Re: No Anonymous Reply Option

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

Comment on Re: No Anonymous Reply Option

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: No Anonymous Reply Option by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Nov 26, 2003 at 10:46 UTC
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. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re: No Anonymous Reply Option by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Nov 26, 2003 at 10:52 UTC
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	[reply]
Re^5: No Anonymous Reply Option by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Nov 26, 2003 at 11:04 UTC
It isn't about banning anonymous monk from this site. Where did I say it is about banning Anonymous Monk from the site entirely? I said it is about banning him; from single threads at the thread creator's discretion, but banning him nonetheless. This is not the same as ignoring him, which means letting him post and but filtering out his nodes. Wearing safety belts does me no good in preventing fire in my house; does that mean there's no point in wearing safety belts? False analogy. It would fit if wearing safety belts actively increased the likelihood of fire in your house. Abolishing Anonymous Monk is not completely orthogonal to the existence of signed trolls. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re: Re: No Anonymous Reply Option by sauoq (Abbot) on Nov 26, 2003 at 11:29 UTC
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. -sauoq "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";	[reply]