http://qs1969.pair.com?node_id=929492


in reply to Re^12: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em
in thread to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em

You just confirmed my argument...

Except that I didn't.

This is my suggestion, it can't possibly be your argument :)

My suggestion does not compromise anonymity one iota

A "username" is a name by definition, there can only be one here, it is a defacto perlmonks identity, whether or not its linked to any other identities (online or real world)

Anonymous Monk is the equivalent of having no name

Temporary in-thread-branding doesn't give you a name, doesn't link you to any identity, it merely hints at your location within a room --- anonymity intact

  • Comment on Re^13: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^14: to distinguish between [Anonymous Monk]s in a thread, brand 'em
by CountZero (Bishop) on Oct 04, 2011 at 10:29 UTC
    And as long as you remain in the room you remain "branded" as "Anonymous Monk # x". Wherever you move in the room, you will still be recognized (for a very weak form of recognition) as "Anonymous Monk # x". Hence you are recognizable and whatever you said can be related to "you", even if this "you" will disappear as soon as you leave the room.

    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

[reply]

      There are very few reasons for needing that level of anonymity -- and none of them are good or honourable. Two purposes come to mind: sock-puppetry & trolling.

      There are no legitimate reasons in having two or more comments in the same thread, by the same anonymous source, disassociated from each other.

      For all other purposes, the ability to hold a conversation, anonymously, but with the continuity of the exchange unendangered by crosstalk with other AMs -- accidental or malicious -- can only be a good thing for all parties to the conversation.

      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.
[reply]
        There are very few reasons for needing that level of anonymity -- and none of them are good or honourable.
        You do realize I hope that this is a most dangerous reasoning?

        It is in the same category as the Government saying, "You do not need that strong level of encryption as none of your reasons for hiding your messages are good or honourable" (as per our Government sanctioned definition of "good" and "honourable").

        If you want to avoid the crosstalk, use your PM-identity.

        Honestly, why would someone use the AM option at all? It can only be for bad or dishonourable purposes, such as trolling or not taking responsability for what one says. (and I am being sarcastic here)

        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

[reply]
      Duh
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion