Re: No Anonymous Reply Option

[Aristotle]

sauoq has made a very good point deep in a subthread that's worth repeating close to the top of the thread. I've seen this in my time as an administrator of another forum, as well.

Perlmonks does not require any sort of identity verification to grant an account, other than a valid email address. Which amounts to no verification at all. Thus, any action taken against Anonymonk will only lead to the registration of throw-away accounts.

Experience teaches us that trolls are more determined than stray visitors. Anonymous trolling will be replaced by throw-away-account trolling which is much harder to ignore because, well, all the trolls are using different accounts. Meanwhile, valuable contributions possibly posted by stray visitors will be prevented.

[Abigail-II]

This is confusing. Either you are ignoring anonymous posts, or you aren't. If you are ignoring anonymous posts, you will miss the stray visitors valuable contributions. If you are not ignoring the anonymous posts, you will see the trolls.

I've decided to ignore anonymous posts. I won't answer their questions, I won't correct their errors in their replies, I won't back up or disprove their claims with benchmarks, or all the other things I do with signed postings.

No doubt this will be a big relief to many people, and I wouldn't be surprised more people will start posting anonymously.

Abigail

[Aristotle]

You seem confused about the point of this thread and your position about it. It is not about ignoring Anonymous Monk, it is about being able to ban him. You are also missing the fact that ignoring Anonymous Monk will do you exactly no good at all in ignoring signed trolls. This means Abigail does not want to prohibit Anonymous Monk posting, because then all trolls will be signed, and he will have achieved the opposite of what he was after in the first place. I hope you are now in the clear about your own intentions.

[Abigail-II]

You seem confused about the point of this thread and your position about it. It is not about ignoring Anonymous Monk, it is about being able to ban him.

No. Read the first post of this thread again. It isn't about banning anonymous monk from this site.

You are also missing the fact that ignoring Anonymous Monk will do you exactly no good at all in ignoring signed trolls.

Did I say it will? Does it matter? Wearing safety belts does me no good in preventing fire in my house; does that mean there's no point in wearing safety belts?

This means Abigail does not want to prohibit Anonymous Monk posting, because then all trolls will be signed, and she will have achieved the opposite of what she was after in the first place.

Huh?

Abigail

[sauoq]

No doubt this will be a big relief to many people, and I wouldn't be surprised more people will start posting anonymously.

I can't tell if this was intended to be tounge in cheek, or if it was a serious comment born of your prodigious ego.