I don't doubt that someone has before explored the question of disallowing the Anonymous Monk from posting on Perlmonks. Also, I am not trying to advocate the elimination of Anonymous Monk all together. I am, however, suggesting that some restrictions are imposed upon just how far Anonymous Monk can go.

Recently I've seen quite a few threads like this:
Re: Re: mp3 collection renamer
where the poster explains that an anonymous post is in order for fear of downvoting. I can only assume that the poster in question falls into 2 categories:

I don't know about anyone else, but nothing pisses me off more than someone who makes an excuse for being too much of a coward to put his name on something. If I am confident enough, or feel strongly enough to post a node on Perlmonks, you can be sure you'll see my name at the end of it.

And so it is because of those who only find the courage to say what they mean when veiled in the guise of Anonymous Monk that I suggest exploring the merits of a rule where Anonymous Monk can post only 2(or more) levels deep. In other words, Anonymous Monk can start a thread, or reply to an original node, but not reply to a reply, or reply to a reply of a reply, etc.

The self-righteous, and useless posts of Anonymous Monk have grown very tedious to me, and they detract from the environment I have grown so fond of. More and more often, users are hiding behind Anonymous Monk to protect theselves from the evil --. I don't learn when people only tell me I'm a great coder. I DO learn when someone points out where I need work. If you can't take it, then maybe you shouldn't be here. Moreso, maybe you shouldn't be a Perl programmer. Call me an awful programmer if that's what you think. But before you do, strap on a set and log in.

I wrestled a bit about whether to submit this, but I think it at least needs to be said. So let the downvoting begin...


Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(tye)Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk
by tye (Sage) on May 01, 2002 at 22:24 UTC

    My advice is that if you don't like this type of node/thread, then, please don't read them. And don't reply to them.

    I don't think the community is well served by trying to add rules to prevent people who are frustrated from expressing their frustration. Similarly, I'm tired of people requesting that such nodes be deleted. If every criticism just gets "swept under the carpet", then we certainly come across to the frustrated ones as hypocritical.

    When someone gets frustrated with a response that they get and resort to an immature personal attack, it is easy to get frustrated yourself (especially when you don't see how their frustration is justified). But the best way to deal with your frustation is to teach by example how to deal with frustration in a mature manner. That takes some work, so, if you aren't feeling up to the work, please just ignore it and let someone else take it on.

    I know it is very difficult to just do nothing when you see an immature post. But leaving the criticism in place and everyone ignoring it is, in my experience, one of the best ways to prevent the frustration from escalating. A very mature, considerate response is another good approach. If they can't deal with that, then ignoring them is again the best approach (too many attempts at mature responses isn't a good idea, either).

    Any attempt to get rid of them just makes the problem worse down the road. Sometimes a lot worse. Personally, I want to hear when visitors get the impression that someone is being a jerk. Even if most such criticisms have more to do with the critic's maturity than anything else (which I'm not certain is or always will be the case), how "we" "come across" is not irrelevant.

    Keeping the site friendly is an on-going goal that will not be acheived if we try circumvent the feedback mechanism.

    I'd like to add a "please don't respond" option to Nodes to Consider such that off-topic nodes can be officially marked (via a community vote) as not a topic of discussion to be continued. Composing a reply to such a node would show you the reason the node was considered off-topic (and the vote count) and require a "Are you sure?" response. Also, such nodes could not be "approved" for their section (nor the front page) except by one of the editors. Also, a user setting would allow such nodes to be hidden from you.

    I hope that this would give well-intentioned monks a way to express/reduce their frustration, will discourage such discussions from growing or appearing in future, while avoiding an increase in the frustration of the author as much as possible.

            - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")
      After seeing your points about visitor feedback, I happen to agree that restricting Anonymous Monk, or otherwise censoring critique - be it of programming practice or personalality - is not a good idea(ok, its a BAD idea ;0).

      Its not so much that I can't take reading these types of nodes. Rather I just think that putting a name with the node is a more productive way to do it. The Anonymous Monk below is correct in pointing out that a disability to seperate the message from the messenger is prohibitive to really processing whatever criticism is aimed at you. On the other hand, if someone thinks I'm abusive or harsh, I'd like to contact them to find out exactly what comes across as harsh or abusive. I don't ever post with the goal of being an a..hole, so if I come across like that I want to know how so I can change it. It's not so I can get into a pissing contest with them about who's right and who's wrong.

      Basically, while I submit to the facts that restricting or otherwise censoring nodes can make the problem worse and that visitor feedback is essential to maintaining/improving the atmosphere at Perlmonks, I maintain that putting your name after your opinions is also important, if only to promote interaction between those that see where improvements can be made, and those who need improvement(myself included). At least for those who ARE members here.

Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk
by abaxaba (Hermit) on May 02, 2002 at 00:33 UTC
    Downvoting be damned, I find this topic interesting. I would be agreeable to some sort of restrictions being placed upon the Anonymous Monks, but not for any of the XP-related issues presented above. To that, I am indifferent.

    However, I don't really care to read the personal attacks, really bad code, or banal questions, or anything like that. I quit frequenting comp.lang.perl.misc for this very reason.

    I'm not accusing all Anonymous Monks of doing this -- there have been some very interesting/educational posts that come from AM's. It does seem, however, that folks with little/no vested interest in this site would exhibit a greater propensity for these sort of posts. I don't mean to cast stones -- when I was a newbie, I was guilty of this (look here, and read the last line), and should probably issue an apology to gav^ for my nasty tone. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Because I'm a 'monk, with a vested interest in the success of this community, I've had to learn how to format my posts, use the chatterbox, post in the appropriate area, use <|/?code|> tags, nodelinks, etc etc.

    I hope these sorts of things are appreciated by others. I know I appreciate them from others. And I think that the Monestary and its members benefit from it. Just makes for a better site.

    I'd rather have people contribute that want the site to succeed, than put up with a bunch of fluff from those who don't care.

    Just about every "message board" type of site requires some sort of registration/membership. They do this for a reason. Cut's down on static.

    Perhaps give the true Anonymous Monks their own folder. Maybe let higher-level monks post as Anonymous or something.

    Or, if it ain't broke...

    Just my .02
    "It is a very mixed blessing to be brought back from the dead." -- Kurt Vonnegut
Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk
by Anonymous Monk on May 02, 2002 at 00:07 UTC

    Wanting to limit AM's is senseless. If you are reading posts and are more worried or interested in who the author is rather than what they say, then your attitude is no better than what you accuse them of.

    Personally, I see your post as at least as deleterious as any AM poster who is trying to avoid downvotes (if not more). Heck, I don't even bother to log in most of the time any more, and when I do I hardly ever vote. I've posted more AM posts in the past few months than signed posts because I'm just not interested in the XP "game". If it wasn't for the ability to AM post, I probably wouldn't have bothered to post some or all of those. Other's may have other reasons for AM posting. I guess the big question you have to ask yourself is why you care so much about whether you know who posted what, and what are you prepared to lose to have it that way?

      I just wanted you to know that I -- you on this, and I almost never vote on AM posts.

      First your tone is rude and confrontational ("if not more"??) but you hide behind your anonymity.

      Whether this was a good idea or not it was an honest and well intentioned one and deserved to be responded to with the respect that tye for instance showed.

      why you care so much about whether you know who posted what

      Well, thats quite simple actually. I like to know who posted what so I know what nodes I should go out of my way to read, and also who I should ignore. If you dont want to identify yourself then your comments will be probably be underappreciated. Which if you actually know what you are talking about is bad for the community. But then again, I have no idea if you do know what you are talking about because you dont identify yourself. Yes most people learn based on posters knowledge and contribution which posters actually have something worth reading, something that we cant learn when you hide behind the AM.

      CAVEAT: I am well aware that there are those that for a variety of reasons _cant_ (or rather for whom it would be very risky) to use a consistant identity. So be it. The above only applies to those who do it for other reasons, or no reason at all.

      Yves / DeMerphq
      Writing a good benchmark isnt as easy as it might look.

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