At present, authentication of the purported identity of members and new applicants is matter for the moderators (I presume that’s John Simkin and Andy Walker, but there may be more folk involved?)
With such a large membership, I suspect it is a near impossible for the moderators to authenticate each member and applicant to a standard that meets their own satisfaction – let alone the satisfaction of other members. There must be an element of guesswork involved – and giving applicants the benefit of the doubt. In short, while I believe that most members of the forum are who they say they are, I doubt that some are genuine.
I do NOT seek to criticize the moderators or the forum itself. Under present arrangements, this forum is already a space for enlightened discussion about important issues (along with considerable dross). Kudos to those who have made it happen! However, I believe improvements may also be possible.
I propose two categories of membership: authenticated and not authenticated. While both categories would enjoy equal posting rights, readers would be able to see whether members have been authenticated and not authenticated – and on what basis.
Under this proposal, authentication remains the responsibility of the moderators and/or their delegated helpers). The only difference would be that the means of authentication in each case would also be explicit where real authentification has occured - or not, as the case may be.
For instance if John or Andy have personally met a member of the forum, matched their face in the flesh with their avatar and conversed over basic claims made in that member’s bio, they may feel able to authenticate that member without further ado. If they had approached a known personality to join the forum (or been approached by such a person), authentication would also be a simple matter.
Unauthenticated members would not be disadvantaged in posting rights – and this proposal would not exclude membership to anyone who, for whatever reason, prefers anonymity - or has yet to satisfy the moderators’ standards for authentication. On this forum, I value the contribution of a few members whose actual identity I doubt, or whose bios I suspect are misleading. I don’t seek to silence “whispers” from insiders who cannot, for whatever reason, reveal their true identity.
The difference my proposal would make is that it would be more difficult for some members to masquerade behind fake personas. Readers would be aware how and by whom authentication of each member occurred. Truly unauthenticated participants would be identified as such.
This is really a proposal for better quality information about all members – akin to nutritional information on food packaging. People remain free to buy food wherever they like and in whatever form. But those that buy branded food products are entitled to some measure of factual information about what’s inside.
I acknowledge it would make some additional work for our already overworked moderators. Nevertheless, I make the suggestion in the belief that it would improve what is already a very interesting forum.
A final note, just to be clear. I'm not proposing authentication to imply that moderators vouch for the views and bona fides of each authenticated member. Authentication, as I propose it, would be something much more specific - and mean simply that the moderator has reasonable grounds to believe that the identity of a member is that of a real-life person.
The CIA - and any other "intelligence" agency or "interest group" that keeps an eye on proceedings here - would be able to have members in both categories.
Honest independent spirits would also be found in both. Authentication should not imply moral superiority of any kind. It simply means that clearer standards of evidence are applied to the issue of members' identity