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).

But the assumption of a continuum from zero anonymity to full anonymity is fundamentally flawed. Anonymity isn't something to be given or measured on a continuous scale. And, anonymity in and of itself isn't the issue here.

Perhaps tye's actions have caused you to suddenly realize that the anonymity here can be violated (using the word according to your definition),

No, that anonymity and privacy aren't guaranteed is made clear in This Node, which ultimately suggests it is a matter of trust. But, in my view, the policy "implied" (though admittedly not formally specified) in that post is one I would characterize as: "we really don't want to know, don't care, and won't look except when absolutely necessary" ... "we even use tools and have taken steps so we don't accidentally discover private information". I am a rather trusting person, and my take on policy from that post is that the powers behind perlmonks take privacy as seriously as I do. That does not appear to be the case. Everyone seems to want to measure the 'harm done' in terms of the individual involved (who professes no harm done), and the honest good intentions of tye. Yet it remains true that privacy was breached for very trivial reasons. That's the real issue, and the real harm done.

But your reaction says that it is a big deal; big enough to completely stop participating. This doesn't make sense to me.

Because as I mentioned, there isn't a continuum. An illusion that the integrity of private data will be maintained is far worse than no illusion at all. My leaving would have *nothing* to do with anonymity in and of itself.

Because as I mentioned, there isn't a continuum.

I'd been meaning to reply noting that you appear to have a black-and-white mindset problem on this issue. Much easier when you just admit it. (:

...integrity of private data will be maintained...

And I wanted to steer away from "anonymity" and toward private data, so I'm glad I won't have a fight there either.

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.

I note you side-stepped the attempts to get you to be concrete in your concerns.

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).

[line break added]

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.

The only difference between the two proposals is the word "extreme". I'm pretty sure that the gods around here almost never have situations that they would call "extreme". They do try to administer the site even when there isn't currently an "extreme" problem to be fixed. In the course of administering the site, they will run into private data. They may even run into private data because they went looking for it in order to feed it into a further step in the process of administering the site (automating that step is nice, but administrative automation isn't the highest priority from what I've heard).

So, if you persist in considering this a black-and-white issue and that you won't participate in sites on the 'black' side, then you need to unplug your modem because nearly every web site you might visit is logging your IP address and I doubt any of them have rules that prevent administrators from glancing at your IP address in the log without the excuse of an "extreme" situation. And if private data is either perfectly inviolate ('white') or isn't ('black'), then all of those sites are 'black'.

- t        

The only difference between the two proposals is the word "extreme"

That's a very shallow reading. There is a deep and fundamental difference in the two positions. If there was a stated policy that privacy breaching was something to be done only when absolutely necessary, I would trust the gods to follow that policy. Were that the case I do not think tye would have even considered peeking at private data in the present case because in upholding policy he would have asked himself "is this breach absolutely necessary?", and the answer can only be "no" for such a trivial situation. Instead, the gods have no such policy and so the question above doesn't get asked ... the question they might ask themselves is "what is the harm in this particular case". And *that* is a fundamentally different question, and the wrong question if you take privacy seriously. Using that (or similar) question as your guide makes *you* the judge of the value of *my* privacy.

I am very far from being the black-or-white person you suggest. Some concepts just do not lend themselves to continuous scales. What sense does 30-percent or 80-percent anonymous have to you? And I do realize the nature of access involved in administration as I administer a small multi-user system/gateway myself. Seeing bits of priveledged information such as IP addresses is a *long* way from connecting the dots to isolate and identify users and/or user behavior.