I was told today that nicknames (screen names), initials, etc DO NOT COUNT
you must use a full name to count as testimony

I was told today that nicknames (screen names), initials, etc DO NOT COUNT
you must use a full name to count as testimony

Who told you exactly what?

I counted 8 first-name-only published testimony submissions on SB2046, and one blank, no name at all. Do you mean they "do not count as official public statements that could influence a legislator's decision, i.e. they are disregarded"? I'd think if they are disregarded, of no official status, they wouldn't be published in the first place. I'd also think that the information re submitting testimony would have some warning/disclaimer that submissions must include the full name of the person submitting testimony.

I was told today that nicknames (screen names), initials, etc DO NOT COUNT
you must use a full name to count as testimony

Any idea if the counts shown here show raw testimony? Or those “counted” with full names. I know a few who submit testimony under full names, but might change first or last name to remain anonymous. One is for work reasons. Not sure on others.

I also wondered if they would check against registered voters, but one only needs an email address and to provide other info to submit testimony IIRC.

Who told you exactly what?

I counted 8 first-name-only published testimony submissions on SB2046, and one blank, no name at all. Do you mean they "do not count as official public statements that could influence a legislator's decision, i.e. they are disregarded"? I'd think if they are disregarded, of no official status, they wouldn't be published in the first place. I'd also think that the information re submitting testimony would have some warning/disclaimer that submissions must include the full name of the person submitting testimony.

I was told by a person who is in a position to know
but yes, your interpretation is correct - "do not count as official public statements that could influence a legislator's decision, i.e. they are disregarded"
do not shoot the messenger
you can choose to ignore my advice if you would like
but I am only passing on the information so that our testimony is heard

Probably one of those things that are not recommended versus ineligible.  Supposed to be professional when giving testimony.  I wouldn't go to a job interview saying "I'm ZippZ"

It's contained in the Terms on the Legislature website:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/submittestimony.aspx

a user's name and email address, is required to submit testimony through the Legislature's website
to ensure that testimony is being submitted by a real person and not an automatic program

Probably one of those things that are not recommended versus ineligible.  Supposed to be professional when giving testimony.  I wouldn't go to a job interview saying "I'm ZippZ"

According to whom? That's just another strategy by the elites as they impose their will on the know-nothing deplorable little people. "We expect you to conduct yourselves in a manner that meets with our standards and approval. If you don't do it our way we will ignore even more than we totally ignore you now." People should be able to communicate whatever they want in whatever manner they choose. For example, "You are a bunch of lying oath-breaking traitors and tyrants. I despise the agenda you are attempting to force upon the citizens of this state and the manner in which you do it. You are all criminals and deserve the harshest punishment possible" would be totally acceptable testimony to me, and ought not be deemed void simply because it doesn't meet the elites rules of decorum (and the truth hurts).

Besides, who really thinks that "being professional" makes any difference? I challenge anyone to prove that claim.

It's contained in the Terms on the Legislature website:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/submittestimony.aspx

It doesn't say "full legal name". Or "first and last legal name". Or "full name as it appears on state issued Identification or other official government identification".

The only named concern is that it is "a real person and not an automated program". No full name is necessary for that, nor would providing what appears to be a full name verify that that is the name of the person submitting the testimony.

This isn't sworn testimony before a grand jury or trial jury under penalty of perjury.

Have you ever gotten a followup email or call after submitting testimony to verify that you are "a real person"? Is anyone here claiming that including an apparent first and last name is "proof" that a person is real and a first name only is "proof" that a person isn't real?

Are you asserting that the 8 people who submitted testimony signed only by what appears to be their first name are not "real persons"? What is the evidence that they are not real persons? What is the evidence that all of the people that submitted testimony with a first and last name are real persons? Why the hell does it make any difference?

I know, it's their game, their rules, and they can do whatever they want. And obviously do. Doesn't mean I have to like or approve of their irrational diktats (e.g. see "multiburst" being defined using the word "burst" in HB1908, etc.).

It doesn't say "full legal name". Or "first and last legal name". Or "full name as it appears on state issued Identification or other official government identification".

The only named concern is that it is "a real person and not an automated program". No full name is necessary for that, nor would providing what appears to be a full name verify that that is the name of the person submitting the testimony.

This isn't sworn testimony before a grand jury or trial jury under penalty of perjury.

Have you ever gotten a followup email or call after submitting testimony to verify that you are "a real person"? Is anyone here claiming that including an apparent first and last name is "proof" that a person is real and a first name only is "proof" that a person isn't real?

Are you asserting that the 8 people who submitted testimony signed only by what appears to be their first name are not "real persons"? What is the evidence that they are not real persons? What is the evidence that all of the people that submitted testimony with a first and last name are real persons? Why the hell does it make any difference?

I know, it's their game, their rules, and they can do whatever they want. And obviously do. Doesn't mean I have to like or approve of their irrational diktats (e.g. see "multiburst" being defined using the word "burst" in HB1908, etc.).

If the testimony submitted online resembles automated submissions, it can be flagged for follow-up investigation.  At that point, they can contact you for verification that you are a real person and did submit the testimony.

They should not summarily make such a judgement without sending an email to the person testifying, or calling if that information is part of the user's profile.

I would like to think all the testimony is being accepted and included in the record UNLESS someone tries to contact you, and you ignore them or used a bogus email address and name.  Use of initials and screen names is a standard privacy measure when registering online.  If the profile needs to be updated, whoever reviews the testimonies should contact anyone with questionable content before excluding their inputs. 

Nobody here is "asserting" anything other than what was stated.  Use your real name, or risk your testimony being rejected.  Complaints or questions should be directed to the legislature.  Perhaps this would be a great question for the next hearing, if anyone shows up in person.