Re: Re: Re: No Anonymous Reply Option

[zengargoyle]

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

[Aristotle]

more likely the 36 that use Anonymous.

I downvoted the initial node. You can take my word that I've never posted anonymously and don't plan to ever do so.

I also downvoted your node I am replying to for being this presumptuous.

[adrianh]

Ditto, ditto and ditto.

[zengargoyle]

I also downvoted your node I am replying to for being this presumptuous.

would it be less presumptious to say 'the 5 monks who want nothing ever to change, the 10 monks who don't want to implement the change, the 15 monks who are ideologicaly opposed to the change and the 6 monks who habit Anonymous'?

is it any less presumptious to say that all 36 were from monks voting their conscious?

but i do applaud you for your plans not to use Anonymous. and i have no plans to use Anonymous either. now we know two people (three plus Abigail-II) that won't be the Anonymous. many many more to go.

[Anonymous Monk]

Very few things are an unmixed blessing. Anonymous Monk is not without its drawbacks. There are the occasional cowardly swipes made by registered users switching to anonymity for the purpose of making the swipe. There are the occasional swipes made by visitors who have never registered (I can't say that with total certainty, of course, but I feel quite sure of it). There are also lots of good nodes written by anonymous users (many of whom have never registered) and lots of good users who wouldn't have joined if we had tried to force them to register from the beginning.

i do applaud you for your plans not to use Anonymous

I've written several nodes anonymously. A couple because I was discussing sensitive material that I didn't want tracked back to me (I'm not registered as anything like 'wizard toto' so writing something under my usual login connects it with me personally, not just within the "walls" of PerlMonks).

Some were quite critical of my employer or former employer. Even posting anonymously, I didn't feel it appropriate to name the employer and I never mention who I work for when on-line (I've seen too many people get into trouble as a result of such). But I didn't want my employer to one day get curious about what I'm doing on-line and find a node with my name on it being critical of them (even though I don't name them). Employers can be total jerks in such situations.

I started writing this node using my usual login and then realized that I didn't even want to admit to having been critical of my employer using that name. So you get another anonymous reply.

No, I don't want to register a different name to put all of my "not quite so closely associated with me" nodes. For one thing, that would make it easier to figure out that that batch of nodes was written by me (more evidence to correlate). I don't want to work that hard, either. And I don't want to "waste" a username. And I'd feel deceptive hiding behind a different name (and yet it'd help defeat the purpose to even note that the other name was an alias).

I've also written anonymous nodes just to be funny (there are lots of reasons that one joke or another might be funnier anonymously rather than "from me"). I've also written anonymous nodes expressing a personal opinion that I didn't wish to make "public" except anonymously.

And I think I did make one anonymous swipe. I wish I hadn't, but I'm glad I haven't done that often or recently.

So, obviously, I'm not one more to add to your list. I'd certainly like to see fewer people willing to use AnonyMonk to make immature swipes (but I don't see this problem as being a big deal, at least not yet). I'd also like to see fewer registered users making immature swipes. :)

And I'm glad we have AnonyMonk, despite the warts. It is still very much a net win on my tally sheet.

Respectfully,
me

[ChemBoy]

would it be less presumptious to say 'the 5 monks who want nothing ever to change, the 10 monks who don't want to implement the change, the 15 monks who are ideologicaly opposed to the change and the 6 monks who habit Anonymous'?

Well, not much (at least, assuming you phrased it in a way that made it seem like you actually thought those numbers meant something), but it would be less asinine, since you wouldn't be making a blanket assertion that everybody who disagrees with you is doing so for the worst and most self-serving of possible reasons. Myself, I didn't downvote the original node because I felt it had been hit hard enough, but I did downvote the node under discussion here, because I felt it to be a pointless ad-hominem attack.

And in answer to your second question, yes, I believe it is generally considered less of a presumptuous act to assume (in the absence of any evidence in either direction) that people are acting from reasonable and moral motives than to assume the contrary. But this is neither here nor there: nobody but you has imputed a motivation to the downvoters of the original node beyond "they thought it was a bad idea"—their reasons for thinking it a bad idea may be presumed to vary. Especially given that many of them have in fact expressed such (varying) reasons elsewhere in this thread.