Hello monklian colleagues.

DISCLAIMER: I myself am the monk indicated where the OP, in the Top Node mentions that there has been flack:

the sixth reply in "When cpan returns ..." which links to "Re^3: Updating Config.pm" - that's me and so on.

Kindly notice that I didn't have to put that "disclaimer" on at all. Given the level of attentiveness that is exemplified by marto's reply (not high), a lot of readers would not even have noticed.

marto writes:

---

Once again, no. I see no compelling argument for raising the bar for posting/contributing. Recently I've seen some great contributions from anonymous posters. The existing janitoring/moderation processes work pretty well. If trolling is a concern tye has many great posts on the subject which are worth searching for and reading.

At time of posting, the thread you link to has two replies from Anonymous monk. I don't see any of them as being a reason to change how things currently work.

---

I disagree with marto's statements. And I am going be detailed in explaining that.

This is how I disagree:

marto has 3 kinds of statements here.

• Statements of conclusion (summary opinions). His are:
  1. Once again, no.
  2. The existing janitoring/moderation processes work pretty well.
• Statements of fact. His are:
  1. At time of posting, the thread you link to has two replies from Anonymous monk.
• Statements of unsupported opinion. His are:
  1. Recently I've seen some great contributions from anonymous posters
  2. I see no compelling argument for raising the bar for posting/contributing.
  3. I don't see any of them as being a reason to change how things currently work

Before I go on, I'll state that my own philosophy regarding my posting on Perlmonks is now guided by 2 of the Principles articulated by BrowserUK in his often-seen .sig line. marto's comment demonstrates either ignorance of these principles or an inability to see how he can apply them to his own participation on Perlmonks. As a reminder, those Two Principles are:

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

I call these the Principles of Dispassionate Objectivism.

Note: there are 5 postings by Anonymous Monk in the thread as I write. Not two.

There were no examples given of some "great contributions from anonymous posters (recently)". Absence of evidence.

In fact, the second thread linked to by the OP contains examples of crappy postings by Anonymous Monk. Perhaps it was too much trouble to visit more than one link? Sorry if I make marto feel judged: but I see (false) laziness. Challenge me on my characterization of the posts. Nobody was paying any attention to that thread; now perhaps they will. Try some objectivism and evaluate the quality of "advice" given by Anonymous Monk in that thread. It is not up to Perlmonks standard. It is badly worded, confusing, seems mistaken in important points of basic fact (but hard to tell, since is so badly worded), rife with mere opinion, covered with the smell of a puerile little joker of a skript-kiddie with too much time on his hands and an odd mentality of inverse arrogance (to fragile an ego to take contradiction as his own identity, so that he has to hide behind anonymity).

marto posted one statements of fact (how many replies in thread indicated, by Anonymous Monk). The remainder were opinions, conclusions and characterizations. I have to wonder, looking at that bunch of statements, what Perlmonks marto is reading? It's not the same one I am reading. I see that the postings by Anonymous Monk (whether worthwhile or low-quality / misleading / ignorant) are overtaking postings by Registered users in frequency. I submit to the critique of others, that this is just an impression; go ahead and challenge it, anyone, with hard stats. Play the pissing contest game for all its worth. Refute my one point and my other points still remain. Nobody at Perlmonks will convincingly refute them all, I am confident, because no one can.

Maybe marto figures that he is just "silencing" a redundant or repeated challenge issued and he resented being under the obligation to do so so much that he could not muster a sincere effort. I contend that sundialsvc4's original post was well-worded, courteous towards all, reasonable, and proper. It merited a far more respectful response than it got from most of the commentators who have chimed in so far. This lack of respect demonstrates that marto disregards (or cannot evaluate his own attitudes by the light of) the Principle: "Examine what is said, not who speaks". It should not be the primary thing that the OP has raised this issue before. It should be acceptable for a legitimate user to raise an issue as many times as they feel necessary and can muster the life-force (intellectual concentration, verbal articulation) to do in a manner which is not just thinly-veiled reposting of previously composed boilerplate.

Pissy little dismissals like those implicit in (the tone of) marto's first sentence, and very much more overt in other later comments, merely cast their authors in a bad light. I think a great many monks who did answer / comment to this thread must convertly covertly agree that the Anonymity policy is backwards and problematical; else, from whence does their ill-tempered hostility arise?

In communities where technical matters are the primary topic, those who use their critical faculties to distinguish mere unproven opinion (indistinguishable from prejudice) from well-reasoned and thorough explanations, will get more value from their role as consumer at the community trough. Those who don't have such critical faculties - and I did not have them at any well-developed stage when I joined Perlmonks a very long time ago - can develop them.

In communities where technical matters are the primary topic, those who use their critical faculties when operating in the contributive mode (as producers for the community trough) will discover that their core sense of self-esteem will be strengthened, independent of any external validation like reputation points or the overt agreement extracted from other participants. It's the slow, sure way. Therefore unattractive to those looking for a quick rush. And inevitably, the valuation attributed to your contributions by others will rise. It may take time, particularly if you dug a hole for yourself to start out with.

I think, based on what I've observed, that long-time particpants at Perlmonks are some of the last people whose opinions ought to be regarded more highly than others on a Perlmonks matter like the one set forth here. If I was an extraterrestrial alien observer but had only Permonks to study, and no other human institution, group, or community, I'd conclude that "humans at a community for a long time become lazy (intellectually) and complacent." marto's post is the first comment post, and suffices as a good example of this. That's why I am answering his. My answers to him are emphatically my answers to later followups further down the list of comments.

In summary:

• I disagree with: "I see no compelling argument for raising the bar for posting/contributing". I think it always a good idea to consider raising the bar. Life thrives on challenge. (See Who We For? (Was: Re: How-to install POSIX.pm) for an effort I've already made to explain some things that seem missed out on sometimes).
• I think that the contention that requiring a login is a substantive "raising of the bar" (IOW, "burden") on users is actually a bit absurd. There's a distinction to be made between We know our system works differently than others, but we like it (condign self-assurance) and How dare you suggest we look at how anything external to Perlmonks works (weak-minded tribalistic reactionary defensiveness).
• I do not agree that the present degree of efficacy of the "The existing janitoring/moderation processes" (or non-efficacy thereof) bears directly on this issue.
• I do not agree with the implied conclusion that Anonymous Monk's contributions outweigh the problem posed by this policy. And I think a real point has been missed. There's a dynamic at work here. That is: it is easy enough to look back, in retrospect, at a thread discussion, and say look, Anonymous Monk answered here, and here, and here. That static analysis ignores the dynamics taking place while a thread is developing. In that dynamic, Monks with good intentions and a mortal limit of time and life-force (power of intellectual concentration, attention span, verbal expressiveness) are going to be evaluating whether their contribution is even needed at the present moment (and are not likely to revisit the thread later to do the evaluation over again). If even a half-arsed reply (that they might scan quickly before moving on) has been given by an Anonymous Monk (and perhaps vaguely hints at a correct source for answers - provides GIYF-fodder), might that Monk not save their efforts for a different thread? I think so. And I do not think that a misleading answer is better than no answer. Only bureaucrats think like that.
• About "If trolling is a concern [...]" I would say that again, this misses the point. Trolling is not the only lens through which to view all matters. It's about signal to noise in postings at the Monastery. The Perlmonks that I've been reading lately is manifesting a deteriorating signal-to-noise ratio. Anonymous Monk is a big part of that.