behavior in your subscribe-o kiosks, or your vendors, the Magnum code was rolled out to the whole of the grid two days back.

Ms. Singh also added this:

Security issue? And the only way to fix this security issue is to break a ton of content and negatively impact communications inworld? Without warning? Group IMs and Group Notices fail (unable to retrieve group information ...) half the time, chat lag is rampant and now this throttle? X inventory offers per owner per region is useless if it takes a club hours to get notices out of an impending event. This is going to severely impact medium to small clubs in SL.

Which again (and unfortunately, in my opinion) reinforces my personal theory that all of this, just about everything negative on the grid over the past three years at least, is an unpublicized attempt to drive anyone who's using Second Life to make money off the grid.

I can go over the long string of miscommunications and misjudgements that bring us to this point, but basically, we're here now--and to prevent some sort of griefing (which most of us don't even understand at this point), this throttle of an expected behavior has been added to the server code. Blocking a vendor or a kiosk from sending inventory offers over a certain number, per person, per region means that there's going to be a lot of people who stop hearing about club events, art shows, meetings, community panels, research groups, dances...the list can and does go on. Now this, which will, at the least, impact everyone who owns a business that operates to less than one thousand members, whenever they need to send out a notice about a sale, an event, a show. (Technically, it also affects businesses that have over a thousand members, but frankly, they can generally pay hundreds of thousands in advertising, which won't have the same throttling effect.)

CarpeDiem Turbo:

I have called to complain, but we all know that will likely not do any good. I have filled a ticket for it as well. This is unreal how they can roll out an issue like this to main server KNOWING the issue it has and problems it can cause. THANKS A LOT LL.

Ivey Deschanel:

This is going to MAJORLY and for some, tragically effect 1000s of businesses in SL with subscriber services. It should be a first priority.

TheAzureShade:

i've already seen this effect a large business in SL which in turn effected me when i wasn't able to recieve my item from that business.. so not only will this effect the businesses.. but the customers as well.. most customers are not going to realize these issues are because of a throttle on give inventory.. they are going to consider this an issue with the businesses themselves.. driving revenue down.. this includes marketplace sales.. which will effect LL profits too.. please fix this FAST

CarpeDiem Turbo again:

Your right cause it's not only the subscribers that this is an issue for, a store that has a high volume sales ( like mine ) causes issues for delivery of product, ANYTHING that has a llgiveinventory will be hurt, nc givers,PRODUCT SERVERS, Magic boxes, subscribers, and so much more. My store has been effected by this shutdown cause of throttle 2 times already today and I expect more to come. Each time this happens it shuts of delivery for 30-60Min and in that time I loose the ability to have products my shoppers buy be delivered. For many merchants and shoppers this will cause a MAJOR issue. Please fix this and roll be back to previous server vrs until this is fixed as this will cost my shoppers and I grief and in the end will cost YOU LINDEN LABS money as well as me.

Many of these merchants I know, at least by virtue of shopping at their stores, and most of them I know fairly well, in terms of what they offer (and the amount of Lindens I've spent per establishment). And reading through this, taking down comments, matching names to SL Marketplace links (which I've done for everyone save Ms. Singh), I started developing a slight thread, a merest glimmer, of hope that this might just be an oversight.

Because we're not talking Mitzi9000 Resident, who was born nine days back, set up a cube in a sandbox and is retailing freebies, here. We're talking established businesses, a few of them quite large, and in at least one case, a business which owns the sim it's on (and a few surrounding ones). These are not people that the Lindens will ignore...right?

How soon we forget the lesson of Azriel Demain, banned for an impossibly spurious reason, just before rent was due on his four sims, putting not only his entire business in SL at risk, but his home on and off the grid...because Kelly Linden popped up next in the chat:

Unfortunately some mailing list and product updaters may break or need to be updated. To stop a griefing mode that has effects on the entire grid's back end infrastructure a throttle was added to llGiveInventory. This throttle matches (but is separate from) the existing throttle on llInstantMessage and exists for nearly identical reasons. That throttle is 5k per hour per owner per region; the maximum burst is 2.5k. It is impossible to hit this limit with a single script, but systems designed to spam very large amounts very rapidly may hit it and need to be adjusted. We will be monitoring the effect of this throttle to adjust it as we can if needed.

Oh. Well, then. So it was intentional.

Which means you're not going to change it.

Ever.

Wonderful.

we could sell it out together, seems tomorrow's overdue

Oh yes. Thank you, yes.

Again with this nonsense. Or, put another way, once more into the breach...

And we start with Yonatan's response to Sai, of which I'm only pulling point five:

5. Name-shaped pseudonyms should Just Work. Pseudonyms which don't look like a name in any culture are going to be the hard case. These do seem to be genuinely rare -- most people who use handles use them in addition to names, and most people who use pseudonyms use ones which look like names. That doesn't mean that they aren't important, just that from a prioritization perspective we wanted to help the most people first. What we need to develop is some way for people to emerge non-name-shaped pseudonyms on the service, but that's a harder problem.

Um. Several problems here.

First, yes, he's right--"name-shaped" pseudonyms should Just Work. Does that mean CaptainSparklez is going to get a pass? Is that sufficiently "name-shaped"? What about Fidel Castro? Or J Pizzle? (Though I suppose the latter qualifies under that "celebrity" ruling...)

Or this:

Meanwhile, what is the official policy on names at Google+? It's surprisingly hard to find. Here's one answer: 'Google Profiles requires you to use the name that you commonly go by in daily life.' This is the 'common names' policy referenced by Bradley Horowitz in his attempt to 'clarify' the policy, which actually didn't clarify much of anything at all. Documentation elsewhere says 'your full name is the only required information that will be displayed on your profile.' Numerous public statements on the policy from Google officials have done absolutely nothing to clear up the confusion.

The above passage comes via the Tiger Beatdown blog, and the full thing is well worth the read.

(Incidentally--there's a bit in there with an embedded Facebook search section, saying if what Google really wants is people to tie their full, legal identities permanently to their internet presence, maybe they should take a look at what people who have full legal names on Facebook are posting:

Google claims that the name policy, whatever it actually is, is about safety. It says that forcing people to use 'real names' (I use quotes here because the site means 'legal names,' not real names; not everyone uses their legal name as their active, daily name) will enhance safety and reduce incidence of abuse. This argument is often brought up in attempts to crush pseudonymity, and it's very, very wrong. People are in fact quite happy to be extremely abusive in public under their legal names, as Openbook demonstrates (type in any slur you feel like and prepare to be appalled).

(I picked a generic random word--top of the brain, sadly--and tried it out. Dear gods, it's not just appalling, it's dangerous--there's at least one lass on there who's now got her cellphone numbers archived for all time.)

Kee back to Yonatan:

If I'm not sure if my account is "name shaped" and thus might require additional verification…how do I request verification prior to investing time and energy in the account?

An absolutely valid query.

Yonatan's response back:

We don't have a way to do that yet, and it bugs me a bit. I mean, there is the fallback that even if you get suspended you can change your name to a different name, and you don't lose any of your data, but that won't solve every single case.

A bit?!? It bugs him a bit?!? He's really starting to irk me beyond all reason.

Kee's response in return:

Then someone should speak to the team that actually handles the suspensions because that problem has existed since the policy took effect.

Pretty much, and that seems to be one of the points that Yonatan--and everyone else at Google--keep perpetually missing.

Sai to Yonatan:

Please give examples of the low end for what is adequately "well known". What kinds of online references count?

Also, please note that while the policy before has claimed that e.g. Facebook, one's own website, etc., were acceptable proofs of identity, in practice, this was a complete lie. Consider e.g. the treatment of Skud (among many others).

Will this de facto rejection be changed? Will it be changed retroactively, to fix the problem for people who've already been suspended?

I'd tend to say no; as much as Yonatan seems to be trying for "reasonable, decent human being" I mistrust him from the start because of how he--and Google as a whole--have completely, cack-handedly brutalized what should have been a simple procedure that would have stolen the thunder from Facebook, and maybe--even if only in the light of outrageous hyperbole--changed the world.

Instead? We're given this flawed muddle of a service which isn't social, isn't friendly, isn't easy, and in which people can be suspended for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons. Some of us are treating it like it's radioactive. I don't think that's a wrong behavior right now.

I have friends who use the service. I'm thinking of one in particular who uses his real name on the service, and yet most of his friends do not refer to him by that name, ever--in fact, one of his exes only started to call him by his real name after she broke up with him, because she was still angry. Up until that point? He'd been his online pseudonym, to nearly everyone he knew. I have to seriously break down and concentrate to remember he has a so-called "real name"--his handle is more "real" to me, and to most people he knows.

People at his work call him this name. People online call him this name. People on camp-outs call him this name. His ex-wife calls him this, as well as his daughter. When he introduces himself, he himself doesn't use his real name, he uses his handle.

But he raves about the service. Why? Because he got an internal heads-up and knew at that point to sign up for his "normal", two-name, given name, and not his far more well known, single-name, online handle. He has no privacy issues to speak of; no one's hunting after his head, he's fairly secure in his employment, mostly secure in his relationships, owns his own house--plus, sad to say, he's male, which traditionally is the gender less taxed with issues of online privacy, it must be said.

For some of the rest of us? These aren't options, these are threats.

Yonatan in response:

In fact, +Sai ., I'll just tell you some of our top open issues right now:

* Still no support for titles (Doctor, Reverend, etc) in names. This is really important in some communities. Fix known, we just have to do it.

* Show the nickname in a wider variety of places. The priority of this depends a lot on how people start actually using nicks.

* Mononyms. :) Right now these all trigger the "handle" check, and that isn't going to scale well in, oh, say, Indonesia. Real fix needed.

But before we do any of this, we want to get this launch right, adjust the thresholds and so on so that legitimate users aren't being kicked, and so that the overall PITA factor for those people who are affected by this goes down. Expect some trial and error, and a lot more of me going around and asking people questions in the near future.

Let me see if I properly understand this, based on the previous few posts.

1. Even given titles like Doctor, Professor, or Reverend are not supported; it'll cause the system to kick. So even if you are Professor Ethan Sprout, and you're verified as being Professor Ethan Sprout, the system will kick you.

Bad system.

2. Google is assuming that people are going to want to use the "nickname" option. They're saying they don't know how it will best be employed because they don't know how people are going to choose to use it.

My guess? For the most part, they won't. They'll continue to want the names they want. Again, bad system.

3. Single names, as suspected, are not allowed. And yes, this is very much an international issue. So again, Western privilege is showing--because why would people want single names, everyone has double names, right?

Wrong. Very wrong. Some people have one, some people have two, some people have six. And it's not Google's place to judge which versions of given names are "right". They're not Google's names.

So again? Bad system. And while I'm likely going to continue going through the side commentary, I'm pretty much resolved from here:

• the new policy changed nothing;
• the new provisions do not increase safety and privacy concerns;
• and Google continues to lose major and multiple points across the board in reliability, trust, and security.

Way to go, Yonatan. Are you ever going to get Google+ right?

I'm letting go of everything that I know, I'm losing it

Back again for more Google+ punishment.

Kee to Yonatan:

1. How do I get my name approved in advance? You don't want to invest in a social network only to discover that your credentials aren't good enough. I have another name that has a (in my mind at least) substantial following elsewhere. It has a Google+ account, but obviously I haven't been posting publicly. I don't want to invest time and effort building relationships and making posts only to have it flagged and not pass your criteria.

2. I'm confused by your statement that Google+ can be your first network. How can it be my first network if I'm just starting out using a not-on-my-license name? It seems to me that if I am, for instance, a closeted LGBT and I want to start networking with similar people, I'm going to have to start on Twitter or some other place and only come to Google+ after several years if I've built a following. Am I missing something?

These are very good questions. And really, considering that Google only introduced Google+ relatively recently, many folks had Facebook pages, journal pages, Twitter and Tumblr and Plurk and Flickr before Google+ ever lumbered onto the scene. So how can it be anyone's "first network"? That's specious on the face of it.

And for the first point, that one I'm also finding a valid point--because why would I (or anyone who wants to use a non-"traditional" name, or a pseudonym) want to invest anything in Google+ if we're only going to have our access killed later on? Who wants to waste the time?

Gary to Yonatan:

You mention that one of the things Google discovered in running the site has been that real names are better or needed in some way. Can you elaborate on this? Is there any actual data to back up that statement?

I'd love to know that too. Oh, and hey, since it occurred to me--would "Yonatan Zunger" pass the newly revised "names must be name-shaped" ruling? Or did he automatically get a pass because he's a Google staffer (in fact, the staffer who predominantly runs Google+, but that's actually beside the point)?

Sai to Yonatan:

That reminds me: when are you going to be sending out emails to everyone previously suspended in #nymwars, telling them that it's okay to come back now?

I really, really doubt this will ever happen; there's just been too much loss of faith and increasing of paranoia and doubt. (Oh, and I should point out, in the original comment, Sai linked this; I changed it to a link that serves as a clearinghouse for longer relevant essays.)

Scott to Sai about the above comment:

Why would they come back after they way they were treated? Especially since Google is not defining the exact specific criteria that they would have to meet in order not have the door slammed in their face again.

Pretty much. Why would any of us who fled, afraid of Google-y retaliation, come back, for any reason? Especially those of us who were actually bounced under the "old" policies (which aren't that changed from the new ones, frankly)?

Especially since Google is still sounding like stuffy judgmental troglodytes in this?

And then Argent Stonecutter showed up:

This is the most common current version of the name I've been using online since 1983. I'd really rather go by just the first name in Google Plus: this last name was picked up as a result of another social platform that required me to have two names, and didn't allow me to pick my own last name, so it's kind of accidental but it's the one people are likely to recognize me as now, for the community I use it in... and I don't want to confuse things by changing my Google Mail account name.

I was using this name on Buzz, but when Google Plus launched I didn't want to risk losing access even temporarily to my Google Mail account, so I deleted this Google Profile and all my posts. I hope I'm not making a mistake now, reversing my decision.

Personally, I'd say yes, it was a mistake, but I'm a pessimist. Still, that's an excellent point--that is a pseudonym developed as a major source of personal identification for nearly thirty years now...if that's not enough to cement it as a "real" name, what the hell will be?

Adina to Yonatan:

The aspect of the new policy that is still concerning is the need to have a "following" in order to justify the use of a pseudonym. This disallows nonfamous people who are using pseudonyms for personal reasons, for example an LGBT teen in a prejudiced small town or an abuse victim. These folk may not have an established online identity with the pseudonym and a legitimate need to use the pseudonym.

I hate to get involved in the privilege wars, because from where I usually sit (being accused of one form of privilege or another), I tend to profoundly disagree with the concept. How'ver, this is a very good point, and a very good point about privilege, namely:

• Google staffers who have never been in long-term abusive relationships plainly do not understand the need for online pseudonyms
• Google staffers who have never been stalked also do not understand the need for pseudonyms
• Google staffers who've never been pagan or gay in the Bible Belt, or gay or transgendered in a fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim) household, or basically, anything markedly different in their communities from what's assumed to be the local societal "norm"--just don't understand

And all of these, and more, are examples of privilege; namely, that Google staffers have it, and thus don't understand the basic reasonings behind why those without such privilege would want pseudonyms. When there's a very real risk between revealing your name online, and death, you tend to be protective of that name. People who don't run the same risks just do not understand, and possibly, cannot understand. Which may be the real tragedy at the heart of this--Google's impossible clinging to a policy which is highly likely to cause pain, suffering, and/or actual hate crimes--simply because they think loftily that it's "better" to use your "real name" for everything.

This thinking then extends to their subsequent policies, because obviously if you're using a real name, you're never going to be mean on the internet. Thus, Google's demonstrating not only delusionally flawed logic, as well as (rightful) accusations of privilege, but they are also demonstrating as a group body a terrifying amount of naïveté--because if they think that no one on the internet ever does anything out of line under their "real names", then they obviously haven't thought this through properly. We can leave the standard rank and file out of this completely--let's just talk Senators and Representatives. Even worse? Let's take it offline, where routinely Congressional members, supposedly proud, noble creatures who represent our best interests always--lie to their constituents not only via personal letters, but in person when they meet those constituents.

Or how about this:

And in all of my years of public life I have never obstructed justice.

Richard Nixon said that, rather famously. If the President of the United States cannot manage to hold himself to the law that lying is a bad thing...why in the hell is Google expecting the same to hold true for everyone else?

The flip side of that, of course, is that they're not. They're expecting the "normal" denizens of the internet to be anything but--they're putting all these blocks in place to prevent the 4channers and the kiddie-coders from coming in and "tainting" the pure waters of Google+ discourse. Except, of course, that it hasn't worked. Because remember what Yonatan Zungler said in this conversation:

So, interesting thing: when we first launched G+, we thought that people would be total bastards if they weren't tied to their own, very durable, identity. (Which was one of the drivers behind the original names policy) As we got more miles on the system, this was replaced with the concern that people are total bastards, period.

He's not wrong. There are just as many people out there who, when tied to their "own, very durable, identity" will make themselves just as unwelcome to the party as people calling themselves "SeXyByTcH", "KI11mALL", and "sexyMILF4U". There are also just as many people out there who, when tied to a pseudonym, do everything they can to at least let that name represent themselves--in or out of public.

Behavior is not automatically aligned with name. Google needs to grow up and actually realize that.

your heart is now washed up in bleach

Interested in the music of trees? We can help with that. Though I'm not sure they didn't use a slice of tree-growth from Mirkwood...

Sometimes fundraising gets seriously quirky. That being said, this year's random giveaway may net you that signed copy of the book. Take a chance! It'll support a great cause!

Also, Indonesia takes ghosts very seriously.

And dandelions are now precursors of ecological doom. Makes sense, really.

More from the Google+ thread of doom.

From Gary to Yonatan, January 23rd:

So, Yonatan, it looks to me from reading the new policy text like there is still an expectation that I have to fill in my "real" name as the primary name and any pseudonym by which I am known in the "other names" field. If this is not the case, the text needs significant clarification. If it is the case, then this is really still inadequate.

I really don't think Google's ever going to budge on this point, which is really, really sad. Because in my eyes, and in the eyes of many other people, this has severely diminished our embrace of, and use of, Google. We just don't trust them anymore like they used to. They're still ubiquitous, but that makes us paranoid, not happy.

Scott to Yonatan, the same day:

Yonatan Zunger said, "In fact, we do not give a damn whether the name posted is 'your'name or not: we will not challenge you on this basis, nor is there any mechanism for other users to cause you to be challenged for this."

Then why did my friend Thomas Paine get suspended? His name certainly does not look like a handle. And it is a very common name, look in a phone book. He submitted links to other websites that he uses that name on, but was told that only a Driver's License will get him unsuspended. Not cool.

Also, anyone can report anyone else and use the reason of "Fake Profile". So yeah, there is a mechanism for that.

Exactly. Which, again, puts me right back to that precarious position in the first place: while many people use Emilly to address me, online and off, and while I've had this blog active since 2007 (and had other websites establishing use of the "Emilly" part of the name, prior to that), it's still not the name on my birth certificate.

And the thing is--I really cannot stress this enough--it's never going to be. Not only do I not want to "solve" the problem by changing my name legally, that would only compound the difficulty. I am fine with having an online personality, and an offline identity, being separate.

Moreover, I do not believe that this means my online presence is then "disposable"--while I'm sure I'm not in the majority, if I say something online, I do my best to back it up. If it's my opinion, quite likely it's my opinion offline as well. I endeavor always to stand behind my words, right or wrong--while I have blindly attacked in the past (and may yet in future), I try to always recognize that it's a blind attack, at least, and apologize if I feel I'm in the wrong. This, to me, does not say "disposable troll identity". This should also say to Google that I'm trying to live online and offline as a person of integrity, even if it's scattershot integrity.

Chris to Scott:

"Google has set up a situation where the user must gamble their pseudonym on whether or not they will be deemed as legitimate" You phrase it as a gamble. What are they losing if their pseudonym is rejected? simply the opportunity to call themselves 'potato salad' when no one know them by that name anyways?? a gamble implies a significant loss.

Not exactly. While I'm sure there are people, many people, trying to do just this, where I see the main problem for me (and people like me), is that we are trying to state the case that our pseudonyms are legitimate. Because we have chosen them (and stood behind them) for several years now, that should be proof of our good intent.

Unfortunately, Google is pigheaded on this point.

Scott in comment to Chris:

The risk is in the exposure. Once Google is has the connection between the real name and the pseudonym, the trust by the user has been established. If Google rejects the pseudonym, the user cannot undo that connection. Google already has is in their database.

Think of it like this. If I came to you and told you I was Batman, even if you do not believe me I cannot untell you. It's too late.

I'd put it this way. If Bruce Wayne came and told Google he was Batman, that link is forged. If I came to Google and revealed my real name as XY, and my online name as Emilly Orr, that link is forged. It doesn't matter on the belief; the point is, the database now has that information, and the database can (and likely will) update personal pages with that information. Which is precisely what we don't want.

It doesn't get more clear and simple than that, but dealings with Google are rarely simple.

Again on the 23rd, Sai finally responds to Yonatan (his first response was linked in yesterday's post. I'm choosing to repost the entire thing because I think it's important):

1. I understand and actually agree with wanting names over handles. Handles are often (but not always) reasonable to handle (ha) as 'nicknames'. I think they should be included in + mentions also, but there we're talking less a matter of principle and more one of implementation.

However, the two aren't strictly separable. For instance: +aestetix aestetix. It's his handle, yes, but it's also the name he goes by all the time IRL. It's how I met him. I happen to know his wallet name, which is different, but even so I and most of his friends call him "aestetix" most of the time.

Is it his "handle" or his "name"? I would argue it's both, and he has more than one legal name under the centuries-old common law understanding of the term.

Indeed I would argue that the only worthwhile point of such a policy is to have people identified here as they would be if you met them at a party IRL. But that's not something you can prove or verify other than by asking the person themselves.

2. Why can't non-celebrities have pseudonyms too? I'm no celebrity and would probably have been rejected under this doctrine. I see no substantive justification of this policy.

3. Drivers' licenses do not capture false positives against common law names. Consider (just for instance) the many trans people whose drivers' licenses reflect a different name than the one they go by IRL.

Also, I consider it objectionable a priori that I should have to show my ID — something you don't even verify in any sensible manner — merely because I have a weird name. What do you think the reaction would be if Google+ applied this policy consistently, requiring ID from everyone who wants to sign up? (Forget about the workload of doing so, consider simply the evilness quotient.)

Evil policy + discriminatory application ≠ less evil.

4. That's not really a substantive response. How do you intend to minimize the problem for people with unusual names?

5. Dismissing the number of people who need to use pseudonyms, and saying "well it works for the privileged majority", isn't really a good response here. Again: how do you propose fixing this bug?

Let's break this down in order.

Point one has been my point all along. If I, on a daily basis, have both my partners getting my attention by saying "Em"...first, what makes Google think I'd want to be known by another name, and second, what makes Google think my so-called "wallet name" is more important to my life than my chosen name?

Let's talk chosen names for a minute. I have three. Two are legally established--let's say, for convenience's sake, they're my maiden and my married names. Because of common-law practices, in many states, I can legally use either. Even in those states which don't allow common-law provisions, all I have to do to establish my married name legally is change it in a court of law. (Which I've been meaning to do for years now, anyway--because the state in which I married did not automatically change my name. That does not, however, make it any less my name.)

So which name does Google really want? My ID name? The (three, now) names the post office delivers mail to? Which is it? And if I change my name, do I have to re-verify all of this information just to use a name which isn't my legal one? And why does Google care in the first place? It seems inordinately invasive.

Point two I also agree with, vehemently. Why can't non-celebrities have established pseudonyms? Because if celebrities get a pass over not having to go through all this needlessly cumbersome verification, that establishes a class system I'm fairly sure Google does not want.

Point three is interesting from an international angle: for one, many transsexual people do change their names (and their gender) on their ID, so which one is valid at that point--their "birth" name, or their updated ID name? Further, in England (at least, and possibly in other countries as well), crossdressers are issued two legal IDs--one with their birth name (and gender), and one with their "presentation" name. That doesn't even take into account transgendered folk, just people who want to present as the other gender.

So which name does Google want? Do they want them all? Wouldn't that be a nightmare for the verification folks?

And this is well worth repeating, and bolding:

Evil policy + discriminatory application ≠ less evil.

Which is so very, very true in this arena. When did Google stop behaving by the precept "don't be evil"? Because this is innately discriminatory, judgemental, I believe I already said pigheaded, and hey, I'll make that leap into "evil" behavior. Any time a major corporation is deciding by fiat who gets to play with the other kids, and who doesn't, based solely on the name sounding normal, what kind of lesson is that sending to the net at large? To society at large? That we can only be "good" people if we have "normal" names? And Google gets to define what's "normal" and what's not?

Yeah. That's just wrong. And it's not getting less wrong.

Point four and point five are really good questions, but Google doesn't have any good answers, yet, because they just implemented this (massively flawed) policy revision, over the previous (also massively flawed) policy on Google+. I fully support Sai's desire to have these questions answered, but frankly, Google just doesn't know yet.

But let's look those questions over again before we tie this entry up: for those of us with unusual names, or established pseudonyms, or who chose specific alternate names over their "wallet names": what Google seems to be telling us is either:

• change our names so they sound more "normal" (thereby removing almost all interesting names, all ethnic names, and a substantial chunk of international names);
• be able to prove, conclusively, to a corporation we no longer trust to be given such information, that our names are our names;
• or be able to prove that we have sufficient "celebrity" or "internet following" that our names are our names (without telling us how that following is going to factor out)

Which standards are we going by, too? Forget the "celebrity" issue or the issue of proof--look carefully at the top line. Names that aren't "traditionally" name-shaped are getting thrown out. Who's deciding what's a "name shape" in the first place? How many letters are allowed? Are only two names allowed, not three? Is having four names right out? Do we have to register with our full legal names and be referred to as our full legal names in perpetuity, or can we simplify--"Joe Smith", for instance, over "Joseph Ablemarle Vinicunus Smith". Or would that full legal name be thrown out anyway because it's not "name-shaped" enough?

And more--are the criteria for deciding what is and is not "name-shaped" purely limited to Latin character sets (it seems to be) and, in fact, Western naming practices? So how would that work out with "Joseph Running Bear", for instance? It's his name, right? Would that be "name-shaped" enough to get through without a fight, or would the "Running Bear" last name scotch the entire thing? What about Asian naming practices, where the given personal name is usually the last name?

Let's be more specific. "Ming Yen" in Japan and China would refer to "Yen Ming" in Western parlance. Okay, that's still name-shaped. What about "Hang Bok-nam", which usually gets Westernized as "Bok-nam HANG" for Korea? Would the fact that the last name is completely upper-case toss out the name entirely? Who knows?

And, let's not forget, I'm posting these commentaries off Google+ because I'm afraid that posting them on Google+ (and thus reactivating my account) will get me banned from Gmail! Why should that even be a consideration for what's essentially a social network--make a comment, lose your access? What forum on the planet does that?!?

how many rules breaking how many games?

I have no place in my brain for this, so I'm spreading the suffering. Enjoy your Nicolas-Cage-based brain seizure.

Several scattered things today, because I'm too tired to rant about Google+ right now, as much as I want to continue. So, in no particular order:

An archived post from 2008 on the former Virtually Blind blog showed up on a separate search; what it says about copyright and DMCA violations is, unfortunately, still valid for Second Life several years later.

Over on Kotaku, there's a cosplayer who decided Deus Ex's protagonist, Adam, wasn't sexy enough, so gendershifted him. The pictures may be NSFW; they don't show nipples, but they do show breasts. (You'll see what I mean if you click the link.)

Meanwhile, Lifehacker has an article on simple things we can do if we have jobs where we sit a great deal of the time (*coughs*). None of them are exceptionally hard. Consider this the reminder for all of us to move more when we can, because yeah, sitting all day does take a toll on our physical health.

Steve Napierski came up with a beautifully ironic take on video game branding on Dorkly; Twitter wants to hire more people; and Iza Privezenceva is today's definition of awesome. (Also, she looks like the Grangers have a Russian branch of the family, but that misses the point that she's an astounding speed archer.)

In some positive Google+ news, a friend of mine sent me a link to Snorri Gunnarsson's Icelandic volcano photographs, which are breathtaking. (Though really, that could have been on any other service, including Facebook, and still have been breathtaking.)

Meanwhile, there's a 30/70 split on something (for at least me, opinion-wise) regarding MegaUpload. There's a group of people who have decided to band together to declare suit against the FBI because they lost their personal files and did not have backups for them. (Which, okay, look, I've used big file services too to save items I didn't have disc space for, but you have to back up your work, people. Seriously.)

That's the 30% for me; I think it's a good thing for them to band together and declare class-action suits. It improves their power position, and with enough voices (and enough donations, financially), they might be able to power that to a Supreme Court decision.

The 70%? Well, they're calling these groups Pirate Parties. Are you people insane? So, to establish clearly that they have valid concerns and have lost original work that was in no way violating anyone's held copyrights...they're going to identify with pirates?!?

Obviously, you did not think this through, people. Try again if you want people to take you seriously.

silver bullets in the jukebox, spin another round

This week's awesome bio award goes to Wrath and Ruin, a level 50 science brute seen in the Rikti War Zone:

Description:
Wrath: They KILLED us!
Ruin: No, not us. Her. They killed her...
Wrath: I'll feast on their eyes! The pain! They'll feel my pain!
Ruin: It is not all of them. They are not all bad. We can help them maybe!... Is it not what she wanted?
Wrath: They killed her! But yes, that IS what she wanted. And THAT's why she's 'dead'.
Ruin: But...
Wrath: She's dead, because WE were too weak to help her back then.
Ruin: We are stronger now... We could do...
Wrath: Something, yes. We can fix their perceptions!
Ruin: Umm, that is nice of us... I guess...
Wrath: 'Very'. We'll help them see. And then, ease their pain. They're in so much pain.
Ruin: Or will be...
Wrath and Ruin: Hah, hahaha, AhhhAHHAHAAHAha...
Ruin: Seriously though. I think there may be something...
Wrath: wrong with us, yes. But I don't care. I like it.
Ruin: Yeah... me too...

Perrrfect.

In other news, artist Matt Rhodes has knocked out a concept for Galactus that I really want to see become the official concept. I'm definitely more highly in favor of his version than the traditional short, stubby, yet somehow still gargantuan pink guy that Lee and Kirby invented. (AND it even explains why that invention exists, without diminishing the power of the new one.)

Friend of mine (who has an established online pseudonym that is not her real name, in her case of over a decade's standing) has been following the main Google+ commentary thread on the "new and improved" pseudonymity policy. After the initial announcement, I hadn't bothered to read any of the comments, for two reasons:

1. I left Google+ because they don't allow me to be Emilly Orr, a name I've established for almost seven years now--which is also the name that nearly everyone in my life, online and off, uses either exclusively to talk with me, or uses interchangeably with my "real name" (and yes, this includes spouses and some family members); and

2. I didn't want to reach that point whereby I either couldn't provide Google with enough substantive "proof" for why I wanted to use that name, and they killed all access to my Google accounts across the board, or somehow tracked down my "real name" and replaced it without my consent, thus giving anyone with (or without) a Google+ account access to my RL information.

So I'm now reading the comments, and...wau. So damn many comments. Here's a cursory few that caught my eye:

First, part of Bradley Horowitz's original announcement:

Since launch we've listened closely to community feedback on our names policy, as well as reviewed our own data regarding signup completion. The vast majority of users sail through our signup process--in fact, only about 0.1% submit name appeals.

When we analyze the set of all name appeals on Google+, we find that they generally fall into three major categories:
- The majority (60%) of these users want to simply add nicknames.
- About 20% of appeals are actually businesses (who are inadvertently trying to set up their business as a Profile, rather than using Google+ Pages which were intended for this purpose.)
- And the remaining 20% would either prefer to use a pseudonym or another unconventional name.

Today we're pleased to be launching features that will address and remedy the majority of these issues. To be clear--our work here isn't done, but I'm really pleased to be shipping a milestone on our journey.

Nicknames and Names in Another Script

Over the next week, we'll be adding support for alternate names--be they nicknames, maiden names, or names in another script--alongside your common name. This name will show up on your Google+ profile and in the hovercards which appear over your name. In the next few weeks, we'll be displaying it more broadly as part of your name in other areas of Google+ as well. So if you're Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Jane Doe (Smith), or Saurabh Sharma (सौरभ शर्मा), you can now communicate your identity the way you want to.

To add an alternate name, go to your Google+ profile, click Edit Profile, select your name and click on "More options." (See attached photos)

It's important to remember that when you change your name in Google+, you’re changing it across all services that require a Google Profile.

Other Established Identities

On Google+, we try to flag names which don't represent individuals, such as businesses or abstract ideas which should be +Pages. Sometimes we get this wrong, so starting today we're updating our policies and processes to broaden support for established pseudonyms, from +trench coat to +Madonna.

If we flag the name you intend to use, you can provide us with information to help confirm your established identity. This might include:

- References to an established identity offline in print media, news articles, etc
- Scanned official documentation, such as a driver's license
- Proof of an established identity online with a meaningful following

One wonders how exactly they're interpreting "meaningful following", but that's the least of my complaints with this announcement.

Sai summed up many of my objections in a comment very succinctly stated, near the top:

1. "Another script"? That would be Latin charset, for people whose primary language is in another charset. Why should English get privileged as the universal default for their "primary" form of name?

2. "with a meaningful following" is extremely objectionable to me.
a) it's complete weasel wording
b) it cements having pseudonyms as a privilege of celebrity

Both are unacceptable. Normal people need to have pseudonyms too, as I think has been extremely well established. (cf. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F)

3. If it's on your driver's license, it's not a pseudonym. And if it's not on your driver's license, that doesn't mean it's not your legal name either, in common law countries.

4. It discriminates against people (like me) with unusual names. Why do we have to show identification or fame, but the real pseudonyms ("John Smith" et al) don't?

5. Google+ still can't be your first identity online if you have a nonWASP name...but Facebook can. "Google+: your second social network." Seriously?

I'm sorry, but the only difference I see here is that you're now listing the nickname field on the hovercard and profile. I see no substantive policy change. Fame was already an obvious and hypocritical exception to the policy; now you're just open about it.

And this took half a year?

Exactly. I highly recommend reading through the Geekfeminism link; I only wish the folks at Google pushing this insane policy so aggressively would do the same, and, better still, actually comprehend the logic in it.

Yonatan in response to Sai:

You're asking all of the right questions, so let me give you systematic answers. I'll start with the easy one, and write a separate comment for the big one:"Another script:" No, the Latin charset isn't privileged. Your name has to be in any single script (as per UTR-39); your nickname has to be in a single script; but they do not have to be the same script.

Sai's response back:

I understood they don't have to be in the same script. But the example given ("Saurabh Sharma (सौरभ शर्मा)") pretty explicitly says that the native script is the "other one". That's rather rude IMO.

While I've never had a name in a non-Latin character set, I do understand the point--it presumes that English, and by default Latin characters, are the obvious global default, and that anyone who doesn't use English (and Latin characters) are by this definition...well, you could take that several ways, depending on how you're reading it. At the least Google is trying to tell the rest of the world that their languages are by default "alternate" ones; at worst, the communication says they're less, they're not as important, they don't mean as much. These aren't good things to say.

Gary to Yonatan:

firstly, this is a step in mostly the right direction and I'm glad to see it. I would be interested in a response to Sai's other comment, though. Surely celebrity should not be a prerequisite for choice. In that regard, this policy change seems to continue to willfully miss the point: it is not our responsibility to explain our choice of name to you, but rather your responsibility to explain to us why that choice is something we should not have. So far Google has abjectly failed to do this.

Good comment. Is celebrity the only reason a pseudonym would be allowed? What qualifies as a "meaningful following"? And he's absolutely right, why is Google putting themselves into judging what names are "allowed" (hence, "good") and what names are banned, blocked, or denied (hence, "bad")? They're our names, not theirs. Why do we have to justify our own names?

Yonatan back to Sai:

Saurabh is actually one of the PM's on the team, and he uses Latin script as his default script. :)

Sai's comment in return:

Then that's not a good representative case to use for internationalization, eh?

No. It's really not. In that case, Horowitz is taking a name he's seen around the office and pretending that it shows some amazing international sensitivity, when in fact Saurabh likely only uses non-Latin script when communicating specifically with people who use that script by default. And possibly not even then. So that's really a specious example start to finish; thanks, Google, for continuing to denigrate our intelligence.

And what I'm going to end with (at least for now) is Yonatan's comment back to Sai:

OK, +Sai .: Here's the big answer.

First of all, you might ask why we have a names policy at all. (i.e., why we don't simply go with the JWZ proposal) One thing which we have discovered, while putting some miles on the system, is that it is indeed important to have a name-based service rather than a handle-based service. This isn't a matter of functionality so much as of community: You get a different kind of community when people are known as Mary Smith than when they are known as captaincrunch42, and for a social product in particular we decided that the first kind of community is the one we want to build. In order to do that, we want to establish a general norm that the names you put in to the system should be names, not handles.

So one thing that our name checking flow tries to catch is handles, which should normally be nicknames, shown in addition to a name. The other important thing it's trying to catch is people who are creating individual accounts, rather than +Pages, for non-human entities such as businesses or organizations. The behavior of +Pages is deliberately restricted in the system, and we don't want people to be creating fake human accounts to circumvent that. The name check turns out to be a very powerful tool to catch these.

Our name check is therefore looking, not for things that don't look like "your" name, but for things which don't look like names, period. In fact, we do not give a damn whether the name posted is "your" name or not: we will not challenge you on this basis, nor is there any mechanism for other users to cause you to be challenged for this.

There are two main cases where the name check screws up. One is false positives: people (such as you) who have unusual names which get flagged because they looked like handles. Being able to appeal via things such as drivers' licenses is useful for this case, since it's a simple "oh, we got this wrong." The other case is people such as +trench coat, who are so well-known under this handle that it would be bizarre not to let them onto the system under this name. For this case, we allow appeals based on being well-known under the name: thus the ability to prove the "established pseudonym." We've deliberately set the threshold for that latter case fairly high for now, but we intend to continue to tune it; the objective is that the frequency of such names should basically be the same as their frequency in meatspace.

So to answer your questions one-by-one:

(2) "Meaningful following" only applies to cases of established pseudonyms which do not look like names. The definition of "meaningful" is deliberately vague so that we can tune it, so that it behaves in a natural fashion.

(3) That's correct; drivers' licenses are for false positives, not pseudonyms.

(4) Unusual names will indeed hit friction, because of false positives. We're trying to minimize that, but it's going to take some trial and error.

(5) Google+ can absolutely be your first identity online. No matter what your language, no matter where you come from. The "established pseudonym" logic should apply to a very small subset of people. If some groups are seeing a higher false positive rate than others, that's a bug, not a feature, and we have the data available to spot this situation and remedy it.

Does this answer your questions better?

Not really. Let's take this point by point:

1. So Google's only interested in surface community--they don't want people with goofy-sounding names to apply, because that would not make a strong social network of honest people, but a bunch of kids who would do bad things simply because they don't have "real names" like adults do. The hell.

2. Even if we somehow manage to convince them that our psuedonyms are real enough for their data checks to pass over, we'll still have to use "real names", it sounds like, because nick-names are only pairing with "real names", because that's the way adults in the real world operate.

3. In fact, we do not give a damn whether the name posted is "your" name or not: we will not challenge you on this basis...Except that's not what Google said earlier. Google said earlier that if we were operating under a pseudonym, then Google would kill all Google functionality across the platform. If we lost Google+, we lost Gmail, we lost Picasa for pictures, and people were wondering if this would also block use of Chrome.

In fact, I'm still not entirely sure that's not going to happen in March; that even though I'm not on Google+, they'll "discover" I've been running under a pseudonym all these years and tell me that (even though, to their new and revised definition, "Emilly Orr" looks like a real name) it's not good enough, and kill my Gmail access.

4. If I have a strange-sounding pseudonym (which I don't), and I have sufficient celebrity and name recognition (which I don't), then I get the name by default because it would be "bizarre" not to operate like that. Which is, I suppose, fine for people like "trench coat", Cher and Madonna, but where's the dividing line for those of us not deemed strange enough? Is this the Google version of "go big or go home"?

5. Google doesn't want to tell us how they define "meaningful" because they don't want people to "game the system". Gosh, that sounds familiar...Anyone else flashing to the Lindens' policy on Adult terms in the Marketplace? You know, obviously bad words like "pe", "5" and "*"? (Though rumors are "5" got fixed.)

6. Finally, this bit: [T]he objective is that the frequency of such names should basically be the same as their frequency in meatspace. Right. So in my case, the fact that most of the people I know call me "Em", including the ones that know me by the name on my ID, means I can establish "Emilly Orr" as my official name. Right? Save that Google did everything they could, several months back, to terrify me out of my tiny mind that if I held onto that designation on Google+, I would lose all ability to use my email address--which at this point is tied to several major institutions and would be a pain and a half to replace. I'm not talking Second Life and City of Heroes registry; I'm talking banks, hospitals, and politicians.

You can't have it both ways, Google. Either it's okay for us to have pseudonyms, or it's not. And restricting us to pseudonyms that sound like real names just makes you look like consummate dicks, frankly. To be blunt.

I want to scream for everything to stop, 'cos I'm not in charge of anything

Came across a bright blue fellow in Wentworth's Consignments, in City of Heroes. He had a very steampunk-esque backpack on, spitting blue steam, and was a level 35 technology controller. I pulled up his profile:

It is not uncommon for Spirit Masters to go on earthly adventures for wisdom and courage. This particular Stormbearer went into an unknown cave filled with sapphire, one of the rarest gems in the world because it is created using just oxygen which gives the blue. Storm bearer was amazed at the amount of gem the cave had. A stream of sapphire also took place and so he followed it deeper in to the blue cave. He came upon this clanking machine creating the crystal cave, and the sapphire water and took it. He has lived to this day with the machine on his back still producing stormy weather but also bringing greed seekers to their demise.

And I could not let that go. So, I dropped a note his way:

[Tell] -->Sapphire Stormbearer: Just as an aside, sapphire gets its blue color from titanium and iron, not oxygen. Otherwise very cool hero.
[Tell] Sapphire Stormbearer: i am not a scientist im a weather controller otherwise ppl love me for my backpack

At which point I smiled, complimented his backpack--because it was a nifty thing of gears and dials and aged blue steel--and backed away. Because really, there's just no further talking possible.

"The Zombie-X rifle was created by DoubleStar as a more effective tool for dealing with the imaginary apocalypse of the undead that's never going to happen." Okay then.

Also, almost a year ago there was speculation about a UFO on the ocean floor. Did they ever find out what that was?

From the Department of WTF Happened, a Hollywood-based lobbying group announced it needed SOPA to shut down Megaupload...five days after Megaupload was shut down, and a couple days after SOPA was stalled in the shallows (maybe permanently; Senator Lamar Smith has withdrawn the bill on the list of bills he's now sponsoring).

And you thought SOPA, PIPA, and now ACTA were bad? And your head is still reeling from PCIPA? Well, meet TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. What's involved in that one? And I quote from the relevant section regarding intellectual property provisions:

"TPP countries have agreed to reinforce and develop existing World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) rights and obligations to ensure an effective and balanced approach to intellectual property rights among the TPP countries. Proposals are under discussion on many forms of intellectual property, including trademarks, geographical indications, copyright and related rights, patents, trade secrets, data required for the approval of certain regulated products, as well as intellectual property enforcement and genetic resources and traditional knowledge. TPP countries have agreed to reflect in the text a shared commitment to the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health."

To break that down, the United States, along with Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, and Vietnam (and possibly Japan and Canada, should they wish to join in, but intriguingly enough, not Mexico) will all be agreeing to support intellectual property rights on trademarks, geographical locations, copyright issues, patents, preservation of trade secrets, internal testing and regulation, including scientific study, empirical findings, and genetically-modified seed crops (and/or clones)--at least within those seven (to possibly nine) countries, and will be fighting back against non-member countries who try to dilute those copyrights, studies, findings, genetic modifications, and chosen locales.

Even worse?

"The Obama Administration has developed a policy on transparency for the TPP negotiations which apparently does not involve any commitments to sharing the text with the general public, even after it has been given to all member countries in the negotiation and to hundreds of corporate insiders on the USTR advisory board system."

Well, wonderful. And yes, that means what you think it does--information on the TPP is very sketchy, and it's highly likely that the (leaked) documents we have of the phrasing may be several drafts back from the final form to be passed.

Meanwhile, the folks now running Minecraft have decided that, in addition to the utterly useless addition of wolves, we're now going to be able to tame so-called "ocelots", which, when tamed (with fish, not pork), turn into...housecats. Not kidding. All ocelots start off spotted, and when they are tamed, they turn into striped orange tabbies, Siamese, or black and white cats.

Let me repeat that, because it sounds vaguely important. The new ocelot "mob" type looks like a blocky, spotted ocelot-like thing when untamed, and when tamed--with a fish--they spontaneously transform into three different potential varieties of squared-off, blocky housecats completely randomly. Because that's what feral animals do when domesticated, you see.

I realize it's Cubeworld, and I'm getting hung up on the transformation of a pixel thing into another pixel thing, when I don't bat an eye that you can dye two sheep, breed them, and have the baby sheep show up with that color of dyed wool. I can't explain it, but my brain is going nononono, the hell, that's not even POSSIBLE.

(from the Minecrafting album. Seriously. Not possible.)

(And yes, there are cat toys in Minecraft 1.2. The gods help us all.)

In news from a different direction, H&M apparently thinks that being inspired to copy someone else's design is radically different from actually copying it, which amuses me greatly. People, it's the same design, just give in already.

I'm a backer for Mother Henriot's Elixir, an actual, herbal-derived, absinthe tea. They need to raise slightly under ten thousand dollars in just slightly over a month. I have faith in them. Consider a donation if you have folding green; their benefits are generous and most come with at least a sample of the tea, if not enough for a full pot!

Paula Deen's developed diabetes (no surprise there); a circuit court says it's okay for cops to discriminate based on intelligence (that explains a lot); Tor Books offers up a lovely little run-down of speculative fiction takes on works of art; Echo Bazaar develops the Radical Okapi; and Anina Bennett and Paul Guinan seem to have done it again, debuting an 'autobiography' of famed steampunk explorer Frank Reade...who, like Boilerplate before him, never existed.

Goodness, I think that's everything, and I still have too many windows open! No wonder Chrome keeps crashing on me.

make the same mistake, I'll be here all night

Was Megaupload targeted simply for the actual criminal acts key members performed, or was it also to stop them from launching music and movie sharing services later this year? I don't know if we'll ever know for sure, but it's intriguing that they'd started to make announcements on what was coming--and soon after, were indicted and shut down.

Keep in mind that in the wake of Megaupload shutdown, both FileSonic and Uploaded.to have closed down access from American accounts. FileSonic has gone one step further and declared that users now can only download items they have personally uploaded--so no sharing large videos with family or sending big-packet extraps to fellow law partners, for instance.

And I really don't think they'll be the only closures or changes in services. I think this entire thing is going to end up having a very isolating effect on American media and media sharing--legal or not.

Meanwhile, somewhere far away from that legal battle, ocean waters are turning into froth. Cappuccino-colored froth. Ecological changes in our oceans, you say? Surely you jest.

And have I mentioned scientists are currently trying to prove if multiple universes exist? That's just wild. (And what will such proof, if we get it, do once it percolates fully into the culture?)

From the so-not-safe-for-work department, the newest edition of sexy fairytale pinups. There's a lot of Ariel, a rather curvaceous Elphaba, a Cinderella straining at the seams, and a rather more adult than anticipated Wendy, from Peter Pan. (Among many, many others.)

And, though I rarely touch on religion in this blog, here's a disquieting link on why Biblical literalism can be a very bad thing, using as example the new American version (though with references to the original version, and the book) of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

Finally, though this goes out only to one or two readers, Tom Banwell's now made a plague doctor mask. It's available both in brown, and in a "doctoral" white version with red lenses. (The white is less expensive because the design choice turned to rivets, not hand stitching, but either one will set you back a fair chunk of change.)