Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: No Anonymous Reply Option

by woolfy (Hermit)
on Nov 24, 2003 at 13:51 UTC ( #309528=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


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:

  • Not having to be afraid to be --ed, when one wants to play the XP game, and as a game it can be fun. And yes, I do check my own XP, but I know it means nothing, certainly not for me, my (little) knowledge of and exerience with Perl are not reflected by my (quite a lot of) XP at all, but still, I posted some good nodes and I am proud, also for the rep they have, I consider that for what it is, appreciation.
  • Legal issues; not having to post under your real name, not having to post under a new (another) identity, being completely free in what you want to say. Any company, institution, government agency or whatever is going to have difficulties to trace it.
  • I like this community because of the tolerance, the sense of humour, the knowledge, the willingness to help people. Anonimity plays a role in this. Lack of anonimity would make Perl Monks a less nice place. Making anonimity impossible might even be a reason for me to stop coming here. No big loss maybe. But still, I am not the only one who thinks that way.
  • Being able to tease someone. Let them guess who is teasing. Just for the fun of it. I really love some of those anonymous comments.
  • Maybe someone is using this forum for his public image, as a marketing tool. Some posts could damage that image. Let them. It does not hurt the monks. Yes, another account could be helpful, but it's a bit of a bother. Next to that, I hate that idea even more: someone with two or more accounts might ++ all his own nodes, just to play the XP game. Not fair at all.
  • I like the argument "try before buy". That's just how I did it. I posted 3 anonymous posts before signing up as woolfy.
  • For whatever reason they are posted anonymous, lots of the anonymous posts are brilliant. I really do not want to miss them. Was it necessary for those posts to be posted anonymously? I don't care, I'm glad they are posted anyhow.
  • Lighten up. Really. If you don't want to read the anonymous posts, ignore them. If someone posts an OT node, why bothering asking "where's the Perl in this", just ignore it, please don't get angered, it's better for your heart. There are so many good nodes at Perl Monks. Why bother to make so many sarcastic remarks to the posters of the lesser nodes.
  • And for the sake of the argument, replying to a useless post (well, useless maybe in your eyes), stating that that useless post is useless, well, that is really useless. Energy that could have been used more useful. The dozens of posts asking questions like "Where is the Perl in this question?", I consider those quite useless and very demoralizing.
  • So, when someone posts anonymously or not, what's the difference? You still might not know who's really posting. What would be the next step after abolishing anonimity, requiring a copy of a new monks' passport? I hope not.
  • It's not like making anonymous posts impossible would do any good. Monks who create a new account, and post just one node and never return, are just as irritating (or not irritating at all) as anonymous monks.
I considered posting this anonymously, just for the argument. Well, I didn't.


Comment on Re: Re: No Anonymous Reply Option
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.
      He does not want to ignore them, but disallow them. There's a difference.
      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.

      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.

        I think this site is very tolerant, of which this thread is a good example

        I guess that explains the -36 of the top node in this thread.

        Abigail

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://309528]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others romping around the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-10-21 10:59 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    For retirement, I am banking on:










    Results (100 votes), past polls