No. I would have to vote against any measure trying to force a "real name" only rule. I try to make it a habit not to vote for things in Talossa that are more authoritarian and limiting than the laws of my resident country.
There is a difference between 'forcing a real name' and 'prohibiting fake names'. I proposed the latter.
In the UK I am free to go about my daily life using whatever name I so choose. This can be as simple as going by Eddie instead of Edward, or choosing to interchange both depending on how I feel. I actually do this, both at home and in Talossa. I can also choose to go by any random name. If I decide I don't like my surname, I can just decide, right here and right now, to start using a different one. If I fancy sounding more pompous in life I might want to choose to change my name to Reginald Nigel Hargreaves and it would be completely allowed. I don't need special certificates or anything if I want to do that. I'm sure the US has similar freedoms.
The US does not have similar freedoms.
For one, it would be grounds for fraud to walk around using different names.
For two, all (or nearly all) of the states require a process far more strenuous than you are describing. I have two personal friends who changed their names in the last 5 years, and it was not nearly as simple as paying some fees. A person has to send put out an ad in a newspaper whose audience is larger than a certain number; they have to send certified mail to all their creditors, and prove to the court that those creditors have received ALL POTENTIAL NOTIFICATION that the name change occurred; they have to wait X number of days so that members of the public may protest against the change; and they have to carry documents
for the rest of their lives to prove why their legal name is now different than their birth name.
For three, I strongly contest the assertion on its merits, anyways, that you can go around with "whatever name you so choose". Sure, in the narrowest sense possible, that is true and no one will stop you. But you cannot rightly purchase a car under "Steve Mccaw" while paying down a mortgage under "Julius Pumpernickel".
Yeah, the government cannot and will not proscribe any particular names - so I very well could change my own surname to
Pumpernickel - but I most certainly cannot walk around the community using two different names depending on who I want to fool. Actors don't get two stage names, and even when they use one, both the government and anyone who gives them money have every legal right to know their "real name" and their whereabouts (in addition to the legal power to find them and compel answers).
At least in the U.S., what you're describing would be fraudulent and constitute a cause of action for any civil suit... especially if any money was exchanged.
Of course, a limit applies. I can't have it printed on my driving licence or open a bank account in this new name unless I go through the 'deed poll' process. I say "process", but all I need to do is fill out a form and pay a fee.
See above.
When would it not be allowed? There might be more circumstances in the UK where it would not be allowed, but for now the only relevant answer is immigration. People coming into the country must provide immigration authorities with real details, obviously. However, once they have left the immigration buildings and have gone into the community, they can start going about using whatever name they wish.
That is the Talossan status quo (-ish). We demand that a real and legal name is collected during immigration. We verify that to the best of our ability. After that, we leave it up to the person to have the freedom to go by whatever name they wish for whatever reason they wish.
Bottom line. It is none of anyone's business, other than for official reasons, what a person's birth name might be unless they choose to tell you. The fact that somebody might not like that is, well, gradnă.
I'm gonna have to sternly agree to disagree. It is absolutely my right as a Talossan to know that the person on the other side of the table is real, acting in good faith, and answerable to a court of law. The entire fiasco of Guy Incognito is that, if it were not for his own failure to perpetuate his lies and hide them better, then one day he could have disappeared and taken Talossa's treasury/website/other property with him... and we would have ZERO recourse to recover any of it.
I do not care if someone uses a Talossan name. After all, look at me. What I do mind is when someone makes themself unanswerable to our laws.
Bottom line, if you can't trust Talossa enough with your "real name", then you don't belong here. Either you have a malicious agenda, you are flaky, you are trying to undermine the sovereignty or validity of our government, or combinations thereof.
I think I would support tougher measures of identity verification; that's fair enough. I think it will hurt immigration numbers, but I can get behind it. However, I will not support the abolition of deed polls / introduction of a "real names only" law. Again, I try to make it a habit not to vote for laws in Talossa that restrict freedoms to a degree where I would be less free in Talossa than I would be in my resident country of the UK.
It is possible to prohibit "fake names" at the same time as allowing "street names". These things are not mutually exclusive.