Re^4: Dealing with An(?:no|on)ytroll

[Intrepid]

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.

[Happy-the-monk]

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