What is the point of this nonsense that under no circumstances can we talk about other jellies by name?

I miss people too. One quit Fluther and unfriended me.

So, somebody has to know something about some of them. Why the secrecy?
Also, do you mean unfollow you, which is one thing, or unfriend you which is another thing.

@josie Unfriended from Facebook. And quit Fluther.

Great question and great thought.

I can think of a few plausible reasons, those not in the popular clique and don’t get mentioned will feel slighted. Something maybe said taken as an unflattering remark and get upset. Something incorrect might be said about a past member who is not around to defend themselves or clear up the lies. It basically boils down to skin that is too thin.

@Hypocrisy_Central
If they are not here any more they won’t know what anybody is saying or whether or not they are mentioned at all.

@josie maybe it has something to do with the “better save than sorry” policy the mods seem to be using. I think it doesn’t necessarily have to be for those jellies, but for the site. The mods is trying to keep the site civil and objective like in the guideline.

We can never be sure if a question like that will cause flame or not. What if the question does cause flame? Then the mods will have to clean all the flame and keep a close eye on the question in case there is someone who attacks again. It sure is tiring right? Not to mention jellies just come and leave and what if everyone feels the need to ask whenever a jelly leave? So the mods are just better off banning the kind of question altogether. No more fear.

I’m not for any side. It’s just a guess of what’s going on in the mods’ mind.

You can still PM people.

The actual rules on this are less restrictive than most people seem to think. Here are the guidelines the mod team uses:

For questions:

Aside from lurve milestone threads, users generally can’t be mentioned by name in the title or details. Exceptions may be granted on a case by case basis; just clear it with the mods before posting. It would also be inappropriate to make “coded” references to specific members in order to circumvent this guideline.

Questions that seem likely to turn into popularity contests also won’t fly.

For comments:

It’s OK to mention members by name, even if they’re not a party to the discussion, as long as the comment isn’t negative and doesn’t reveal sensitive personal information.

The lack of being able to talk about other users (to some degree) was always something I didn’t like about this site (no offense). Doesn’t mean I’d want the other extreme. I post on a forum where people regularly talk about others users, including departed users. Even the mods on that site have mocked and insulted departed or banned users. I’m glad we don’t have that atmosphere here, but the “secrecy” about departed users can be a little annoying. At the same time, if someone’s left, there’s not much to be gained from continuing to talk about them, especially if they have no intent of ever coming back.

I run a few sites and it is so very frustrating. People want strict guidelines but it isn’t doable. There is always gray. People get off on pushing the rules to the boundaries. It is a mess and I don’t have the time to explain all your snowflakes. So judgment calls are made and sometimes things are OKAY and sometimes they are not. It is hard enough to keep the servers running without dealing with your idiotic claims of “free speech” violations.

I think, like @josie is suggesting, to be able to say “What happened to Mary Smith? I see she’s disappeared and she was a regular jelly for the past 3 years.” Answer: “She needed to take a little break and told me she wishes everyone well but she is not sure she will ever return here.” Should be allowed. Not sure if mods would let that type of thing stay up, but it’s not clear why not, if it’s not gossipy and it’s not nasty.

That particular dictum isn’t (thank goodness) rigidly enforced. I’ve bemoaned the leaving of several people from here by name and gotten away with it. Let’s see. SEEK!

As I said above, there is no blanket secrecy about departed users, no prohibition about mentioning them by name in comments, as long as the comments aren’t negative and don’t divulge sensitive personal information. That’s simple good manners: don’t bad-mouth people behind their backs and respect their privacy.

We do limit questions devoted to particular members. The lurve landmark threads are the notable exception (and even there we only allow 10K-multiple parties). I totally get the sentiment that has been expressed here about wanting updates on departed friends.

The internet is a chaotic environment where people have complex identities in multiple online social venues. We’ve tried to create an environment here where people decide for themselves what information they want to share and in what way. Someone may post something on their Facebook page that they wouldn’t want revealed to the Fluther community, for example. They wouldn’t necessarily want a Facebook friend who’s also a Fluther member publishing that information on Fluther. It’s touchy business.

So the default principle here is that one’s Fluther identity is one’s own. That doesn’t end just because a member hasn’t signed into their account for awhile (and, as everyone knows, “departed” is hardly a definitive condition around here). If you want to ask a question about someone in particular, clear it with the mods first.

My best guess is that the creators of this site felt that some users, perhaps most users, valued their anonymity both as members of Fluther and after leaving, and so they made rules to ensure that. And I’m sure they considered these rules (or any site rules) important rather than nonsensical.

At any rate, we users have to follow the rules of anonymity (some of which over time have evolved, just as Fluther and the Internet themselves have evolved) – but we don’t have to be members if we don’t like the rules.

I’m just catching on, that there seems to be some confusion here about the “by name” thing in this question. I made the assumption that “by name” referred to the names accompanying the avatars here. It didn’t even occur to me that we might be talking about people’s actual real world identities. Any perception that loss of anonymity is likely, and this place will disappear like snow in August.

I didn’t think we were referring to real names. I understood it to mean we were referring to people’s Jelly names.

There have been many threads where jellies have been mentioned by user name in the comments in a non-negative light. Nothing springs to mind, but at the time I participated in the threads I wondered if it would result in moderation, and it did not.

I would guess that a lot of the reason for the circumspection that does exist is that a lot of jellies seem to reincarnate. They might be here, still, under a different user name.
You cannot mention jellies in the title or details (outside of certain meta questions) because Fluther was not designed to be a social site.

What the hell @josie I sunk this baby for you.

Yeah, the question was taking on water until @Hypocrisy_Central “sunk this baby for you”. @josie

I’ve seen many questions where individuals have been mentioned by their username. They haven’t been modded. It would only be a problem if the mention included private information or was negative.

It should be remembered that while people may appear to have left the site, they may still be here under a different name. If you miss someone, say you’re missing them. If they want to be found they might let you know they’re still here. If they don’t, perhaps they have their own personal reasons for saying incognito.

^ It should be remembered that while people may appear to have left the site, they may still be here under a different name.
Because there maybe past Flutheronians here under assumed monikers, or had left and then returned. In this culture here of thin-skinnedness anything said that is less than a glowing laud can be, and often is, seen as a maligning or slight. So the best way not to have anyone’s toes stepped on even if what is said of them is said in a factual way from the person that said it but not in an insulting way is to not let people speak on those not present; better to malign and slight them to their face.