Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?

Re^3: Dealing with An(?:no|on)ytroll

by Anonymous Monk
on Nov 27, 2005 at 13:10 UTC ( #512017=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^2: Dealing with An(?:no|on)ytroll
in thread Dealing with An(?:no|on)ytroll

I thought allowing AM posts was just a convenience thing
Sometimes anonymity is necessary to be able to say things that need to be said, but no one dares to say under their own name.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Dealing with An(?:no|on)ytroll
by tirwhan (Abbot) on Nov 27, 2005 at 13:52 UTC

    And I would oppose measures that made anonymous posting to PM impossible. But you can still keep your real-life anonymity while logged in as a user to PM, no-one knows that user somerandoname is the same RL person as someotherrandomname (and it can be made impossible to trace somerandomname to a real person as well). Or you can post as AM with the slight drawback that your IP address is known and your posting can be traced back to your RL person by a determined entity(this is true today as well). As I said, I don't think that the inconvenience of creating a separate user is too great, given the benefits of such a measure.

    Also, while I agree with your statement in principle I'm not sure it is perfectly valid with regard to PM. It's not like somebody is going to come and kneecap you for saying something unpopular. The worst that can happen is that you lose some XP which you can regain with a few thoughtful posts. And, for that matter, even if your view is unpopular I don't think you'll be downvoted overmuch if the view is presented in a rational and non-offensive manner.

    Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan
Re^4: Dealing with An(?:no|on)ytroll
by Intrepid (Deacon) on Dec 07, 2005 at 19:54 UTC

    Again, voicing the unpopular (but only by a certain percentage) opinion, I answer this:

    Anonymous Monk posted (on Nov 27, 2005 at 08:10 GMT+5):
    Sometimes anonymity is necessary to be able to say things that need to be said, but no one dares to say under their own name.

    There are no such things.

    There is no such thing as "a thing that needs to be said" but that you don't "dare" say under an identifiable personal handle in this Perlmonks community. Maybe in a forum discussing as its primary topic "childhood sexual abuse" or "substance addiction", yes. Not in Perlmonks. This is a completely bogus argument, and I am sorry to see that I was apparently the first one to call it what it is.

    It's disastrous to a society when moral cowardice is in charge. People who seek to avoid all risk of personal loss (defined broadly) while still having an influence on the world around them, and even seek to have this "protection" from the reality of human life ("the world is a harsh place", "life is often unfair", "adults take responsibility for their own actions/choices", yada, yada) instititutionalized are cowardly. Hey, sorry, but this isn't name-calling. This is what "cowardice" is. Check a dictionary.

    I agree with all 3 of tirwhan's proposals, and not merely because I was a target of an anonymous troll's campaign earlier this year. I continue to perceive a degradation of the quality of content on Perlmonks resulting from this misconceived fake "tolerance" (it's passivity masquerading as something benign) of Anonymous Abuse.

      Not in Perlmonks.

      If the world was a better place, you might be right, and wouldn't it be great if you were?

      There's all kinds of reasons for anonymity in many places, that go beyond your negative experience and also beyond my positive imagination.

      And then, there's cowardice too, but I hope you agree that it would be better to give room for cowardice, than for witch hunting on the other extreme.

      I make one up, just for the sake of the discussion.
      Given I love my job. Then imagine, my boss now partakes in a campaign to the detriment of some perl technology: There's a number of malicious bugs introduced into some code that was thought to be reliable since when it was coded in 1993...
      now, on the wave of that technology's ills, he wants to get rid of it, while I want to do my best here to a) get rid of its bugs and b) convince everybody that once the bugs be fixed, the technology would be going strong once again.

      Do you think I should rather not do a) and b) than do it anonymously? Or rather not be such a coward and risk to lose my job?

      ...because I was a target of an anonymous troll's campaign earlier this year.

      That's a shame on all those nice Anonymous Monk fellas who write great posts. Still, they too, lurk out there.

      Cheers, Sören

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://512017]
[erix]: ( median troll aka 'the bird' )

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (7)
As of 2018-06-21 16:34 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    Should cpanminus be part of the standard Perl release?

    Results (118 votes). Check out past polls.