note
BrowserUk
<blockquote><i>You do realize I hope that this is a most dangerous reasoning?</i></blockquote>
<p>Absolutely not.
<p>And your analogy is wrong. This isn't a "lesser anonymity", it is still total. There is just disambiguation between multiple AMs.
<p>Think of it like double blind drug trials. No one suggests that the active and placebo pills should not be labelled A & B. And there is no reduction in the efficacy of the trials by doing so. No one is the wiser by their having been labelled rather than distributed unlabelled.
<p>And there would be no loss of anonymity by allowing us to distinguish between the posts of two (or more) AMs within a thread.
<blockquote><i>If you want to avoid the crosstalk, use your PM-identity.</i></blockquote>
<p>The beneficiaries of the measure would be all those who do use their handles, that engage in conversations with AMs.
<P>That is, this isn't aimed at benefiting the AMs -- though they might be glad of not having to add annotations like "I'm the original poster", to their posts -- it is aimed at those conversing with them.
<blockquote><i>Honestly, why would someone use the AM option at all?</i></blockquote>
<p>There are good reasons for the AM option. And none of them would be compromised by this.
<p>The only reduction, is that of the current possibility for one person to pretend to be multiple people -- either arguing with themselves; or coming out in support of themselves -- and the only uses for that possibility are trolling and sock-puppetry which are universally recognised as bad for PM.
<p>Reducing abuse whilst protecting identity should be seen as a good thing.
<div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-171588">
<hr />
<font size=1 >
<div>Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.</div>
<div>"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". </div>
<div>In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.</div>
</font>
</div></div>
924794
929651