Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
 
PerlMonks  

Re^14: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em

by CountZero (Bishop)
on Oct 04, 2011 at 10:29 UTC ( #929498=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^13: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em
in thread to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em

And as long as you remain in the room you remain "branded" as "Anonymous Monk # x". Wherever you move in the room, you will still be recognized (for a very weak form of recognition) as "Anonymous Monk # x". Hence you are recognizable and whatever you said can be related to "you", even if this "you" will disappear as soon as you leave the room.

CountZero

A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James


Comment on Re^14: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em
Re^15: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em
by Anonymous Monk on Oct 04, 2011 at 10:30 UTC
    Duh
Re^15: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Oct 04, 2011 at 10:57 UTC

    There are very few reasons for needing that level of anonymity -- and none of them are good or honourable. Two purposes come to mind: sock-puppetry & trolling.

    There are no legitimate reasons in having two or more comments in the same thread, by the same anonymous source, disassociated from each other.

    For all other purposes, the ability to hold a conversation, anonymously, but with the continuity of the exchange unendangered by crosstalk with other AMs -- accidental or malicious -- can only be a good thing for all parties to the conversation.


    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
      There are very few reasons for needing that level of anonymity -- and none of them are good or honourable.
      You do realize I hope that this is a most dangerous reasoning?

      It is in the same category as the Government saying, "You do not need that strong level of encryption as none of your reasons for hiding your messages are good or honourable" (as per our Government sanctioned definition of "good" and "honourable").

      If you want to avoid the crosstalk, use your PM-identity.

      Honestly, why would someone use the AM option at all? It can only be for bad or dishonourable purposes, such as trolling or not taking responsability for what one says. (and I am being sarcastic here)

      CountZero

      A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

        You do realize I hope that this is a most dangerous reasoning?

        Absolutely not.

        And your analogy is wrong. This isn't a "lesser anonymity", it is still total. There is just disambiguation between multiple AMs.

        Think of it like double blind drug trials. No one suggests that the active and placebo pills should not be labelled A & B. And there is no reduction in the efficacy of the trials by doing so. No one is the wiser by their having been labelled rather than distributed unlabelled.

        And there would be no loss of anonymity by allowing us to distinguish between the posts of two (or more) AMs within a thread.

        If you want to avoid the crosstalk, use your PM-identity.

        The beneficiaries of the measure would be all those who do use their handles, that engage in conversations with AMs.

        That is, this isn't aimed at benefiting the AMs -- though they might be glad of not having to add annotations like "I'm the original poster", to their posts -- it is aimed at those conversing with them.

        Honestly, why would someone use the AM option at all?

        There are good reasons for the AM option. And none of them would be compromised by this.

        The only reduction, is that of the current possibility for one person to pretend to be multiple people -- either arguing with themselves; or coming out in support of themselves -- and the only uses for that possibility are trolling and sock-puppetry which are universally recognised as bad for PM.

        Reducing abuse whilst protecting identity should be seen as a good thing.


        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://929498]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others drinking their drinks and smoking their pipes about the Monastery: (11)
As of 2014-09-18 15:58 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (117 votes), past polls