I think the concerns are a resulting from some profiles tthat have been banned which are names peole have been logging under and been recognised under for a very long time. Those names make them more identifiable to the peoeple they want to communicate with than their actual name or photo.
After all... a name or photo on its own has zero value or credibility - it's only after that name or profile picture/icon/avatar is associated with worlds and actions that people begin to assign things like reputation, credibility and trust.
When a name with reputation and credibility is removed because someone decided it lacked 'realism' it becomes a concern - particularly when peole have been familiar with that individual under whatever name they were using for a number of years.
I don't believe the policy is that clear cut. It seems to imply that if it's a name that those who you regularly communicate with recognise and relate to, then it's ok... and that whole identified/unidentified/pseudonymous, identified post really is not clear.
I understand abuse reports (is someone using their account to harass, spam or bully?) but I don't understand the insistence on names. People use nicknames/onine names and pseudonyms that are recognisable to those they want to communicate and therefore credibible to their target audience for a number of reasons including:
* reputation, credibility and trust - a number of people have gone by the same nickname online for a number of years. It's how their networks, peers, colleagues, friends and family recognise them. To change their nickname to their actual name may mean people cannot find them; don't trust the name - it's a personal rebranding exercise which we all know can be costly... and not always successful.
* safety for those in abuse situations - people who have been the vicitims of abuse, vicimisation or stalkers and who prefer not to use a readily identifiable name and photo for saftey reasons
* online safety 101 - is it really wise to give all of your personal details away and make yourself readily identifiable if you don't know who you are talking to?
* Personal preference, it's the name or nickname they prefer to go by offline and online.
* People who have seemingly real names and/or photos are not necessarily using their own real name or photo and may use the attached account to lie, deceive and mislead... again, the name and photo are just a tool they use to do this... they tell us zero on their own about the persons motivation, it's only their actions and words that do this.
Perhaps simply having the real name hidden and instead having a field preferred name might be a happy medium for many (with the ability for people to restrict entirely sharing of the email address)
I quite liked the botgirl summary - she uses the word avatar but it could just as easily be replaced with 'nickname' or pseudonym: http://vimeo.com/26180854
Disclosure: I use three main online names - one primarily for work; one primarily for social and one that started as being primarily for second life but has blurred lines with personal and work. I don't use my full real name in real life but instead am referred to mostly by my last name as a first name or... by some friends by other nicknames, including Moggs - which comes from real life but ended as a seconlife identity. My work online name is a single word, with a real photo. I've been using it for over 10 years with and without a photo. My personal account is a single word that probably seems random to many but I've been using that online longer than my work account - over 10 years; my second life account (this one) has been in use for ~4-5 years. Each of these profiles have associated reputation and trust.