Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?

by sundialsvc4 (Abbot)
on Mar 18, 2013 at 13:40 UTC ( #1024035=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
  • Comment on Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by CountZero (Bishop) on Mar 18, 2013 at 14:35 UTC
    I ++ your node, as I do with everyone who makes an honest attempt to think about improving the Monastery.

    Of course that doesn't mean I agree with your point of view. Although I have never seen any need to post fully anonymously (whether to "protect" my XP or for any other reason), I will respect any and all good or bad reasons why people want to post fully (as Anonymous Monk) or partially anonymous (under their PM login name).

    And for the many years I have had the honour to be part of this little corner of cyberspace, I never saw any good reason that made me think it became even remotely necessary to lift the anonymity of the Monks here. Once more your post does not give any convincing argument to lift the Anonymous Monk's hood. The very very few times a session was "lost" can surely not be a good reason and if it is an argument at all, it seems more to support the opposite position.

    CountZero

    A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

    My blog: Imperial Deltronics
Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Mar 18, 2013 at 14:18 UTC
    Perlmonks is unique...in that it is possible to post anonymously
    StackOverflow's huge family of sites is littered with contributions from user1234567. This is functionally no different from anonymous. As are a huge amount of "identified" accounts online.
    ...that the authentication is also weak...
    And here you make a point for anonymous posting. This site's security is weak and that's why some long term monks have shunned named accounts with leaky plaintext passwords but still participate anonymously.
    ...Anonymous Friend is getting a lot of flack...
    So, to help him, you'll force him out of existence. Quelle Progressive.
    ...it should be pointed-out that “Anonymity” is very often accidental...
    Very often? I've had this account for 10 years and another previous that I lost and didn't recover, I've never once had a session "simply disappear" while posting.
    Therefore, maybe it’s time to update the technology of the site.
    Well volunteered. Don't hesitate to post your patches.
    Let’s take a well-known site like The Huffington Post...
    Take my site. Please.
    simply disappears
    FUD, damned FUD, and statistics.
    We’ve talked about this before ... and I submit that it is high time to do it.
    This implies the conclusion previously was that it was a good idea. [citation required]
    E-mail addresses should be subject to some kind of cleanup and re-verification, without which the ability to post is suspended.
    Show me your papers!
    ...because personalities often are touchy here, and opinions are even stronger.
    It's only an opinion if it lacks evidence.
    We’re supposed to be communing about Perl...
    Complete agreement here. When will that part of the thread start?
Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by davies (Prior) on Mar 18, 2013 at 16:04 UTC

    I'm going to get my say in before Leveson makes it illegal. I'm deeply opposed to abandoning anonymous posts. I can't for the life of me think why postings should in every case be attributable to someone. I can't see the value of verifying email accounts. I think mine is still valid, but what if it isn't? Are you going to ban me as a user? You don't have an email address at which to contact me, so how are you going to tell me there's a problem? Either you let me log in, in which case I won't care about your problems, or you're not, in which case I can't find out what's gone wrong without breaking site rules & opening a second account. The third option is that you create some sort of restricted account which can tell me I need to jump through hoops. I'm most unlikely to, so this is much the same as banning me. My snail mail address is, I think, on something I once posted here, so you could try writing me a letter, but are you going to do that for everyone who has changed email address since they first logged in?

    Some people have differing attitudes to privacy. I have posted a genuine photo on my home page and use my real name. CountZero has given me in /msgs information that I believe would enable me to find him if I wanted. BrowserUK, OTOH, gives out no information. If you remove the options, you will also remove from the user base those for whom the options are important.

    Recently, I cleared my browser history - something I do occasionally - and found I had logged myself out of PerlMonks. Every page presented me with a login dialogue box and I immediately realised what had happened and logged in again. However, I accept that some people may not notice what to me seems an obvious difference from my expectations, making this the only point where I find myself agreeing with you about a disadvantage of allowing anonymity. However, if it is a general problem (as I've indicated, it isn't for me), I think there are better ways of dealing with it. One might be to have the "Create" button changed to "Post anonymously" when not logged in, which I would expect to be enough. Another is to require anonymonks to "log in" with the password "guest" before posting. A third might be to use a captcha for anonymous postings. All of these would in some way mitigate the problem that you perceive but I do not.

    I mentioned Leveson in my first paragraph. Some explanation of this may be needed for people outside the UK. This is a report into some of the more egregious excesses of the gutter press that has proposed statutory regulation of journalism. The Scots Nats have gone even further, proposing that even Twitter should bow the knee to their censor benign supervisory authority. Boris Johnson, a man I despise, wrote a sensible (for once) article in today's Daily Telegraph about the need to avoid restricting the press. I don't liken your proposals to Leveson et al, but there's too much restricting going on for my liking. Cites available if wanted.

    Please, please, dear sweet Gods, don't abolish anonymity.

    Regards,

    John Davies

      ++, but..

      "I think there are better ways of dealing with it. One might be to have the "Create" button changed to "Post anonymously" when not logged in, which I would expect to be enough"

      I just tested this by attempting to reply to your post via the .com domain, rather than the .org to which I'm currently logged in. It shows:

      You aren't logged in.

      Login, Create a new user, or hit "Create" to proceed in posting your node.

      And I had to scroll down to see the post and it's associated buttons. Perhaps you're right in so much that there's some more HTML/CSS fu which could be used to make this seem more obvious, though people may still miss it, for example browsing using a text based browser. On a related subject. I use the (poll winning;) Perlmonks blue theme. The site looks a lot different before I log in, so it's much less likely (if not impossible) for me to think I'm logged in when I'm not. I don't think the site has ever logged me out in all the years I posted.

Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by marto (Cardinal) on Mar 18, 2013 at 13:46 UTC

    Once again, no. I see no compelling argument for raising the bar for posting/contributing. Recently I've seen some great contributions from anonymous posters. The existing janitoring/moderation processes work pretty well. If trolling is a concern tye has many great posts on the subject which are worth searching for and reading.

    At time of posting, the thread you link to has two replies from Anonymous monk. I don't see any of them as being a reason to change how things currently work.

    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by Ratazong (Monsignor) on Mar 18, 2013 at 14:37 UTC

    On November 30th, 2011 you posted this node, proposing removing the anonymous monk. That proposal has been rejected by the majority of the monks. You can see this by the replies and by the reputation of that node. What makes you think that the general opinion on the topic has changed since then? (At least mine hasn't ... .)

    Proposing the same again and again without a new situation or new facts doesn't look helpful to me.

    Rata

Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by marto (Cardinal) on Mar 18, 2013 at 13:58 UTC

    Furthermore, if for any reason your session “simply disappears,” your posting will appear as anonymous. You are no longer logged-in, but you might not even know it.

    I've been posting here for years, and never had this happen. I replied to you the last time I saw you mention this, but you didn't respond. Is Anonymous Monk correct in their suggestion to what you perceive to be a perlmonks problem?

        Thanks for the reply. This theory was raisd by someone else in the previous thread (which I link to). If this is the case, and there's no confirmation this is what they're complaining about, it's not an issue with this site, it's an issue with a link. The session hasn't "disappeared". I run into this, but it's obvious that I'm no longer logged in. The URL is different (another clue). For some time now I've used the perlmonks blue theme, making the site impossible to confuse with the normal theme. Failing that there's always the large text warning users who aren't logged in. If find it hard to believe that this is their actual complaint, given their claimed expertise/CV/Resume.

Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by LanX (Cardinal) on Mar 18, 2013 at 22:04 UTC
    If you want I can provide you with a nodelet hack I just wrote to automatically hide any posts from AnoMonk.

    I'm already using it for your posts...

    Cheers Rolf

      LanX, when I read your post, I just had to log out and respond: If you filter our earnest sundialsvc4 you are missing some good entertainment and, dare I say, a contrapositive form of wisdom? for opposite the gnomon shadow cast must be the light.

      Bahahahahahaha can I have a copy ?
Re: Once again . ..{blah} (Counter proposal: )
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Mar 19, 2013 at 10:58 UTC

    Since you're the only one who has a problem with this, the solution is entirely in your hands.

    If you go away; problem solved.


    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

      Since you're the only one who has a problem with this, the solution is entirely in your hands. If you go away; problem solved.

      A couple of minor fallacies to be pointed out:

      • That the OP is "the only Perlmonk who has a problem with 'Anonymous Monk' policy". There is only an absence of evidence up until now, limited to this thread. Thus, this is a fallacy. Negative evidence is vastly inferior to positive evidence. That no other active monks who have a problem with Anonymous Monk posting exist, is plausibly, overwhelmingly unlikely.

        Absence of evidence until now, in this thread, is plausibly attributable to the absence of awareness for other monks that this "discussion" is even happening. Also plausibly attributable to passivity. With regard to that, Someone here keeps adding some text to their postings, that reads:


        Silence betokens consent

        In fact, this is a very harsh truth. The harshness comes in because it is statement that hides a larger truth behind it. That truth is "larger" in the sense that it "takes more words to express." That truth is that people betoken their consent unwillingly when ruled by the kind of passivity that is bred of past disappointments and disillusionments. That's the whole point of the saying. Only if one understands that there is a disillusioned body of persons remaining silent because they do not believe that their voices matter, that their voices will be heard, that speaking up can make any difference; only if one understands this does this short little tagline achieve its intended meaning.

      • The second fallacy has now been made clear. I have a problem with "Anonymous Monk" posting policy. I have had a problem with it for years and have never changed my statements of belief about it. Maybe it was convenient to forget that I've spoken up strongly about it in the past? Or maybe it is a matter of the fact that it is me speaking, and not "what is said"? Is that it? Does who is speaking suddenly matter, rather than what is said?

      The OP is hereby urged and encouraged to stay around. All persuasions henceforth expressioned by any others are negated and revoked. All evil spirits currently lurking around the Monastery, urging monks to act like pissy, small-minded little tribesmen with tiny male attributes and serious inadequacy issues motivating them to flock and herd and gang up -- all such spirits are hereby vanquished with my magic spell. POOF.

        I have a problem with "Anonymous Monk" posting policy. I have had a problem with it for years and have never changed my statements of belief about it. Maybe it was convenient to forget that I've spoken up strongly about it in the past?

        And as I recall, your posts on the matter were also roundly rejected.

        As for your magic spell: I hope you feel better.


        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
        A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

        Sweetbejeesus, what are you? "hereby urged and encouraged"? "minor fallacies"? Paragraphs after paragraphs after paragraphs after paragraphs of pompous drivel.

        If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is most probably a duck ... you sir do not sound like a programmer. You do sound like someone who loves to listen to himself though.

        Jenda
        Enoch was right!
        Enjoy the last years of Rome.

Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by dsheroh (Monsignor) on Mar 19, 2013 at 10:30 UTC
    Wow, has it been six months already?

    The monks soundly rejected your proposal to dump Anonymous Monk the last time you brought it up.

    The monks soundly rejected your proposal to dump Anonymous Monk the time before that.

    I think it's a pretty safe bet that we're going to reject it this time, too. And the next time. And the time after that. And however many more times it takes to finally get it through your thick skull that No, the community of PerlMonks at large does not agree with you that Anonymous Monk should be removed.

      Reminds me of Quebec, except with near-unanimous vote every time.

Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 19, 2013 at 08:25 UTC

    The feature Anonymous monk is just a way of hiding yourself while posting something.

    Show me one difference between 'Anonymous monk' and a user name 'CoolGuy1234'. You see right there. Forcing a login doesn't stop trolls

    If anything, number of signups are going to go up like crazy without any visible decrease in trolling

Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk?
by Voronich (Hermit) on Mar 25, 2013 at 16:14 UTC

    I just don't understand what is actually broken. We either have Anonymous Monk or a bunch of throwaway accounts. *shrug*

    I'd rather not have either. But not enough to lobby for it. There isn't a good solution to that so I don't see why it causes so much consternation.

Re: Once again ... is it time to get rid of the Anonymous Monk? (ad hominem)
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 19, 2013 at 07:37 UTC

    sundialsvc4, you've proven yourself to be inconsiderate, unreasonable, and repetitive -- and your claimed inspiration for this new turd is a rant by someone whose unreasonable is only exceeded by his rudeness -- you have no credibility

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

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://1024035]
Approved by tye
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (3)
As of 2021-04-19 00:51 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?