|more useful options|
Re^5: Reputation and Accountability (system)by tye (Cardinal)
|on Jun 12, 2003 at 22:00 UTC||Need Help??|
I agree that being muted anonymously can be more aggrevating. I assert that it can also be less aggrevating. And I say this from experience on both sides.
I've been in situations where the fact that the enforcement of some rule was done as a personal judgement by someone completely anonymous to me made me realize that authority was involved and so I should probably pick a different fight. I couldn't even "appeal" to the authority and sometimes that was a good thing. It even worked in this case based on the data I have (in that you kept swearing when asked non-anonymously but stopped when punished anonymously).
I don't think it is a simple conclusion from "anonymous" to "abuse of power". It should be an exception. It is an exception. And when it becomes a problem, there are several different ways to deal with it.
If every time someone talks to a disruptive users, the response is shouted back, then it is useful to have authorities that can hide behind a sham simply to deny the disruptive user someone to shout back at.
As dws says, if they then decide to shout back at the site, then discussion happens and perhaps improvements are made (in the system, in the minds of those who run it, in who runs it, in the members or membership, whatever).
I don't believe in applying systems (making things automatic) in cases that still require judgement. I think you'll agree that silencing should not be made automatic. I feel that whether to silence anonymously or non-anonymously should also not be made automatic (by disabling anonymous silencing).- tye