Location?

[Bugbear]

Oops,sorry about that. It's fixed now, Paul.

[Lime]

Security is a part of it but another, much more important, part is that I enjoy the egalitarian nature of forum posting. All of the instant judgements we make about people (colour, age, dress, location, height, looks, etc) which may, or may not colour our opinions are stripped away and it is the quality of the posting which prevails.

If we knew, for instance, that Mr Jock Scott, is really a twelve year old girl from New York would that decrease our willingness to take his advice so readily or do we only accept his advice because he has posted his location as Invernesstonshireville? I would argue that we take it because it is, on the whole, good and sensible advice: location has nothing to do with it.

I appreciate that there may be an argument that advice given could vary depending on location but would argue that:

1. Most people will say that they are going to a wedding in x place anyway (or as the case may be).
2. Anyone who looks at a person's post can work out some telling things
about them in any case; I'm pretty sure it is clear that I am not posting from the states because of my spelling - or is that an incredibly clever double bluff!
3. In the very worst case scenario; where it is simply impossible to give advice without knowing location (and I confess I am struggling to conceive of one) then all one has to do is ask.

[Chas]

I have to disagree, Lime. This is not a pop fan club. (I like Justin Bieber/I do not like Justin Bieber, yes or no, black or white.) This is a kilt wearer's forum and everything is shades of grey, there is very little black and white.

Three examples, you might care to ponder.

The wearing of a weapon, openly or concealed in a public place. The law varies greatly round the world. What one can do in Edinburgh and what one can do in London are two different things. Move the venue to New York and it all changes again.

At this very moment the Ugandan Parliament is debating a law to outlaw homosexuality within the country with a possible death penalty for cross dressing.

Members are using air travel on a regular basis. It does make a difference if the trip is UK domestic, UK into Europe, UK to USA, USA domestic, USA to anywhere else.

I am sure you have heard the mantra here: No pictures - It never happened! Why do you think that is? Acts as a bit of a safeguard. It stops all those 12 year old girls pretending to be elderly Scotsmen.

No one here at XMTS has ever been stalked and no one has ever come to physical or financial harm. Being laughed at for buying totally inappropriate accessories does not count.

People can stay totally anonymous, but I will leave you with this last thought.

If you do not trust us, Lime, why should we trust you?

Regards

Chas

[Jock Scot]

Alright Lime you have rumbled me, the cat is out of the bag, I am a 12(soon to be 13) girl living in New York and I have never been outside of the city limits and the pictures I post are of Great Uncle Ivor from Swansea, Wales who runs a theatrical props department! Well OK perhaps not.

When I reply to a post, particularly if I am handing out some absolute gem of "in the know" advice,(well I think so anyway!!!!!)if it is someone that I have got to know then you are right there are clues that creep out that help me trim and adjust my advice a bit. I have got the area wrong on more than one occasion though. However if a newcomer does not leave those clues I assume that they are from the USA and just on the law of averages I am probably right. If I get it wrong well---I can't say I am that bothered, but I prefer not to and it is better all round if the advice is relevant first time around.

Better by far an imprecise location than none at all. Nevertheless if privacy is that important-----and it can be-----then I shall get by.

[Lime]

I am afraid that I am not really clear what Chas's point is.

It is clearly up to everyone, wherever they are, to consider the law and work out whether they are within or without in their dress, accessories and actions. The forum can offer advice but it is axiomatic that a question posed which required a location specific answer would state that location; the posting location is irrelevant.

Moreover each of us needs to retain the ability to discern good advice from bad and I have not seen any evidence which ties whether that advice is good or bad to location of posting.

I am not really sure that you need to trust me, or I you although it is a sad state of affairs if it is decided that someone is inherently untrustworthy because they do not post their location as there can certainly be more than one reason for not doing so.

[robbiethepiper]

I understand there are 12 million people in London, so I don't have any problem giving my location. Anybody tech-savvy enough to start a poll as to whether general location should be mandatory?

[Lime]

p.s. I should clarify that the main thrust of my argument is not the privacy argument but the egalitarian argument: that we should not be judged on where we happen to be posting from but on the quality of our posts.

[Jock Scot]

I understand there are 12 million people in London, so I don't have any problem giving my location. Anybody tech-savvy enough to start a poll as to whether general location should be mandatory?

Good idea Robbie, any one know how to go about it? I suppose we ought to get Steve's OK too.

Personally, I am not keen on the "mandatory" suggestion(never have liked that word!), but it is a legitimate option. I would prefer "strongly, or highly, recommend".

Any thoughts Steve?

[Chas]

p.s. I should clarify that the main thrust of my argument is not the privacy argument but the egalitarian argument: that we should not be judged on where we happen to be posting from but on the quality of our posts.

By that logic, we should do away with post counts and join dates and with signature lines. Mods should have a separate account so we are not confused as to which 'hat' they are wearing. We might as well do away with names as well and just have membership numbers (randomised of course, so there is no influence from a 'low number').

So, all that's left is grammar, syntax and spelling. I hope we are not going to get marked.

We have members from around the world. Until quite recently a member on every continent. We have members of many faiths or no faith. We have members with various skin tones. We have members of both genders and the great variety of sexual persuasions. We have members from all over the political spectrum. We have the highly educated, the well educated and the barely educated. We have those who serve their country and those who find that abhorrent. We have pillars of society and members who are shunned by society. I know that I am able to judge a post without being influenced by the poster's lifestyle and I am sure that most of the members can do likewise.

Yes, we have had racists and homophobes - they were all shown the door.

But someone who judges another on their place of posting - does that even have a name? It sounds like scaremongering to me.

This is X Marks the Scot - A Community of Kiltwearers. The clue is in the title.

Regards

Chas

[Lime]

Is the consensus that if my location was stated as "Buckingham Palace" that I would be treated in exactly the same way as if it was stated to be "Broadmoor"!