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

Re: Anonymous Monk?

by JavaFan (Canon)
on Jan 17, 2011 at 13:05 UTC ( #882663=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Anonymous Monk?

Why not. Do you really think the site improves if every Anonymous Monk post has JimDDDD (with DDDD the node-id) as an author instead?
To me, total anonymity—or, more precisely, shared, ambiguous and amorphous identity—doesn't jibe with the monastic ethos.
Right. It's so much better if everyone on this planet can pick any name they want, as many times as they want. Then we all know instantly who everyone is. "Jim" can only be one person.

The old saying goes "On the Internet, noone knows you are a dog". That doesn't go away if you're forcing dogs to pick nicknames.

What purpose does a sophisticated voting system
Sophisticated voting system? Where? There's a voting system here, but I wouldn't call that sophisticated. And isn't the official standpoint that XP is a game?

Besides, Anonymous Monks don't get to vote. If you're forcing people to use throw away accounts, they'll get votes. So they can vote on posts make with their previous throw away account. Really think that's a good idea?

I've no problem with anonymous monks. But you're free to not read their posts (and specially, to not answer them). If this were usenet, your reader could automatically filter out posts made by people you don't want to read (except that usenet doesn't have a marked anonymous user).

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Anonymous Monk?
by luis.roca (Deacon) on Jan 17, 2011 at 16:32 UTC

      Why not. Do you really think the site improves if every Anonymous Monk post has JimDDDD (with DDDD the node-id) as an author instead?

    Actually no one has suggested doing that. My hunch is most of us are adults here and can come up with good solutions to the issue.

      Right. It's so much better if everyone on this planet can pick any name they want, as many times as they want. Then we all know instantly who everyone is. "Jim" can only be one person.

    Who says that can't be done now.

    You're JavaFan. That's ALL I know about you. For all I know you could also be Jim, having a great time playing games with all the Monks by posting a 'hot button' issue under one user name then coming in a day later completely against it under another name. That option wouldn't change if you were Anonymous Monk, Jim or Guest198.

    Sophisticated voting system? Where? There's a voting system here, but I wouldn't call that sophisticated. And isn't the official standpoint that XP is a game?

    You seem to enjoy it. You should. Why not? It's fun and keeps people more engaged. But don't come out and poo poo it for cheap votes. (again because deep down you really like them :) )

    Besides, Anonymous Monks don't get to vote. If you're forcing people to use throw away accounts, they'll get votes. So they can vote on posts make with their previous throw away account. Really think that's a good idea?

    Again, no one has suggested doing that. There have been several ideas proposed and would imagine other Monks have more to share. Blowing it off like this isn't really constructive.

    I've no problem with anonymous monks. But you're free to not read their posts (and specially, to not answer them). If this were usenet, your reader could automatically filter out posts made by people you don't want to read (except that usenet doesn't have a marked anonymous user).

    You realize this is a big part of the OP's whole point — right? Anonymous Monk can't be filtered out and many times becomes a major part of a thread (let alone the originator).

    I've never really liked the idea of Anonymous Monk since I joined the site. It's probably what I like least about the site. As you suggest, I rarely, if ever, answer and/or vote on posts by Anonymous Monk. I would imagine their are a few others who have similar practices.

    I understand some of the previously stated reasons given for having Anonymous Monk:

    1. Someone has a question they'd rather not ask under their user name in order to avoid possible riddicule.
    2. Someone is well known in the community and would rather have a post stand on it's own merits.
    3. Creates a low barrier to entry on the site.

    However, at least in the short time I've been here, I feel it's often used as a cover to say something — "less positive" — that a user wouldn't say under thier signed name.

    I know we probably wont get rid of Anonymous Monk altogether but it would be great if we could address some of the issues I think a number of us have with it.


    "...the adversities born of well-placed thoughts should be considered mercies rather than misfortunes." — Don Quixote
      Actually no one has suggested doing that. My hunch is most of us are adults here and can come up with good solutions to the issue.
      Wait. Either one is an "anonymous monk", or one uses some picked name. Assuming that people posting anonymously because they don't want to use a name that links them to other posts. If one needs a name to post, but one doesn't want to said name to be linked - people can easily use throw away names. And that can trivially be automated. For instance, by using a prefix and the node ID as a suffix.

      Of course noone suggested that. But that's not the point. Apparently, the OP thinks the site can be improved if there's no anonymous monk. I describe a situation where there's 1) no anonymous monks, and 2) people who have reasons to post anonymously still do so. I'm just asking how that's going to improve things.

      You're JavaFan. That's ALL I know about you. For all I know you could also be Jim, having a great time playing games with all the Monks by posting a 'hot button' issue under one user name then coming in a day later completely against it under another name. That option wouldn't change if you were Anonymous Monk, Jim or Guest198.
      Yes. I'm glad we agree. For me, that's an argument that having or not having an option to post anonymously doesn't change things in general (except for the mechanics of the poster).
      You realize this is a big part of the OP's whole point — right? Anonymous Monk can't be filtered out and many times becomes a major part of a thread (let alone the originator).
      And my point is, the content of such posts will not change if there's a name above the post. If you get annoyed by a post, does it really matter if the top of the post is "Anonymous Monk", or "Jim882693" - a name that may not top any other node?
      [About voting] You seem to enjoy it. You should.
      I don't. I don't vote often. If I want a game where mindless clicking results in some numbers increasing, I'd play Farmville.

      It's all great to say "I don't like anonymous monks", but I haven't seen a single posts that shows that whatever anonymous monks do to anger them will not happen if there are names (which can be as anonymous as the user of that name wants it to be) above the posts. However, if the post is made by "anonymous monk", I know it's done anonymously. But if the post is done by "Foo1234", and I go through the trouble of going to his userpage, and find he just signed up, and has no other writings, what do I know? Is it someone wanting to post anonymously, or just the first post on a fast track to sainthood?

        First, thank you for the well thought out response. After posting my reply to you I regretted the tone in certain parts but you've kept it about the subject at hand so — kudos.

        I still disagree with you. :)

         It's all great to say "I don't like anonymous monks", but I haven't seen a single posts that shows that whatever anonymous monks do to anger them will not happen if there are names (which can be as anonymous as the user of that name wants it to be) above the posts. However, if the post is made by "anonymous monk", I know it's done anonymously. But if the post is done by "Foo1234", and I go through the trouble of going to his userpage, and find he just signed up, and has no other writings, what do I know? Is it someone wanting to post anonymously, or just the first post on a fast track to sainthood?

        Which is why I don't think it's a good idea to give a guest all the benefits of an account. I suggested a model similar to news sites where you provide a name, email (hidden from public of course) and probably one of those "are you a human" questions to avoid form spam. There would still be an option to post anonymously but if they sign in as a guest they would receive ONE email inviting them to sign up to the site. I think that maintains a low barrier to entry for new visitors while keeping Anonymous Monk intact.

        I'm not saying that addresses all the concerns just as is related to potential new Monks.

        "...the adversities born of well-placed thoughts should be considered mercies rather than misfortunes." — Don Quixote
        Apparently, the OP thinks the site can be improved if there's no anonymous monk.

        I said I think the Anonymous Monk generic username "doesn't jibe with the monastic ethos." The monks-in-a-monastery metaphor doesn't naturally support the notion of allowing visitors to participate as equals in the lives of the brethren. A real monastery doesn't permit laypersons to walk in off the street and join the monks in singing Vespers or brewing ale.

        In hindsight, perhaps I was suggesting we abandon the current conceit and adopt a new one. How about we pretend instead to be politicians in the government of a representative democracy?

      However, at least in the short time I've been here, I feel it's often used as a cover to say something — "less positive" — that a user wouldn't say under thier signed name.

      Assume much?

      I know we probably wont get rid of Anonymous Monk altogether but it would be great if we could address some of the issues I think a number of us have with it.

      HA! I rearry rearry doubt it.

        However, at least in the short time I've been here, I feel it's often used as a cover to say something — "less positive" — that a user wouldn't say under thier signed name.
        Assume much?

        Bury your head in sand much? Just in this very thread, we have AnonyMonk saying:

        And I downvoted you for being an ass.

        and

        and I downvoted you for complaining about his complaining

        There are plenty of other examples to choose from.

        As for monastic "ethos", I think s/Anonymous Monk/Brother/g sums up my thoughts nicely.

        - tye        

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://882663]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others taking refuge in the Monastery: (4)
As of 2021-05-11 05:27 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Perl 7 will be out ...





    Results (113 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?