There are very few reasons for needing that level of anonymity -- and none of them are good or honourable.

It is in the same category as the Government saying, "You do not need that strong level of encryption as none of your reasons for hiding your messages are good or honourable" (as per our Government sanctioned definition of "good" and "honourable").

If you want to avoid the crosstalk, use your PM-identity.

Honestly, why would someone use the AM option at all? It can only be for bad or dishonourable purposes, such as trolling or not taking responsability for what one says. (and I am being sarcastic here)

You do realize I hope that this is a most dangerous reasoning?

Absolutely not.

And your analogy is wrong. This isn't a "lesser anonymity", it is still total. There is just disambiguation between multiple AMs.

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.

And there would be no loss of anonymity by allowing us to distinguish between the posts of two (or more) AMs within a thread.

If you want to avoid the crosstalk, use your PM-identity.

The beneficiaries of the measure would be all those who do use their handles, that engage in conversations with AMs.

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.

Honestly, why would someone use the AM option at all?

There are good reasons for the AM option. And none of them would be compromised by this.

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.

Reducing abuse whilst protecting identity should be seen as a good thing.

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Believe me, I understand all those arguments and they are not wrong, but it just "hurts" the way I see anonymity. For me it literaly means "without a name" and you stick a name on the AM.

And remember, the worst of atrocities have been done under the umbrella of "it is best for society". :)

For me "anonymity" is a goal in itself, for you it seems that it is just a cloak which allows one to hold a conversation for which one cannot be held accountable or censured by negative XP and the "branding" allows such conversations to be held clearly. I think that is a perversion of the concept of AM.

CountZero

A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James