Name | Nickname | Alias ?

[zetok]

I would like to raise a question regarding matter of naming.
Currently, it is allowed for clients to use terms 'Name' and 'Nickname' in regard to naming users.

My question, or what I think should be done, as follows:

1. There should be clear definition in what kind of cases 'Name' and (currently) 'Nickname' can/should be used in. Definition should also contain information what 'Name' and (currently) 'Nickname' mean.
2. Is 'Nickname' really the best option? What about using instead 'Alias'? Or maybe both in some way?

Arguments in favor of using 'Nickname':

• It may be easier to understand what purpose it has, as opposed to 'Alias'.

Arguments against using 'Nickname':

• It sounds tiny bit more stiff than 'Alias'. (! that argument may be just a personal view !)
• It may be confusing for (some) users if used alongside with 'Name'.
• It is longer.

Arguments in favor of using 'Alias':

• Short.
• Sounds more casual, as opposed to 'Nickname'. (! that argument may be just a personal view !)

Arguments against using 'Alias':

• Is it as self-explanatory as 'Nickname'?

Therefore I ask to think about this issue. Please, do not take it lightly, as it may have huge impact on all client implementations and adaptations, especially those within human society.

Kind regards, Zetok Zalbavar.

[x368]

Please see notsecure/uTox#1126 (which should have been directed to STS instead).

There is an apparent widespread confusion about the semantics of the information piece you discuss the name for. This semantics is: "metainformation about a person freely chosen by that person herself". It is like an arbitrary mask everyone is free to put on oneself and also change depending on one's mood.

There is a fundamentally wrong usage case where such a "nick" looks suitable while it is not: naming the contact list entries.

For certain very basic "mathematical" reasons (name spaces are not to be confused/mixed) and for certain very basic security reasons (the labels must be reliable) the only correct way to choose the labels is by the owner of the contact list, not by the remote parties.

Such a label is sometimes being called "alias". The term "alias" may be though misleading. A local contact entry label is the primary means of referring to a peer identity while "alias" feels secondary. Instead, it is here the term "Nick" might be the most suitable!

In this sense it is me who assigns "Nicks" to all my contacts. This may coincide with what a certain person likes to be called - but only if I choose so.

The self-chosen information about oneself could be called a "Published Name". A mere "Name" would be misleading again, as "names" in the real life are reliable and stable, being tightly connected to centralized registries (passports, ID-cards). A "Published Name" in Tox is neither reliable nor stable.

For a comparison, the original, traditional role of a "nick" is to refer to a person, for example while talking with common acquaintances about that person. Note that in this scenario generally it is the group who in an informal way chooses a nickname for a member, not the member oneself.

[GrayHatter]

I disagree with @x368 on what he suggests. But he does have a valid point.

If we do define these words these are my suggestions.

Name: Noun Chosen by the target itself. E.g., My Name is GrayHatter
Nick[name]: Noun given to the target by someone else. E.g., @zetok thinks I've gone insane, so now he calls me MadHatter instead.
Alias: Noun that would stand in place of either one. E.g., I have a contact with the name of Konstantin, I can never remember that or type it out, so I assign him an alias of 'Con'

[x368]

Name: Noun Chosen by the target itself. E.g., My Name is GrayHatter
Nick[name]: Noun given to the target by someone else. E.g., @zetok thinks I've gone insane, so now he calls me MadHatter instead.
Alias: Noun that would stand in place of either one. E.g., I have a contact with the name of Konstantin, I can never remember that or type it out, so I assign him an alias of 'Con'

It would help if the definitions made it clear in which context and by whom
those kinds of labels are assumed to be used.

Your proposed definition of "Name" does clearly refer to the metainformation
which an identity shares about him/her/itself. No problem.
Any concerned party who received this information may use it for whatever
purpose (say, to be shown as a part of a corresponding contact entry).

The second one is though unclear. Is it information which "zetok" shares to
other parties or is it the internal business of him?

If he shares it, then with whom, when, in which context?

If he does not share, what is the point of the third term, which is presumably
the internal business of a user? Or is it? When you say "stand in place",
which place/context/use is it? You certainly have a certain situation
in mind but I promise not everyone guesses correctly.

I wrote earlier that a "nick" in the real life is a label which a group
chooses for a person and uses while communicating about the person.

If somebody wishes to be a part of a group, he or she "must" accept this
label while being referred to. Right?

As far as I can tell, there is no similar situation in Tox. Would you
explain in more detail what is your idea of the purpose and usage of
the item 2 ("Nick")?

Last but not least: to make definitions meaningful, they have to be
more or less formally correct.

Would you explain the semantics of the name-like strings which you used
in the examples: "GrayHatter", "zetok", "Konstantin"?

I guess by these strings you imply the information published by some
identities by themselves, by your definition "Name"s.

Alas, such a name-like-string is not a valid reference to an identity
outside of a certain, defined namespace. Tox lacks a namespace, by design!

So to make the example meaningful it should be rephrased like:
"Say, identity ABCDEF01234..... feels that I (i.e. identity
9A8B76543210C.........) am mad and also he knows that I like to be called "GrayHatter".
He could address me "MadGrayHatter" in our personal chat or in group chat so that everyone present there sees (how do they?? do they see "MadGrayHatter=9A8B765...."??) that he addresses the identity of mine, i.e. 9A8B76543210C.......". Or what did you mean?

Besides the formal correctness or lack of it, in the discussions both yourself and the casual readers can be easily misled by names which belong to the github namespace, not to Tox (which, again, by the very design avoids a namespace). The GitHub authority is why here we can use names to refer to each other.

To illustrate: my messages at github are shown as coming from "x368".
It is the GitHub account database who is checking that "x368" really is the one who knows
the corresponding password.

There is no such protection mechanism in Tox. Anyone can choose any
string and anyone can for example begin to talk to people via Tox and
supply "GrayHatter" as the "Name" metainformation. I guess there is more than one person in the world who likes to be called like that - or may wish to impersonate you.

To conclude:

Tox has by design no "name space" and no corresponding authority.

The efforts to add namespaces to Tox (among others Tox DNS) bring
back the fundamental problem which Tox as a protocol avoids, namely
the dependency on the maintainers of, owners of, decision makers of
and laws governing a name authority service.

Those discussions and indirectly this one are fueled by the common misunderstanding of what a
"name" is. Please help to clear out the confusion and please do not fall for it yourself.

Thanks for your work on Tox!