Why Real Names Might Not Belong on Scoreboards

In academic and competitive environments, scoreboards and leaderboards are essential tools for tracking results and performance. Whether used in classrooms, competitions, or online platforms, these tools are crucial for providing transparency, motivation, and recognition. However, including real names on scoreboards raises important considerations about privacy, dignity, and fairness — especially in culturally and religiously sensitive contexts such as Quran competitions. This article explores why real names might not belong on scoreboards, presenting both practical and ethical reasons, and offering examples of alternatives that support inclusivity and discretion.

Balancing Transparency and Privacy

One of the main reasons organisers may choose to display real names on scoreboards is to ensure transparency. Publicly showing results with identifying information can help build trust in the fairness of a process. However, this transparency must be balanced with participants’ privacy rights.

  • Personal Data Protection: Displaying real names publicly, especially for minors, raises concerns about data protection. Under data protection laws such as the UK’s Data Protection Act 2018 and the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), names often qualify as personally identifiable information (PII). This means sharing them without consent can be unlawful.
  • Digital Permanence: Once names appear on a public scoreboard, especially if it is hosted online, they are subject to indexing by search engines. This can create a lasting digital footprint, which participants may not expect or desire.

Mitigating Embarrassment and Psychological Harm

Competitions can create high-pressure environments, especially in public or educational settings. When participants see their names next to low scores or rankings, it can affect confidence and morale.

  • Risk of Shame: Young or sensitive individuals may feel humiliated if they see their names publicly listed at the bottom of a scoreboard. This can discourage participation and adversely impact their emotional well-being.
  • Unintended Labelling: Publicly ranking real names risks defining individuals by a single performance. In Quran competitions, for example, making mistakes in recitation is part of the learning process. Displaying results without context can label participants unfairly as ‘weak’ performers.

Cultural and Religious Contexts

Quran competitions and related assessments often take place in faith-based settings where modesty, dignity, and respect are central values. These values extend beyond appearance to matters of social honour and community perception.

  • Respecting Adab (Etiquette): Islamic traditions highly value the dignity of every individual, especially learners and those engaged in religious pursuits. Naming someone publicly for a low score may be seen as contrary to these values.
  • Gender Considerations: In communities that observe strict gender interaction boundaries, displaying real names—particularly of female participants—may not be acceptable. Using real names could inadvertently expose participants to unwanted attention.

Legal and Ethical Responsibilities

Ensuring a fair, secure, and respectful competition requires organisers to consider legal obligations and ethical principles. Beyond data protection laws, ethical guidelines call for safeguarding the dignity and welfare of all participants.

  • Informed Consent: If real names are to be included on scoreboards, organisers must obtain explicit, informed consent from participants or their guardians. This process should make clear where and how names will be displayed.
  • Safeguarding Duty: In educational and religious contexts, there is often a formal safeguarding duty to protect children and vulnerable participants from harm — including public shame or cyber exposure.

Alternative Identification Methods

To preserve privacy while maintaining functionality, many organisers are adopting alternative approaches to identifying participants on scoreboards. These methods remove the risks associated with using real names while still enabling fair recognition of performance.

1. Unique Participant Codes

Assigning each participant a unique alphanumeric code or ID is a practical and widely accepted method of anonymisation. This allows organisers to display scores in a non-identifiable format during the review period.

  • Benefits: Codes protect identity, comply with data protection laws, and simplify internal data handling.
  • Considerations: The code generation system should be robust to avoid duplications or guessable entries.

2. Pseudonyms or Nicknames

With participant consent, organisers may allow carefully chosen pseudonyms or nicknames to appear on scoreboards. These can maintain a sense of identity while reducing the risk of exposure.

  • Benefits: Offers a personalised touch without exposing full legal names.
  • Considerations: Participants must ensure their chosen identifiers are appropriate and not offensive or misleading.

3. Initials and Group Identification

Using initials, group labels (e.g. “Participant from B3 Group”), or team names offers a way to display performance information publicly while protecting individual identities.

  • Benefits: Can help group results while masking individual details.
  • Considerations: In small-sized groups, this method may still indirectly reveal identities.

Addressing Concerns Around Anonymised Scoreboards

Some organisers may worry that removing real names from scoreboards reduces recognition or accountability. However, if executed well, these concerns can be managed effectively.

  • Individual Feedback Channels: Instead of using scoreboards to communicate detailed feedback, organisers can opt for personalised reports or private dashboards.
  • Recognition Through Consent-Based Channels: For top performers who consent to public recognition, names can be shared in certificates, newsletters, or award announcements separately from the scoreboard.

Examples from Educational and Competitive Platforms

Many educational institutions and online platforms have already adopted these practices:

  • Competitive Programming Platforms: Sites like Codeforces and HackerRank allow users to create usernames, which are shown on scoreboards instead of real names.
  • Academic Testing Services: Standardised testing platforms often use candidate numbers rather than names when publishing results.
  • Local Quran Competitions: Many mosques and Islamic centres use numbering systems or aliases on public displays, with final certificates holding full names distributed in private.

Best Practices for Organisers

To protect participant welfare and meet ethical standards, organisers of any competition or assessment should consider the following best practices:

  • Conduct a privacy and data protection review before publishing any personal identifiers.
  • Offer clear explanations and permissions processes when participants register.
  • Allow participants to choose from identifier options (e.g. nickname, code, initials).
  • Use anonymised scoreboards for public display and reserve real names for private communications.
  • Review cultural and community norms as part of event planning.

Conclusion

Public scoreboards are essential tools in competitive and educational settings, but the inclusion of real names poses several risks, especially in environments that value modesty, tradition, and child protection. Through careful planning and thoughtful alternatives — such as using pseudonyms, participant codes, or initials — organisers can strike a balance between transparency and discretion. This approach ultimately supports fairness, consent, and the ethical treatment of participants, particularly in religious and youth-focused events like Quran competitions.

If you need help with your Quran competition platform or marking tools, email info@qurancompetitions.tech.

Related Posts