http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=309528


in reply to Re: No Anonymous Reply Option
in thread No Anonymous Reply Option

Well, those first three anymous postings are very clear, just basically answering the question (what do these monks think), making clear some AnonyMonks (some are probably respected monks), sometimes want to be anynomous:
* Horrible idea.
* Why would you want that? Don't you like us, the AnonyMonks? By the way, the answer is no, not yet, and as a proud member of the AnonyMonk I would be against it, because it is so much fun to know nobody knows my name.
* I am an anonymous monkette and I find your suggestion rude and silly. The AMs have always had a home in the monastery. It would be wrong to forbid us to reply to posts here.

The fourth one is very clear, giving reasons "why":

I do not like this idea. I have some reasons why.
tilly, one of our most valuable monks was in Anonymous Monk exile for a while. I certainly would not have wanted to preclude him from replying to any of my posts.
This is a public forum - public means public.
Some of the contributions to the offering plate are made anonymously - would you really want to deny someone who pays money so that you can enjoy this site from replying to your node?
No matter how idealistic you are, reality is that we have a damn good system that shouldn't be changed without serious consideration.

Anonymous Monk means:

I considered posting this anonymously, just for the argument. Well, I didn't.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: No Anonymous Reply Option
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Nov 24, 2003 at 14:34 UTC
    Let's make one point clear. The proposal was not to eliminate all monks, but to disallow anonymous replies to ones own posting.

    People can still post a million times without fear of losing XP, they just can't anonymously insult someone who wants not to have anonymous replies. You still can have 'fun' with the anonymous monks - perhaps they can make it a user option that you are blissfully unaware of postings marked "non- anonymous replies", so there's no reason for you to leave Perlmonks. (But tolerance? Here? I don't think this place is very tolerant - just look at this thread for instance). As for anonymous monk teasing, well, I haven't seen much 'teasing'. Insults, yes. Teasing? Nope. Besides, only cowards tease anonymously. And yes, some anonymous posts are brilliant, but some non-anonymous posts are as well. Being anonymous isn't necessary to post a brilliant article.

    If you don't want to read the anonymous posts, ignore them.
    Well, that's what the request is about, isn't? Ignoring anonymous posts.

    Abigail

      Well, that's what the request is about, isn't? Ignoring anonymous posts.

      No, it was not about ignoring them, but about making it completely impossible to reply anonymously to a node.

      The next step might be to make it completely impossible to be anonymous. Which I would not like.

      I think this site is very tolerant, of which this thread is a good example: it is polite, substantial, humorous, informative. No insults.

      As for anonymous monk teasing, well, I haven't seen much 'teasing'. Insults, yes. Teasing? Nope. Besides, only cowards tease anonymously.

      No teasing? Oh?. Your threshold for considering something an insult might be a bit lower than mine. I think "coward" is a very big word, somewhat insulting. And regarding insults or demeaning stuff, let the innocent ones throw the first stone, brick, pebble, rock (lets not do a menhir).

      And yes, some anonymous posts are brilliant, but some non-anonymous posts are as well. Being anonymous isn't necessary to post a brilliant article.

      So? The Worst Nodes of all time contains no posts of anonymous monks (neither does Best Nodes of all time). You don't have a point here.

      Too much fuss about anonimity. Really.

      A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
      Well, that's what the request is about, isn't? Ignoring anonymous posts.
      No. The request is about dictating which monks can reply. I can easily see artist requesting later on that only teabag, jZed, JPaul (I just picked these names from the chatterbox)... monks be allowed to respond to his questions.
      Well, that's what the request is about, isn't? Ignoring anonymous posts.
      He does not want to ignore them, but disallow them. There's a difference.