Why anonymous ;-?

[pg]

Recently I (we) keep seeing good points made by Anonymous Monk, for example this post Re: Re: Re^2: To Kill a Meme: while(defined($line = <>)).

I think he must have a good reason, but something is not quite right (not him), if this happens too often. I can understand his consideration, and I believe that Anonymous Monk will be much more willing to reply by using his/her own name, if we (definitely including myself, definitely) can keep calm when we saw posts that disagree with our own points, be cool, be polite. No way we will become perfect, but if we can add some extra effort to control ourselves, it will help.

[Corion]

There is no way for Anonymous Monk to receive your messages, and maybe that is one of the appeals that Anonymous Monk has for some people.

If people want you to contact them, they will most likely also provide a way accessible to you so you can contact them. Many anonymous posts contain email addresses, for example. If no such hint is visible to you, I think you can safely assume that no further communication outside of replies to the node is wanted.

[davido]

I don't recall any significant disagreement with you pg, but I do completely agree that it's a disingenuous gesture for a named monk to post anonymously. At worst it can be inflamatory, and at best, makes it difficult to determine background, context, and to address the poster via /msg.

I have a slight variation on the issues pg raised. As a QandAEditor, I find myself dealing with one or more "junk" posts to Catagorized Questions and Answers every few days. Just tonight there was an "answer" posted that was nothing more than a bunch of profanity. And in the relatively short time I've been visiting the monastery I've seen all sorts of examples of blank Q&A answers, profane Q&A answers, intentionally inflamatory Q&A answers, and other sorts of drivel posted to Q&A under the guise of being an "answer." I'm not talking about incorrect or unclear answers. I'm talking about intentionally sabotaged answers, sabotaged with profanity or inflamatory statements.

In every case, these "answers" were posted anonymously.

I'm all for allowing for the continued existance of Anonymous Monk. We were all anon once. And we see good questions and even good responses from Anonymous Monk. However, I can tell you that in my limited time here, the Signal to Noise ratio of posts by Anonymous Monk to the Catagorized Questions and Answers section has been terribly poor.

The Q&A section was never intended to be a discussion section, or a dialogue section. Seekers of Perl Wisdom, Meditations, Discussion, Code, Obfu... those sections are all great places for discussion of one sort or another, and it's completely appropriate for anonymous monk to have the ability to post there. Q&A isn't that kind of place. Wouldn't it make sense to limit "Answer" posts to Q&A to only those monks who actually have identities?... especially in light of the fact that there is no "approval" process nor any "consideration" process available for the Q&A section. Any anonymous person could post any quantity of any degree of rubbish to Catagorized Q&A.

We already limit the posting of "Questions" in Q&A to Scribe level and above, to aleviate misuse of the Q&A section by those less experienced people who might at first think it to be synonymous with Seekers of Perl Wisdom. My thought is to limit Q&A "Answer" posts to those with identities, while leaving all other sections as they currently are.

Any thoughts???

[Anonymous Monk]

I have to wonder why you would think that being nicer or calmer or politer would have anything at all to do with my remaining or not remaining anonymous. Honestly, why would you think such a thing?

It isn't as if posting anonymously somehow protects me from any impoliteness, hostility, or insult slinging. I know which nodes I've written, and when people react rudely to what I've written it feels just as personal to me as it does to you when people react rudely to your signed posts. Those who think of anonymity as a shield have obviously either never worn it, or have only worn it while intentionally saying things they aren't proud of.

[Anonymous Monk]

hose who think of anonymity as a shield have obviously either never worn it, or have only worn it while intentionally saying things they aren't proud of.

or perhaps want to say something that could be against the grain and dont want to loose their XP.

Personally I dont care about the XP so much, but others may, which again i guess could be reconciled to saying something that they're not proud of, <shrug>.

20031103 Edit by Corion: Fixed open blockquote tag

[bradcathey]

IMO, anonymity serves 3 purposes:
1. allows the person who hasn't signed in to post (I'd like to think this is the main reason, but...)
2. it makes flaming easier
3. allows dissenting opinions to avoid down-votes

Personally, I'd like to keep decorum and respect at the fore, but I also like to know who's talking. Anonymity doesn't help either. Besides, none of the reasons mentioned really serves the community of PM. But maybe I take the community aspect too seriously.

[Anonymous Monk]

IMO, anonymity serves 3 purposes:
1. allows the person who hasn't signed in to post (I'd like to think this is the main reason, but...)
2. it makes flaming easier
3. allows dissenting opinions to avoid down-votes


I would suggest there are many more reasons. Signed participation may have been curbed for work related reasons. A monk may just wish to opt out of the XP system and participate in a content-only fashion and anonymity is the only way to achieve that. A monk may be trying merely to add some signal to anonymity. Those are just couple of additional reasons off the top of my head, I am sure there are a number of others.

But lets ask a different question. Why do some people take such issue with anonymity? I suspect one reason, perhaps the main reason, that some monks come to dislike anonymity so much is that deep down, underneath everything else, they really want their downvotes to count against an individual and not just against a particular node! That also explains why the only reason they can think of for anonymity is to hide from just such a retribution.

[bradcathey]

Points well taken, but on the other hand I have ++ voted nodes penned by Anonymous Monks. Personally, I don't have huge issues with anonymity, but again, sometimes I just want to see who's doing the talking. No biggie.

[tilly]

It serves a lot more purposes than that. One of the more obscure purposes is that if current policy is changed without a very good reason, then I will leave. Permanently.

I don't expect you to agree with my reasons. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I understand community differently from most people. But I consider the reasons that we treat anonymous posters the way that we do a critical bellweather for the health of an online forum.

[bradcathey]

Thanks for the links. Insightful stuff. One thing I'll say for monks, anonymous or not, is that they are thoughtful, substantiative.

[DentArthurDent]

First of all, you're assuming that the person writing the node has an account here, and is not just a lurker.

While I agree that attempts to make the community here more accepting will make strides toward limiting anonymous posting, I don't think that it will ever eliminate it. There will always be discussions of contentious issues where some people (who care about what others think) will not want to be exposed as holding a certain view. There will always be contentious people who will flame people who hold other beliefs. It's just human nature.

Anonymous posting has it's drawbacks, but as you yourself point out with the good example, to disallow it, or ignore it would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Granted there might be a lot of bathwater, but still. I myself try to avoid anonymous posting because I feel like anything I would want to say anonymously probably shouldn't be said. Some people don't have that ethic.

With regard to sending messages, I would say respond to the post asking for an offline contact like email, or just add more nodes to the collection. :)

[Paulster2]

I guess I can see both sides of the story here. Myself being a VERY new PM user and PERL code slinger, I am probably immune to the receiving replies on my questions or answers from Anon (now that I've said that, the walls will probably come crashing down). I haven't seen any negative spin toward my Q's or A's or comments from anyone. Nobody probably cares what I think or care to write, therefor I don't see it. Maybe some of that is due to good editing by the people who make this great site possible. Don't know. I am sure that in time, when I gain enough experience and so forth, the crap will role.

I like the fact that I should be able to write something Anon style and not receive retribution for it. I don't like the idea of getting blasted for something that is so easily reconciled on the face of the Camel book (ie: There is more than one way to do it.)

I don't think that anyone here should have to put up with verbal (written) abuse. We are all here to have a little fun, learn a little and hopefully make PERL a stronger, more efficient lanuage to use.

Lastly I would like to say, for those flaming remarks and attitudes out there, there is a saying:

Opinions are like buttholes;
Everyone has one,
And they all stink.

I hope that you all have a very nice day.
Paulster2

[Abigail-II]

I wish there was an option in ones user profile that gave you the ability to not see any of the anonymous posts.

Abigail

[Anonymous Monk]

So when someone puts the AnonyCloak on and tells you you are grumpy, you won't see it.... No way!
:-)

Running, escaping the horrible wrath of Abi...

[Aristotle]

I can't fathom why you think this feature would have any merit. Would you like to be blinded to nodes like this one? What's your reasoning?