violation of anonymity

Temporary "violation of anonymity" to one person, when the reason for anonymity was clearly given. As far as I'm concerned, the person is still (or is once again) anonymous. I don't know their usual monk name. During the short time that knew it, I didn't tell anyone else.

Yeah, I don't see how this was "an extreme measure". Maybe you could convince me of it, but I'm not even close at this point. I do take anonymity very seriously.

Now, actually doing something that I'd call "violation of anonymity" is something that I would consider extreme.

Which is sad, because I rather liked it here.

So are you concerned that a couple of gods might connect your non-anonymous monk name with some nodes that you posted anonymously and therefore you wish to no longer use the site? If so, then I'd appreciate some insight into why that is so strong a concern for you. If not, I'd appreciate some insight into the more extreme problem you are projecting from this incident.

Yeah, I don't see how this was "an extreme measure". Maybe you could convince me of it, but I'm not even close at this point. I do take anonymity very seriously.

What concerns me is simply the principle of anonymity. Either it is taken very seriously (as you say you take it to be) or it is not. Had this site never offered anonymity that would be fine. There are other forums I participate in that do not offer anonymity, it isn't a big deal.

But if a site does offer anonymity, and takes it seriously, what does "taking it very seriously" mean? I say taking it very seriously means acknowledging that anonymity is the choice of the anonymous party --- anonymity belongs (in the essential sense) to the anonymous party and not to anyone elses good judgement. Taking it seriously means acknowledging that *any* breaking of anonymity (whether you believe it to be harmless or to be in the interest of the anonymous party) merits the term "violation", and should only be considered under extreme circumstances (of which I still cannot think of any in the context of perlmonks that would necessitate such a breach). Anything less is pretense.

In other words, and please don't take this wrong way: if I can't have anonymity from you I don't really have it at all do I? Obviously, in order to do the behind-the-scenes work you and others do around here (I haven't said thanks lately, thanks), you have necessary access to certain private information. But my point is this: Anonymity and privacy aren't discretionary powers to be held by the granting authority, rather, actually granting anonymity and privacy always --- and by nature --- involves a relenquishing of such power (at least in principle, even if only in trust). And this is where we seem to differ in principle at the moment.

You asked:

So are you concerned that a couple of gods might connect your non-anonymous monk name with some nodes that you posted anonymously and therefore you wish to no longer use the site?

I'll answer a slightly different question, because the question of my participation isn't predicated on a fear of being discovered. If you stated that you understand and agree with my position and consider anonymity to be inviolate except in extreme circumstances, and all the powers that be agreed to abide by such a policy, I would have no problem trusting in that policy (that had essentially been my tacit understanding all along). If, on the other hand, you stated that you still felt that anonymity is something you or other gods are free to breach at your discretion and judgement on a case-by-case basis, then yes, I would regrettably cease participation.

If ... anonymity is something you or other gods are free to breach at your discretion ... I would regrettably cease participation.

This seems like a rather excessive reaction. Let's say the two ends of the continuum are (1) a site with no anonymity, and (2) a site with perfect anonymity. The biggest possible change can be from (2) to (1). Perhaps tye's actions have caused you to suddenly realize that the anonymity here can be violated (using the word according to your definition), and we move from somewhere near (2) to a spot much closer to (1). According to your opening paragraph, this "isn't a big deal." But your reaction says that it is a big deal; big enough to completely stop participating. This doesn't make sense to me.