Google stop this anti-user policy NOW!
Gretchen S. originally shared:
Being suspended from Google+ apparently also mostly disables an Android phone linked to the same Google account, a factor I hadn't deeply considered before:

"I was also banned a second time and not one single word from Google about the so-called appeal.
I have a brand new EVO which is now full of useless apps
I have had most of my Picasa photos and all of my Buzz posts deleted by Google
Can't use any Google services except gmail and chat but I cant change my chat status or add a photo and I can change my email settings either
At this point all I really want is my profile restored to the way it was before I accepted the invite to G+"
--Rainyday Superstar (in a comment on Doctor Popular's post)
Google's Antisocial Behavior. by doc. Filed under: psuedonym. Dear Google,. It's our two week ban-niversary and I bet you are wondering what to get me. Cake would be nice. Or some socks. Perha...
Peter da Silva's profile photoNorv N.'s profile photoJannik Lindquist's profile photoSophia P's profile photo
I thought Google said only the Google+ part of a Google account was suspended when violating the profile name guidelines. Does it really disable the entire offending Google account?
If you enter the wrong date of birth by mistake then your whole account gets suspended without warning
Regardless of the Google apps being completely useless, I think what is being missed is why was the account suspended in the first place? Not following the rules?
For using nicknames as opposed to proper names.
+Able Lawrence Not following the rules. I wonder if the people complaining and not following the rules would argue with a cop if they were pulled over for speeding. "But officer, the speed limit should be 60, not 40, so I'm going to do 60 and bitch whenever I get a ticket."
No. I have seen some burned fingers up close. Had to spend some change to rectify stuff
+Michael Grosheim - I am following the rules now because I don't want my gmail, docs, and phone turned off - but I'm not about to go off saying "rulez is rulez, obey or stop complaining"

And as for driving over the speed limit - if you are the type of person who always follows rules and stays in line, drives way below the speed limit and never runs a red - you must be quite boring.
+Michael Grosheim do tell us what those rules are and then explain why there are several people here using pseudonyms who have been approved by Google.

Rainyday Superstar is one of the first users of Google+. She was invited here to to participate by Google because she was a well known user on Google Buzz. When they told her that her pseudonym was unacceptable they told her they would restore her account back to the way it was before she joined. She doesn't want to be here but now she has be kicked off Buzz had images from Picassa deleted and has now lost access to her own phone.

Google have really outdone themselves in this case. I know the details because I have known her for a year and a half. Many people here owe her thanks for connecting with other people on this network.
What happened to Rainy is horrible, and I hope Google takes her situation into account - and I hope they change the policy.

I'd love to go back to my Ryan IT Lab handle
+Ryan Drewrey If you think you need to go 20 over the limit, that isn't "fun." As a parent and former LEO, I follow the rules. Do I speed, sure, but 5 over the limit, not 20. I don't speed because of other people on the road. If I want to have fun, I'll jump out of a plane. I don't need t put other people's lives at risk - that's just selfish, stupid and immature. I follow the rules to set an example for my children because I don't want them to grow up and think they are above the rules and hurt other people.
Self preservation is important. You cant go and pull some one up at google by the collar
+John Hardy "When they told her that her pseudonym was unacceptable" - they didn't have to tell her, she obviously didn't read the ToS or the User Conduct before signing up. If you want it to change, there is an appropriate way to handle it. And, most of the people who didn't follow the rules aren't doing it the right way. Complaining in a post is not going to get Google's attention. Sending feedback and asking that the account be reinstated in a tactful way will.
There is a point to googles policy which we have to accept. If they allow Doctor Popular or some such thing now, they wont be able to deny me using such other terms as "Best Doctor" or even "Best Deal" or what ever.
Smart people should know the rules and dont risk their valuable properties such as email account. [I tested on other accounts and found it out with less pain]
This has nothing to do with Terms of Service. This is a screw up. You don't need a public profile with a publicly listed "real name" to use an android phone.

Google has said that not all services require a public profile. Most don't.

As for pseudonyms quite clearly Google does not have a policy. Pseudonyms are acceptable as long as they are not "obviously" pseudonyms. There are many people here using "assumed names". Many many people.

No one broke any "terms of service", they have merely run foul of an arbitrary policy which is being enforced in a capricious manner.

All Rainyday is calling for is a restoration of her account to its pre-Google+ state.

Beyond that I'm not going argue the pros and cons of pseudonyms in this thread. I have posted plenty on this in the past. Google' current stance is ridiculous and only punishes the innocent. Meanwhile real spammers and identity thieves are being left alone.
It's more time intensive, maybe, but it's worth it for Google to look at content and behavior rather than names.

Spamming and other garbage has nothing to do with the name on the account. Apart from people impersonating other people, you can't predict someone's behavior from the name on their account.

I followed Rainy because she's interesting and thought-provoking, not because I agree with everything she has to say and certainly not because I ever thought her driver's license says "Rainyday Superstar." I don't feel the least bit misled. In the cases where I need to know if there's a real name on the account, I already do know.

Meanwhile, I'm thinking, even though I can produce a driver's license. If Google is really yanking email accounts over infractions of its horribly written or deliberately vague names policy, Google Plus isn't worth it.
If someone calls themselves Best Deal, I wouldn't care a damn if their content was interesting. No one asked Google to become a universal identity card system.
Who has gotten more spam from "realistic sounding" names? Who has been bothered, or really harassed by a "fake sounding" name?

The policy is shit
S Kitto
I agree the policy is "shit". I think it they really to break it down a little more for the people that don't really understand.

Google please, please add this to the bottom "This is my house and if you don't like the rules GET OUT!"

I hope you didn't find that too boring LOL
Personally, i think Google does the right thing for the long run. Do we want astroturfers, marketing, trolls and other crap to take over or do we want a social place for real people?
Astroturfers are here already and I'm very surprised to hear that line coming from a former Buzzer, Daniel. How often were you spammed by a real sounding name in Buzz? How many times did you have an interesting conversation with a pseudonymous user.
wanting a good social network without trolls and spammers is not the same thing as wanting a real name policy.

It is like if they introduced a "real profile pic" policy - where your profile pic had to be of you - no images, no cartoons, anything but your actual face would mean your account getting shut down.

It would piss off a TON of people - and still do nothing to prevent trolls and spammers
It's an unenforceable policy and any rulez sticklers are fooling themselves if they think it is otherwise. The only thing it achieves is that it forces people to assume "real sounding" but otherwise bogus names. What's the good of that?
I get the impression that Google just does not get its user base and does not know how to manage a crisis positively. Some weeks ago, we were all given the impression that there would be internal conversations on how to resolve the issue. Then Vic Gundotra left for a short holiday afterwards and we never heard anything about it. Natalie Villalobos has also stopped talking about it and we're all still in the dark about what the actual policy is. It's all been done in a very shoddy way.
I've only been a Google fan boy for a couple years - when I got my first Android phone - this is their first big FAIL (that I have seen)
Um, " Do we want astroturfers, marketing, trolls and other crap to take over or do we want a social place for real people?" I have a whole circle of blocked users who fall in those categories and there's no way you can tell by the name.
+U-Ming Lee Gundotra said "they want to get the tone right", I suspect they had already made a decision by that time, it's just a matter of how to spin the message. I hope now that the whole mess has become more high profile, they will rethink their decision. If I had to guess, not everyone in the top management see eye to eye on this.
S Kitto
To be honest i don't know if my name complies with google's policy. I do know if they send me a warning/request asking me to change it you will not find me crying about it.
To clarify, another poster who's been suspended and reinstated has commented and did not have as much trouble with other services during suspension. What is happening to Rainyday Superstar with loss of access to other services may be a bug similar to the problems with gmail access seen earlier in the process -- clearly different users are having different experiences while suspended, and that indicates to me that they likely did not test the suspension process very closely before release. (The locked-out-of-gmail bug was fixed promptly, at least.) So not all suspended users are losing access to their android phones, but Rainyday Superstar is not the only user I have heard of who is, just the first one I saw post a full report on services lost.

Since there is no policy that one must provide a real name in order to use Picasa, Buzz, or Android phones, this bug (or set of bugs) is of great concern given that a lot of these users came over expecting to be able to use the same name they've used in all other Google services, so it really is catching a lot of people by surprise, especially given the "name commonly used in life" terminology, which confuses people who, well, use their pseudonym commonly in life. (A surprising amount of people.) Even at this late date, I still bump into people who are honestly surprised by Google's implementation of the policy, even though they read the TOS, because the TOS never quite comes out and says "legal name." Some of the issue here is that there is a large subculture of people who really are known by more people as a pseudonym.

Of special concern of course is loss of access to Android apps and other services, since the phone itself and the apps that run on it are something that one pays real-world money for, and there was certainly no warning that this could happen as a consequence of beta testing a new service. I am hoping very much that this is a bug which will be fixed promptly, rather than an intended consequence.
+Jerome A. F Get the tone right is all well and good. But when Vic and Natalie are showing pics of yoga, their trips, or sharing videos afterwards without even an update on the "status of the internal conversations", it creates the impression that Google has shelved any further discussions of the issue. I've really lost confidence in this Google+ product and I don't ask or invite people to try it out anymore. One of the guys I last recommended to join Google+, and who subsequently did, saw all the fuss about losing access to all Google services and basically asked me what I was getting him into. :)
+U-Ming Lee my guess would be they're avoiding a response because they've got nothing to say. It's not entirely the g+ team's decision. Eric Schmidt called anonymity dangerous, I don't believe he's not in the loop on this.
There is no way suspending a Google profile will affect an Android phone. An Android phone uses the standard internet and not some BIS like service. If GMail works, so will GTalk and the Android Market. Google doesn't control the IP traffic to the phone. Apps like Facebook and Twitter work independently from the Google account. To disable Google services on an Android phone, move it to a new carrier or SIM. It will disable Google services to the phone unless you re-login in again. Even at that state, your phone does everything a phone does, your installed and bundled apps work without a mind, and the mobile data works just like before. Your Twiiter and Facebook apps will still work like before without a relogin. 
+Jerome A. F Makes sense although saying nothing really says everything, doesn't it? :)
+Devin Gaughan reports vary. my suspension disabled anything linked to my profile, as the suspension makes the profile "private". no sharing from reader and all buzz posts wiped. i didn't even consider my android at that stage... i got re-instated but it looks like anyone can get suspended at any time even if you are re-instated
The "real names"-policy is not specific to G+ - it is a policy for Google Profiles. Picasa is now one of the profile-related services - and Buzz was always one of those services. This is why Rainy can't access either of those services - and it is also why there is no way to restore her account to a "pre-G+"-state.
does it mean everything that is integrated with g+ will be tied to your public profile?
hmm its looking that way. The change to Picasa is recent.

things that don't use profiles are GMail, GTalk and GDocs as well as less communications based services like Analytics and Adsense.

YouTube remains an island.
Kathi F
Did you guys see Scoble on Gillmor Gang about a week ago saying that the Google brass "didn't believe in this [G+] until a month ago," i.e., until it launched and they saw the level of interest? He wasn't speaking in the context of the nymwars, but I think if he's right (and I'm betting yes), it might go a long way toward explaining the ready-shoot-aim character of the anti-nym campaign.
That sounds very strange. It is a well known fact that Google is betting heavily on G+. To the point that employees annual bonus is now famously tied to the success of Google's social ambitions 
+Michael Grosheim This isn't like going 20 over the limit. This is like getting a ticket for running a stop sign that's got a tree in front of it. That happened to a friend of mine, and the ticket was dismissed.

Actually, it's like getting a ticket for running a stop sign that's been moved behind a tree, after being told by an officer that the sign had been removed, and coming home to find your other car had been booted.

The rules, as written, are not the rules being enforced.
Kathi, I believed you the first time - it is just very hard to align that with what has been said and written about Google's social ambitions. Anyway - very interesting video! 
I'm not that surprised. look at their iPhone app, it has "this thing might not take off anyway" written all over it. but I think the real name thing is a different issue, they could have easily stopped the purge while they're still figuring out where they want to stand, but they haven't.
Kathi F
+Jerome A. F My thinking is that if the top execs had taken G+ more seriously in development, they would have seen to it that all this was figured out before they opened the doors even a crack, and wouldn't have been going through this unseemly public scramble to solidify policy and procedure. What actually happened, I think, can easily be read as an "oh shit" reaction.
Norv N.
This isn't about G+ anymore, indeed. It's about Google Profile, Profiles require "real names", and Google Picasa, Buzz, G+, and even Google Reader (?) are therefore bound to be used theoretically only you identify with your "government ID" name to Google.
As far as I can tell, it's a sudden change in terms of usage for these other services, and they have little to do, if anything, with the "fancy restaurant" metaphor of G+. Think Reader.
Not to mention changing the terms of service for Buzz without notice when they had agreed not to.
I deleted a suspended G+ account and it went back to the pre-G+ state after a few days. I did not lose access to anything, just G+. All other Google services connected to that account still work fine on my Android and I'm able to view G+ public posts.
Norv N.
+Sophia Perera Can you please tell, do you have a Google Profile, still, on that account?
Actually, it might also matter, when was it deleted, because it appears there may have been changes lately, to the connections between services.
+Norv N. Initially I didn' took about a week or so before the Google Profile came back and everything was reset to pre-G+ days. I was concerned at first because we pay for extra storage in that account so wanted to make sure we wouldn't lose anything. I deleted it sometime last month (July).
+Norv N. First of all: The real names policy has got nothing to do with your Government ID name. It is simply a policy that asks you to use a name that sounds like a real name. You are free to call yourself Bruce Wayne or Peter Parker - but not PunkRocker43.

Secondly, the real name policy only relates to G+. There has been no change of service for the vanilla version Google Profiles
Norv N.
+Jannik Lindquist There are many cases in which people are being asked for "scanned government issued IDs". This is a quote from Google documentation and many reports on suspensions emails. Also, you may find useful the experiment made by people in the G+ community:

On the second: G+ "community standards" apply to a Google Profile, which, according to Google official messages, is required or about to be required for use of other services: Google Reader, Picasa, Buzz included. There seem to have been changes in the policy, comparing to my previous understanding of it, which was pretty much identical to yours on this last matter. You may want to see the screenshot at:
+Jannik Lindquist Google states explicitly that the "real looking name" policy is a requirement of Google Profiles. Perhaps they only seem to be enforcing them retroactively for complaints about people using Plus so far, but they have changed the code to enforce it across the board for new profiles.
+Norv N. If someone named, say, PunkRocker43 gets suspended, they will need to prove to Google that there is a human behind the name. If that person had called him- or herself Bruce Wayne, he or she would never have been suspended in the first place. As your link shows, they also ask for ID in case a profile has been reported for impersonation

Google Profiles is indeed required for Buzz etc. - but you have to distinguish between the vanilla version of Google Profiles and G+. If you haven't signed up for G+, the real names policy does not apply to your profile. It is as simple as that.

You'll notice that the text in your screenshot ends like this: "We understand that G+ and its Names Policy is not for everyone at this time" (my emphasis). If you have signed up for G+ and get suspended, editing your profile to comply with the real names policy is not the only solution to keep your profile and profile-related services. As +Sophia Perera's story shows, you can simply leave G+ and revert to your pre-G+ life
+Peter da Silva You write: "Google states explicitly that the "real looking name" policy is a requirement of Google Profiles"

Link, please?
+Peter da Silva There's no mention of real names in the help page you link to. It simply says that you need a name of a profile. There's a link to another text called "Your name and Google+ Profiles" but that proves my point - not yours :-)

+Sophia Perera obviously did not lose access to all Profile-based services. If you were correct, her story wouldn't make sense

If you can find the time, I would love to see a link to Katie Watsons comment.
Norv N.
Jannik Lindquist, the link I posted above mentions exactly Picasa, Reader and Buzz. There are both reports stating that "other services work" without G+ and reports that they don't, and which. There are/were both bugs in the integration, as well as intended changes.

Re: If someone named, say, PunkRocker43 gets suspended, they will need to prove to Google that there is a human behind the name .
Of course there is a human behind the name. What else can it be? :)
A spammer is a human too, if that is what you may be referring to. An automated program, perhaps? There is no need for an "government issued ID", specially one as easily falsified as the experiment above shows, for detecting a bot.

That all said, I agree and I am aware that "real sounding names" are pretty much under the radar, except when someone is in the mood to report them for impersonation.
Norv N.
+Jannik Lindquist the latest example (but it's only an example, there are more cases) of profiles of users who are trying to revert to the situation before G+ suspension, and are unable to:
This is a long time Buzz user, without Buzz account facilities anymore.
Please keep in mind also that there were changes made lately to Profiles and policy, as well as procedure. I am still trying to get enough information about the current behavior.
I know Rainy very well and I am sorry for her situation. Whatever happened to her, I am positive that the way things is supposed to work is that you can revert to your pre-G+ life, if you want to

It seems to me that one of the things we are debating here is whether there has in fact been changes to relevant policies. So far you haven't given me any links that prove that any pre-G+ terms of service has changed
Norv N.
+Jannik Lindquist I completely agree that one should be able to revert to everything working prior to using G+.
I also would like to see how G+ suspensions affect only G+ (as it was my understanding that it should be, since I thought the names policy only applies to it, and perhaps +1 - actually perhaps Buzz as well but I wasn't sure whether Buzz did have such policy before or whether people were informed or not that it has now in particular circumstances), however that does not seem to be the case at all lately. I'm not sure how you read the link here:
I read it as: Buzz, Picasa and Reader depend on an active profile, and since "G+ account suspension" actually means Google Profile suspension, you are not able to make use of them. (I can't tell how truncated the actual use is, there are a few reports on that).
If you may not see this as a change, well, I definitely do. I was aware of (earlier) cases where more services were unavailable in different ways, but they proved unintended, and of earlier cases where no other services were reported affected. Also, I am aware of newer cases where these services are reported broken, and, more importantly, I am reading in the above message that it's by design, that it's intended for Reader, Picasa and Buzz to work under the Google Profile requirements.
If anything, I definitely see the intention of this requirement extending. Anyway, this might be less useful talk. I intend to make an experiment myself soon (when I get some time) to test a few more of this behavior and official stance. I am happy to see there are people optimistic here, unfortunately I admit I do not share it at this time.
Actually, if you choose to downgrade you are presented with a choice between deleting all G+-content and deleting the entire profile
Ok, I have now downgraded my second account and I still have full access to Buzz and the standard Google Profile - and to Picasa and Reader. The only thing I lost access to is G+
+Jannik Lindquist Glad to hear it, that's exactly what happened to me....I didn't lose access to anything except G+. I still have a public Google Profile too.
Add a comment...