I did the same thing. I can't even explain why but I lost all enthusiasm for it right at that point even though I was using my real name. The whole thing just seemed less interesting, less like a platform and more like a ploy, less new and more same-old-same-old. I think I also knew at that point that while conversation on G+ may be more civil it will be a lot less interesting. Certainly I was never going to discuss some of the more out-of-my-comfort-zone topics that I nonetheless find interesting there if I had to do it under my real name. I wasn't actively thinking this, but I just stopped checking it all of a sudden. Maybe I just got bored but I really think the real name debacle pushed it over a threshold somehow.
> Say what you like about Facebook, but if they ban your account, you don't lose your email, documents, calendar, etc etc etc. You can't say that about Google.
That's a little harsh. The people being banned from G+ aren't losing their whole accounts (well, not intentionally anyway). To do that you have to exhibit a level of maliciousness far beyond using a non-real name.
I think I also knew at that point that while conversation on G+ may be more civil it will be a lot less interesting.
Real Name policies don't necessarily make discussion more civil. Less of the low-grade trolling (throwaway posts lined with racial slurs) occurs, of course, but when people have reputations to defend the flamewars that do occur get a bit nastier and last a bit longer. Arguments that people would walk away from under anonymous conditions tend to spin out of control. There's an upper bound on the ugliness of an anonymous discussion that people break through when real identities come out.
Wikipedia has something like a Real Names policy: various by-laws that pertain to personal identity. This is because (a) decisions are made based on consensus rather than correctness, and "sock puppets" corrupt this process, (b) they have a hideously badly-conceived "3 revert rule" which is supposed to apply on a per-person basis (but actually means edit wars are won by the person who has taken the time to cultivate/level-grind convincing sock puppets), and (c) blocks and bans are supposed to apply to people, not accounts. What this means in practice is that an easy way to shut down an opponent is to accuse him of someone else's identity, and an easy way to grab power one hasn't earned is to cultivate sock puppets that look like other people (as pretty much all of Wikipedia's "admins" do). It's a revolting failure, and community problems are the major reason why Wikipedia is starting to decline.
> Say what you like about Facebook, but if they ban your account, you don't lose your email, documents, calendar, etc etc etc. You can't say that about Google.
That's a little harsh. The people being banned from G+ aren't losing their whole accounts (well, not intentionally anyway). To do that you have to exhibit a level of maliciousness far beyond using a non-real name.