Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk

Wanting to limit AM's is senseless. If you are reading posts and are more worried or interested in who the author is rather than what they say, then your attitude is no better than what you accuse them of.

Personally, I see your post as at least as deleterious as any AM poster who is trying to avoid downvotes (if not more). Heck, I don't even bother to log in most of the time any more, and when I do I hardly ever vote. I've posted more AM posts in the past few months than signed posts because I'm just not interested in the XP "game". If it wasn't for the ability to AM post, I probably wouldn't have bothered to post some or all of those. Other's may have other reasons for AM posting. I guess the big question you have to ask yourself is why you care so much about whether you know who posted what, and what are you prepared to lose to have it that way?

Comment on Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk by demerphq (Chancellor) on May 02, 2002 at 10:38 UTC
I just wanted you to know that I -- you on this, and I almost never vote on AM posts. First your tone is rude and confrontational ("if not more"??) but you hide behind your anonymity. Whether this was a good idea or not it was an honest and well intentioned one and deserved to be responded to with the respect that tye for instance showed. why you care so much about whether you know who posted what Well, thats quite simple actually. I like to know who posted what so I know what nodes I should go out of my way to read, and also who I should ignore. If you dont want to identify yourself then your comments will be probably be underappreciated. Which if you actually know what you are talking about is bad for the community. But then again, I have no idea if you do know what you are talking about because you dont identify yourself. Yes most people learn based on posters knowledge and contribution which posters actually have something worth reading, something that we cant learn when you hide behind the AM. CAVEAT: I am well aware that there are those that for a variety of reasons _cant_ (or rather for whom it would be very risky) to use a consistant identity. So be it. The above only applies to those who do it for other reasons, or no reason at all. Yves / DeMerphq --- Writing a good benchmark isnt as easy as it might look.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Restricting Anonymous Monk
by demerphq (Chancellor) on May 02, 2002 at 10:38 UTC

First your tone is rude and confrontational ("if not more"??) but you hide behind your anonymity.

Whether this was a good idea or not it was an honest and well intentioned one and deserved to be responded to with the respect that tye for instance showed.

why you care so much about whether you know who posted what

Well, thats quite simple actually. I like to know who posted what so I know what nodes I should go out of my way to read, and also who I should ignore. If you dont want to identify yourself then your comments will be probably be underappreciated. Which if you actually know what you are talking about is bad for the community. But then again, I have no idea if you do know what you are talking about because you dont identify yourself. Yes most people learn based on posters knowledge and contribution which posters actually have something worth reading, something that we cant learn when you hide behind the AM.

CAVEAT: I am well aware that there are those that for a variety of reasons _cant_ (or rather for whom it would be very risky) to use a consistant identity. So be it. The above only applies to those who do it for other reasons, or no reason at all.

Yves / DeMerphq
---
Writing a good benchmark isnt as easy as it might look.

[reply]