Re: Re: Re: Re: Increased number of downvotes at the Monastery? (no)

[BrowserUk]

Surely the question was not whether anyone could break the OP's choice for anonymity. The question is: Should they?

Whether the choice for anonymity is a valid chioce in this case or any other is an interesting debate, but irrelevant.

Whilst the choice exists, it should be made clear whether that choice has any meaning beyond "nobody--except any God that whimsically decides to look--will know who posted".

It's been stated elsewhere that there are certain activities and procedures that will enevitably lead to the authorised person carrying them out to encounter private information. I also seem to recollect that this was a) rare, b) came with the suggestion that any such authorised person making such an encounter would keep the information to themselves and "try to forget it".

Unless PM has processes in place that routinely cross-reference the ip of anonymous posters with the ip's of known posters, and routinely present this information to God's as they log-on, it would seem likely that the discovery of the OP's "true identity" was rather more than a chance encounter during routine operations.

Given that the OP was hardly controversial, in no way rude or offensive, and phrased as a very open question, there seems little reason for tye to ..use his powers to discover that true identity, other than to say "I have the power". Which doesn't seem to me to be a valid justification, and makes mockery of the notional anonymity provided by Anonymous Monk

[tye]

The poster rather clearly stated their reason for choosing anonymous posting. I don't feel I acted in contradiction to that stated reason.

whimsically[...]other than to say "I have the power"

I'm sad that you can't think of any other reason why I might do this. I was trying to be helpful. There was no whimsy involved on my part. Yes, I am often whimsical or perverse, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised if sometimes such is attributed to me erroneously.

It's been stated elsewhere that there are certain activities and procedures that will enevitably lead to the authorised person carrying them out to encounter private information. I also seem to recollect that this was a) rare, b) came with the suggestion that any such authorised person making such an encounter would keep the information to themselves and "try to forget it".

A request was made for feedback on an issue that I feel is important to the Monastery. It raised a point that I feel is a valid item to be concerned about and I wanted to investigate the situation as an administrator dealing with a potential problem. In the course of that investigation I went through a process to get summary information about what votes the author of the node had received when not being anonymous. That process was successful and required that I encounter some private information (their likely usual non-anonymous handle and information about many of the votes cast upon that). I honestly don't remember what that handle was nor much about the votes other than what I said in that node.

I would have preferred to privately ask the author if it would be okay if I looked into this, but to "privately ask" would require that I pierce their anonymity anyway. I was reluctant to do the search (and considered asking publicly) and then reluctant to report my findings, but both times I decided that the potential benefit justified the action. I can certainly see how some would take issue with those judgements and I may well take issue with them myself in the long run.

In part, I think a big issue here comes down to image. I currently care less about instilling an image of propriety than about actually acting with propriety. Unfortunately, when it comes to privileged actions, there will never be great transparency so this preference for substance over image is probably ill advised in this case.

I feel lucky that quite a few people that I respect actually trust my judgement (near as I can tell). But I need to remember that there are lots of people who have no reason to trust my judgement so I should be trying to appear trustworthy (my need to actually be trustworthy is based on other reasons). (I should probably try to phrase that more clearly... rather, I *have* tried to phrase that more clearly but have now given up, despite realizing that it may be misread and give the wrong impression, thus proving that I still need work on appearances.)

Thanks for being frank. I'll try to do better (both at instilling trustworthiness and at actually treating the boundaries more strictly).

[Anonymous Monk]

I don't feel I acted in contradiction to that stated reason.

As the original poster, I feel I should mention that I completely agree. I do not feel violated that tye pierced the veil of anonymity. In fact, the reaction I had more than anything was amusement that he would even bother to look up the history of the votes I received. I appreciate the effort and the information he gave. In short, I cast my vote (pun intended) on the side of thinking it was an appropriate thing to do.

[BrowserUk]

My use of the word whimsical was to indicate that your decision was capricious, ie. ungoverned, and entirely at your own perrogative, rather than perverse or light-hearted.

I wasn't attempting to call your integrity into question. I recognise that you did not anounce the OPs monkname.

The only point I had was that anonymity is only worthy of the name if it cannot be trivially (in terms of the decision to do it, rather than the process involved) violated.

Had I been the OP in this instance, I would have preferred a "If you'll contact me privately and identify yourself to me, I will look up the statistics".

I would say that I consider the privacy issue all together more important that the rate of downvotes.

[Anonymous Monk]

Honestly, I, for one, have never doubted your integrity tye, and I still don't. But, if you don't view the violation of anonymity as an extreme measure, and there are a dozen other god's and I don't know how many other admins with such power (perhaps with similarly relaxed views)... well, the history of 'good intentions' doesn't inspire my continued confidence in the integrity of anonymity and privacy on perlmonks. Which is sad, because I rather liked it here.

[tye]

violation of anonymity

Temporary "violation of anonymity" to one person, when the reason for anonymity was clearly given. As far as I'm concerned, the person is still (or is once again) anonymous. I don't know their usual monk name. During the short time that knew it, I didn't tell anyone else.

Yeah, I don't see how this was "an extreme measure". Maybe you could convince me of it, but I'm not even close at this point. I do take anonymity very seriously.

Now, actually doing something that I'd call "violation of anonymity" is something that I would consider extreme.

Which is sad, because I rather liked it here.

So are you concerned that a couple of gods might connect your non-anonymous monk name with some nodes that you posted anonymously and therefore you wish to no longer use the site? If so, then I'd appreciate some insight into why that is so strong a concern for you. If not, I'd appreciate some insight into the more extreme problem you are projecting from this incident.

[kudra]

: Given that the OP was hardly controversial, in no way rude or offensive, and phrased as a very open question,

I agree with this. But not the rest of the line. When I read the original post, I read it as "I'm worried I'm getting more downvotes, and want to know if this is true, without getting more downvotes." In short, I see it as a request for information. But clearly, there are two ways of reading it.

Therefore possible solutions would be: 1) just give everyone more detailed information (possibly in such a way that you wouldn't have to see it if you didn't want to) such as "You have gained 2 experience points. You have 200000000 points to go to reach level vroom. (+3,-1)" or having nodes show the + and - votes as well as the total. The arguments against this have generally been that this information will cause obsession about points, but tye's willingness to answer the question suggests that perhaps the attitude has changed.

2) /msg gods Could you please tell me if I've been losing more xp lately?

With either of these solutions, the original poster gets what she or he wants (an answer without exposing her/himself to the world at large), and tye isn't guessing about whether it was an answer or a conversation that the person wanted, so everyone else is happy too.

Update Summary of my post could be that I agree with point 1 below and am not at all concerned about point 3.

[BrowserUk]

I agree with this. But not the rest of the line.

1. The first part of the sentence was simply meant indicate that there was nothing in the OP that required even editor-action, never mind God-action. That's all. I specifically made no mention nor inference about the content of the post.
2. The second part of the sentence was intended to indicate that tye had taken an
   1. Unusual step -- I've never seen a post that was effectively complaining about XP, responded to with specific information by a God.

      They are generally ignored, or the community responds with the "XP + $2.00 buys you a burger" etc.

   2. A capricious step -- there was no sign of any consultation; change in the guidelines; or a generally available service.

      Every indication was that tye chose to find out the facts and deliver them as a way of supppressing any further speculation.

      Of itself this is a perfectly laudable aim, but...

   3. A "questionable" step -- That there are, and have to be, people who have the access to perform the kind of analysis required to discover the OP's monk-id, is obvious and unconcealed, if not widely discussed.

      But previous discussions and implications of the possibility have (to my knowledge) always been confined to the realms of XP cheat detection. Ie. Are there any monks that have created 2 or more monk-ids for the purpose of using the secondary accounts to upvote their own nodes on their primary account. As such, the wielding of the power has been (in my interpretation) a necessary evil required to mantain the status quo.

      In this case, there was no such reason for the power to be weilded.

   In my view, tye's action was a perfectly reasonable response to the OP, and I didn't respond to his post on that basis. However, the question arose (by an Anonymous Monk though we later learn, not the original one), as to whether his action was a) justified in the circumstance. b) was an abuse of his power given the lack of any trollish behaviour to so justify it.

but tye's willingness to answer the question suggests that perhaps the attitude has changed.

The post to which I responded was generally dismissive of this second Anonymous Monk's concerns that this was a step beyond the previously accepted bounds of the use of the power.

It was in response to this indifference to the apparent change in policy that I posted. I felt any such change in attitude or policy should be, if not a community decision, then at least an announced policy with the boundaries clearly stated. Rather than capricious, as it appeared to be, despite that it was apparent that "no harm was done" and "good intentions" were inferable.

I realise now that my wording plus perhaps a little history, made it look like a personal attack on tye, that wasn't my intent. Nor was I suggesting any changes to the XP system--though my long standing, personal preference would be for (nn++/mm--) both on individual posts and totals.

It was made in defense of the concern that an unannounce change of policy regarding anonymity was now in force.