The ^ and & got started on the forerunner to Pavilion (http://www.karitas.net/pavilion), in an essay called Plural Politenesses. (http://www.karitas.net/pavilion/library/articles/c_ppolite_ast-hon0802.html) Basically the idea behind it was that it makes it easier on non-multiple friends if, when speaking about someone, you clarify whether they're in your group or external to you. OTOH, I don't use it much in practice these days unless I'm talking about someone who rarely or never fronts-- I assume that most of our friends are familiar with the frontrunners and don't need to be reminded that, say, Anthea or Julian are members of our system. I do sometimes use the & when talking about other multiples, to specify that a certain name is a system/house name and not that of a particular person.
As far as fakers and trolls go, I personally assume from the first that there are always going to be some. Considering the reputation multiples have had in the past, and continue to have, as out-of-control psychopaths who can't be held responsible for their own behaviour and expected to control it (but of course also brave, pitiable victims), ala Sally Field in The Movie Which Shall Not Be Named, some people are always going to jump onto the wagon and use it as an excuse to act out, to do and say what they've always wanted and blame it on 'alters,' or to try to get sympathy. The thing about attention-seekers is that if you don't respond to them in the way they want, they tend to go elsewhere to get their fix. Basically, what I try to do is to treat everyone as though I'm taking their subjective experiences (I can clarify that if you want) at face value, and give them what I consider to be practical advice. So, for instance, if someone invents a story about their struggle with an evil system member or whatever because they want people to gasp in horror at it or pat them on the back for being a brave survivor, they're probably not going to get that from me. I'm just going to give them the rundown on what I think is a good strategy for resolving things with this dark spooky person, presuming they do indeed exist. People tend to get less enthusiastic about inventing crises du jour if nobody makes a fuss over them.
no subject
As far as fakers and trolls go, I personally assume from the first that there are always going to be some. Considering the reputation multiples have had in the past, and continue to have, as out-of-control psychopaths who can't be held responsible for their own behaviour and expected to control it (but of course also brave, pitiable victims), ala Sally Field in The Movie Which Shall Not Be Named, some people are always going to jump onto the wagon and use it as an excuse to act out, to do and say what they've always wanted and blame it on 'alters,' or to try to get sympathy. The thing about attention-seekers is that if you don't respond to them in the way they want, they tend to go elsewhere to get their fix. Basically, what I try to do is to treat everyone as though I'm taking their subjective experiences (I can clarify that if you want) at face value, and give them what I consider to be practical advice. So, for instance, if someone invents a story about their struggle with an evil system member or whatever because they want people to gasp in horror at it or pat them on the back for being a brave survivor, they're probably not going to get that from me. I'm just going to give them the rundown on what I think is a good strategy for resolving things with this dark spooky person, presuming they do indeed exist. People tend to get less enthusiastic about inventing crises du jour if nobody makes a fuss over them.