Debate: Should the Vanguard Eliminate Anonymous Posts

Burt said…

Right or wrong you will lose a large part of the discussion you prize so much if you require registration. I can’t see how anonymous posting has in anyway hurt the discussion on this blog. If you want to go back to being just another blog, then limit it to only people who register.
require

Burt said…

Right or wrong you will lose a large part of the discussion you prize so much if you require registration. I can’t see how anonymous posting has in anyway hurt the discussion on this blog. If you want to go back to being just another blog, then limit it to only people who register.
require

I’ve noted there are no spam comments on this site, so that is not a problem.

The discussion can be vigorous but you don’t seem to have a particular problem with trolls.

Some blogs allow people to put down a name and an email address to verify, which does not display. I think that’s an antispam thing though.

Overall I think you would lose a lot of the discussion.

I’ve noted there are no spam comments on this site, so that is not a problem.

The discussion can be vigorous but you don’t seem to have a particular problem with trolls.

Some blogs allow people to put down a name and an email address to verify, which does not display. I think that’s an antispam thing though.

Overall I think you would lose a lot of the discussion.

There are two main functions of comment postings. One is to engage in a back and forth debate, the other is to just offer ideas. I come down firmly in favor or maintaining the ability to post anonymously. My reasons are the following:
1. The Vanguard has been able to maintain a high caliber of comment by its posters under the present system. There does not appear to be excessive verbal abuse that anonymous postings, claimed by some, would encourage.
2. Debates between anonymous posters have been identified(the spontaneous cleverness of Vanguardians) by identifying the anonymous poster by time entered.
3. The concept that IDEAS are validated by the name that is attached to it is an elitist concept. The ideas can stand by themselves, for the readers to weigh for content, not the status of the poster.
4. Most importantly, the Vanguard should be as easily accessible, with the fewest “hoops to jump threw”. We want the Vanguard to be
drawing new people into our on-line community. Grassroots power involves drawing in these new people, having them read(and hopefully participate) and find that there are others who have a similiar perspective to theirs… that they are not alone in their hopes and beliefs. When this group reaches a critical mass, change occurs!!

There are two main functions of comment postings. One is to engage in a back and forth debate, the other is to just offer ideas. I come down firmly in favor or maintaining the ability to post anonymously. My reasons are the following:
1. The Vanguard has been able to maintain a high caliber of comment by its posters under the present system. There does not appear to be excessive verbal abuse that anonymous postings, claimed by some, would encourage.
2. Debates between anonymous posters have been identified(the spontaneous cleverness of Vanguardians) by identifying the anonymous poster by time entered.
3. The concept that IDEAS are validated by the name that is attached to it is an elitist concept. The ideas can stand by themselves, for the readers to weigh for content, not the status of the poster.
4. Most importantly, the Vanguard should be as easily accessible, with the fewest “hoops to jump threw”. We want the Vanguard to be
drawing new people into our on-line community. Grassroots power involves drawing in these new people, having them read(and hopefully participate) and find that there are others who have a similiar perspective to theirs… that they are not alone in their hopes and beliefs. When this group reaches a critical mass, change occurs!!

it’s a tricky thing. one does not want to inadvertently scare off potential participants, but it does get maddeningly difficult to sort through the various anonymous posters on the heavily-trafficked threads. i wish there was a way to just require a pseudonym but nothing beyond that, but i’m not sure that blogger has that option available.

it’s a tricky thing. one does not want to inadvertently scare off potential participants, but it does get maddeningly difficult to sort through the various anonymous posters on the heavily-trafficked threads. i wish there was a way to just require a pseudonym but nothing beyond that, but i’m not sure that blogger has that option available.

The well-known adage, if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it, sums up this debate. The Vanguard is definitely not broken!

The well-known adage, if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it, sums up this debate. The Vanguard is definitely not broken!

sharla said…

One way for people to identify themselves temporarily is to post by selecting Other and inserting a name. The name could be used for the current thread only (such as “Burt said” on this thread) or used on a consistent bases for all threads (such as “davisite” on this thread.”

This way people could see just how many people were participating in a discussion, rather than just “annonymous with multiple personalities”.

I agree that this should be encouraged, not required, because things seem to be working.

sharla said…

One way for people to identify themselves temporarily is to post by selecting Other and inserting a name. The name could be used for the current thread only (such as “Burt said” on this thread) or used on a consistent bases for all threads (such as “davisite” on this thread.”

This way people could see just how many people were participating in a discussion, rather than just “annonymous with multiple personalities”.

I agree that this should be encouraged, not required, because things seem to be working.

I wouldn’t comment if it wasn’t anonymous. Even with a ‘handle’, if you post other places eventually people will find out who you are, then find some way to attack you, rather than debate your ideas.

Or try to find some way to get you fired, or retaliate in other ways.

Also, note the number of comments Supervisor Rexroad gets on his blog now, versus when he allowed anonymous postings. It used to be there was a lot of good debate, now all he gets are supporters like ‘Wacko in Japan’ and ‘YoloRightwingVet’ who give him thumbs up no matter what he posts. It went from a great political site to something much more passive and a lot less interesting. Oh, sure, you can register with a pseudonym, but HE knows who you are, thus giving him leverage over you should you say something he can use against you.

So keep it anonymous.

Signed,

Anon Ye Moose

I wouldn’t comment if it wasn’t anonymous. Even with a ‘handle’, if you post other places eventually people will find out who you are, then find some way to attack you, rather than debate your ideas.

Or try to find some way to get you fired, or retaliate in other ways.

Also, note the number of comments Supervisor Rexroad gets on his blog now, versus when he allowed anonymous postings. It used to be there was a lot of good debate, now all he gets are supporters like ‘Wacko in Japan’ and ‘YoloRightwingVet’ who give him thumbs up no matter what he posts. It went from a great political site to something much more passive and a lot less interesting. Oh, sure, you can register with a pseudonym, but HE knows who you are, thus giving him leverage over you should you say something he can use against you.

So keep it anonymous.

Signed,

Anon Ye Moose

The counter to that is that you register with google here, not with the Vanguard and sites like Daily Kos require registration and they get literally hundreds of posts.

The counter to that is that you register with google here, not with the Vanguard and sites like Daily Kos require registration and they get literally hundreds of posts.

Vincente… If we look to the “big-boys”, on-line comment activities from the NY Times, Washington Post to Haaretz(major Israeli newspaper) all do not require any registration but rather just punching in a moniker. I believe that you are correct that the Vanguard program does not have that capability.

Vincente… If we look to the “big-boys”, on-line comment activities from the NY Times, Washington Post to Haaretz(major Israeli newspaper) all do not require any registration but rather just punching in a moniker. I believe that you are correct that the Vanguard program does not have that capability.

My point Davisite is that requirements as such will not necessarily kill the debate.

My point Davisite is that requirements as such will not necessarily kill the debate.

My point Davisite is that requirements as such will not necessarily kill the debate.

My point Davisite is that requirements as such will not necessarily kill the debate.

Wu Ming
7/25/07 12:50 PM
states:
“…It does get maddeningly difficult to sort through the various anonymous posters on the heavily-trafficked threads. i wish there was a way to just require a pseudonym but nothing beyond that, but I’m not sure that blogger has that option available.”

—————————–
Please don’t drive yourself mad, Mr. Ming (sorry to be so formal, I just like the alliteration), its only a question of, as Davisite noted, adding the date and time to pasted-in Anonymous comments people want to comment on in their “Leave your comment” space, which practice cropped up just as a practical expedient to keep track of ideas. Consistent nicknames (added as my name is below by clicking the Anonymous button, without having to google-in) would work equally well to keep the flow of ideas as smooth as possible.
I think we should keep the Anonymous option of posting comments.
The only reason I can see for keeping track of who posted what is to reply, shall we say, “with intense subjectivity.” But, as Anonymous 7/25/07 12:30 PM noted, there havn’t been any spammers or trolls landing here. The webmaster appears to do a very quick delete on any who do.
–Brian Orr

Wu Ming
7/25/07 12:50 PM
states:
“…It does get maddeningly difficult to sort through the various anonymous posters on the heavily-trafficked threads. i wish there was a way to just require a pseudonym but nothing beyond that, but I’m not sure that blogger has that option available.”

—————————–
Please don’t drive yourself mad, Mr. Ming (sorry to be so formal, I just like the alliteration), its only a question of, as Davisite noted, adding the date and time to pasted-in Anonymous comments people want to comment on in their “Leave your comment” space, which practice cropped up just as a practical expedient to keep track of ideas. Consistent nicknames (added as my name is below by clicking the Anonymous button, without having to google-in) would work equally well to keep the flow of ideas as smooth as possible.
I think we should keep the Anonymous option of posting comments.
The only reason I can see for keeping track of who posted what is to reply, shall we say, “with intense subjectivity.” But, as Anonymous 7/25/07 12:30 PM noted, there havn’t been any spammers or trolls landing here. The webmaster appears to do a very quick delete on any who do.
–Brian Orr

” My point Davisite is that requirements as such will not necessarily kill the debate.”

This may be true but “debate” is only one function of this blog.Also,registration would inevitably reduce the active participants to the “usual suspects”.. I can count on the fingers of one hand(actually 1/2 the fingers) the number of times when these back and forth “debates” resulted in someone acknowledging that a valid point had been made.. mostly, it’s people talking AT one another.

” My point Davisite is that requirements as such will not necessarily kill the debate.”

This may be true but “debate” is only one function of this blog.Also,registration would inevitably reduce the active participants to the “usual suspects”.. I can count on the fingers of one hand(actually 1/2 the fingers) the number of times when these back and forth “debates” resulted in someone acknowledging that a valid point had been made.. mostly, it’s people talking AT one another.

Actually, identifying comments with a known pseudonym has its down-side. I probably read Rifkin’s comments differently than if they were offered by anonymous. …and he readily sees a Commie Pinko slant to the comments by Davisite.

Actually, identifying comments with a known pseudonym has its down-side. I probably read Rifkin’s comments differently than if they were offered by anonymous. …and he readily sees a Commie Pinko slant to the comments by Davisite.

The main posts that you do are usually very good, timely, and provocative, but they are one man’s opinion. The comments are something that I read with interest and they give me more varied thoughts and opinions. Sometimes following the anonymous comment thread is difficult but I believe the cloak of anonymity is what makes for interesting debate. People will usually be more open, if not more honest, when posting as an unknown.

I encourage the use on a moniker only for the sake of following the thread of the post. Those that are brave enough to use their real full name should be commended, but many people have good reasons to be wary of that from a professional or a personal standpoint. Leave things as they are with the moniker encouragement is how I would like to see this blog continue. Keep up the good work DPD.

The main posts that you do are usually very good, timely, and provocative, but they are one man’s opinion. The comments are something that I read with interest and they give me more varied thoughts and opinions. Sometimes following the anonymous comment thread is difficult but I believe the cloak of anonymity is what makes for interesting debate. People will usually be more open, if not more honest, when posting as an unknown.

I encourage the use on a moniker only for the sake of following the thread of the post. Those that are brave enough to use their real full name should be commended, but many people have good reasons to be wary of that from a professional or a personal standpoint. Leave things as they are with the moniker encouragement is how I would like to see this blog continue. Keep up the good work DPD.

People are posting on here anonymously, because any view that departs from the “progressive no growth agenda” is subject to personal attack if there is a name attached.

People are posting on here anonymously, because any view that departs from the “progressive no growth agenda” is subject to personal attack if there is a name attached.

Anonymous 8:17

I always post under my name and no one ever attacks me for having a different point of view from the Greenwaldian agenda.

Uh, wait a minute. Maybe they do.

Anonymous 8:17

I always post under my name and no one ever attacks me for having a different point of view from the Greenwaldian agenda.

Uh, wait a minute. Maybe they do.

DPD, if you simply eliminated the Anonoymous radio ball, so the choices are Google/Blogger or Other each person could choose to either 1) register or 2) type in a name of their choice each time they poat. If they are afraid of backlash all they would have to do is come up with a name that is unidentifiable.

When I began posting a few weeks ago I choose option 2), but at the same time have also chosen to use my real name. Because his name appears as a blue link, Richard has chosen to register, on the otherhand because their names appear in black, davisite and Davisite and Vincente have chosen option 2). In each case they have chosen the level of identity that they are most comfortable with.

DPD, if you simply eliminated the Anonoymous radio ball, so the choices are Google/Blogger or Other each person could choose to either 1) register or 2) type in a name of their choice each time they poat. If they are afraid of backlash all they would have to do is come up with a name that is unidentifiable.

When I began posting a few weeks ago I choose option 2), but at the same time have also chosen to use my real name. Because his name appears as a blue link, Richard has chosen to register, on the otherhand because their names appear in black, davisite and Davisite and Vincente have chosen option 2). In each case they have chosen the level of identity that they are most comfortable with.

So far, 6 want to eliminate anonymous, 16 want it retained and 1 don’t care.. while the keeping anonymous seems to be winning hands down, the only 1 don’t care is also significant.. namely, Vanguardians do CARE!!!

So far, 6 want to eliminate anonymous, 16 want it retained and 1 don’t care.. while the keeping anonymous seems to be winning hands down, the only 1 don’t care is also significant.. namely, Vanguardians do CARE!!!

Two cents. No we should not get rid of anonymous postings. It gives people options. If someone works for UCD or some company and has a point of view not consistent with the rest of his or her workplace they may need to feel that anonymous is the only way to go.
Rebeccadawnwu

Two cents. No we should not get rid of anonymous postings. It gives people options. If someone works for UCD or some company and has a point of view not consistent with the rest of his or her workplace they may need to feel that anonymous is the only way to go.
Rebeccadawnwu

Two points of clarification.

Blogger does not have the option of eliminating anonymous without required registration.

Second, required registration would not breech confidentiality or even anonymity, it would simply require that people register under a moniker. For instance, “davisite.” We of course do not know who “davisite” actually is, only that he is a person who posts repeatedly over a period of time and we can distinguish him from anonymous 12:30 PM. Even though we do no know anything more about that individual than we do about “davisite.”

Two points of clarification.

Blogger does not have the option of eliminating anonymous without required registration.

Second, required registration would not breech confidentiality or even anonymity, it would simply require that people register under a moniker. For instance, “davisite.” We of course do not know who “davisite” actually is, only that he is a person who posts repeatedly over a period of time and we can distinguish him from anonymous 12:30 PM. Even though we do no know anything more about that individual than we do about “davisite.”

I’ve read threads here only a tiny three or four times, I suppose, but in one instance I did I recommended in my comment that Doug require people to create an identity to post here. Some of the most angry and polarizing comments I read seemed liable to be insincere and be somebody having some manipulative fun at the expense of other’s energy stores and the opportunity for more a productive discussion of the more particular point at hand. I think requiring that people assume a blogger identity discourages this. A few “hard cases” may be happy to create a new identity each new opportunity to behave badly, but most people will reuse them, I think, and so they’ll think and care about the reputation that will attach to that identity and behave better as a result. Also, anybody who thinks to create a new identity just for the occasion of striking out has to spend a minute or two away from the blog to do so, during which time he or she might cool off or think better of it. I suppose the thought of “registering” even once with Google is enough turn a few welcome people away, but angry unproductive discussions also disincentivize participation.

I’ve read threads here only a tiny three or four times, I suppose, but in one instance I did I recommended in my comment that Doug require people to create an identity to post here. Some of the most angry and polarizing comments I read seemed liable to be insincere and be somebody having some manipulative fun at the expense of other’s energy stores and the opportunity for more a productive discussion of the more particular point at hand. I think requiring that people assume a blogger identity discourages this. A few “hard cases” may be happy to create a new identity each new opportunity to behave badly, but most people will reuse them, I think, and so they’ll think and care about the reputation that will attach to that identity and behave better as a result. Also, anybody who thinks to create a new identity just for the occasion of striking out has to spend a minute or two away from the blog to do so, during which time he or she might cool off or think better of it. I suppose the thought of “registering” even once with Google is enough turn a few welcome people away, but angry unproductive discussions also disincentivize participation.

3. The concept that IDEAS are validated by the name that is attached to it is an elitist concept. The ideas can stand by themselves, for the readers to weigh for content, not the status of the poster.

Oh? Says who? Anyway, ideas are only one part of what comments contain. They are also expressions of sentiment, testimony to observation and assertions of fact. Even acting in good faith people get these wrong all the time, and in some ways some people are more consistently reliable than others. We spend our whole lives acquiring cues we go by to judge how reliable who is about what and when, and it’s good for us we do…or I’ve got a causeway for sale that goes to Sacramento.

3. The concept that IDEAS are validated by the name that is attached to it is an elitist concept. The ideas can stand by themselves, for the readers to weigh for content, not the status of the poster.

Oh? Says who? Anyway, ideas are only one part of what comments contain. They are also expressions of sentiment, testimony to observation and assertions of fact. Even acting in good faith people get these wrong all the time, and in some ways some people are more consistently reliable than others. We spend our whole lives acquiring cues we go by to judge how reliable who is about what and when, and it’s good for us we do…or I’ve got a causeway for sale that goes to Sacramento.

“I’ve noted there are no spam comments on this site, so that is not a problem.

The discussion can be vigorous but you don’t seem to have a particular problem with trolls.

Some blogs allow people to put down a name and an email address to verify, which does not display. I think that’s an antispam thing though.

Overall I think you would lose a lot of the discussion.”

So far, this comment/ argument has been most persuasive to me, as I think for the most part it is accurate.

“I’ve noted there are no spam comments on this site, so that is not a problem.

The discussion can be vigorous but you don’t seem to have a particular problem with trolls.

Some blogs allow people to put down a name and an email address to verify, which does not display. I think that’s an antispam thing though.

Overall I think you would lose a lot of the discussion.”

So far, this comment/ argument has been most persuasive to me, as I think for the most part it is accurate.

Pat Lenzi said…

I have worked, volunteered and socialized in settings where certain opinions would be “out of line” with the mainstream of that group. Many people with valid points of view simply chose not to share them with others in those settings. I beleive anonymous posting here permits some voices to be heard that would cautiously silence themselves, or do so out of fear of repercussions.

I beleive that the moderators on this site have kept the debates to the topics and discouraged personal attacks on posters, so for me, the anonymous postings help foster debate.

Pat Lenzi said…

I have worked, volunteered and socialized in settings where certain opinions would be “out of line” with the mainstream of that group. Many people with valid points of view simply chose not to share them with others in those settings. I beleive anonymous posting here permits some voices to be heard that would cautiously silence themselves, or do so out of fear of repercussions.

I beleive that the moderators on this site have kept the debates to the topics and discouraged personal attacks on posters, so for me, the anonymous postings help foster debate.

MT….points well taken. My comment about ideas standing for themselves without ever considering the source IS hyperbole… although I think that there IS a kernel of truth in it that should be considered.

MT….points well taken. My comment about ideas standing for themselves without ever considering the source IS hyperbole… although I think that there IS a kernel of truth in it that should be considered.

just to be clear, there is a difference between anyonymous and pseudonymous. noone besides rifkin is arguing for people to post under their real names, the discussion is between multiple “anonymous” posters and people choosing stable pseudonyms for the reader’s ease of sorting through sustained threads (but still leaving the poster effectively anonymous).

the anonymous 3:16 model, while useful for one-off posts, tends to be less effective when the same person gets in a back-and-forth with anonymous 4:20 through multiple postings, if compared to the same debate between, say, “valleyoakdragon” and “tunnel toad.” but i won’t belabor the issue.

just to be clear, there is a difference between anyonymous and pseudonymous. noone besides rifkin is arguing for people to post under their real names, the discussion is between multiple “anonymous” posters and people choosing stable pseudonyms for the reader’s ease of sorting through sustained threads (but still leaving the poster effectively anonymous).

the anonymous 3:16 model, while useful for one-off posts, tends to be less effective when the same person gets in a back-and-forth with anonymous 4:20 through multiple postings, if compared to the same debate between, say, “valleyoakdragon” and “tunnel toad.” but i won’t belabor the issue.

We are anonymous, we are legion.

We are anonymous, we are legion.

Building on Wu Ming’s comment above. Perhaps the solution is to ask everyone to use threading courtesy and chose a pseudonym and each time s/he posts click on the Other radio ball and enter that pseudonym in the USERNAME box. It would add 10 to 20 extra keystrokes per post, which is relatively trivial compared to the number of keystrokes each of us use to enter our comments.

Building on Wu Ming’s comment above. Perhaps the solution is to ask everyone to use threading courtesy and chose a pseudonym and each time s/he posts click on the Other radio ball and enter that pseudonym in the USERNAME box. It would add 10 to 20 extra keystrokes per post, which is relatively trivial compared to the number of keystrokes each of us use to enter our comments.

Rebecca said…
“Two cents. No we should not get rid of anonymous postings. It gives people options. If someone works for UCD or some company and has a point of view not consistent with the rest of his or her workplace they may need to feel that anonymous is the only way to go.
Rebeccadawnwu”

Rebecca, the use of the Other radio ball and a consistent pseudonym would fully protect the anonoymous nature of the poster.

Rebecca said…
“Two cents. No we should not get rid of anonymous postings. It gives people options. If someone works for UCD or some company and has a point of view not consistent with the rest of his or her workplace they may need to feel that anonymous is the only way to go.
Rebeccadawnwu”

Rebecca, the use of the Other radio ball and a consistent pseudonym would fully protect the anonoymous nature of the poster.

Building on Wu Ming’s comment above. Perhaps the solution is to ask everyone to use threading courtesy and chose a pseudonym and each time s/he posts click on the Other radio ball and enter that pseudonym in the USERNAME box. It would add 10 to 20 extra keystrokes per post, which is relatively trivial compared to the number of keystrokes each of us use to enter our comments.

I really like this idea.

Building on Wu Ming’s comment above. Perhaps the solution is to ask everyone to use threading courtesy and chose a pseudonym and each time s/he posts click on the Other radio ball and enter that pseudonym in the USERNAME box. It would add 10 to 20 extra keystrokes per post, which is relatively trivial compared to the number of keystrokes each of us use to enter our comments.

I really like this idea.

Point of order: The vote at the right of the page is on “anonymous” commenting, but as people in this thread have been struggling to keep clear it’s only about requiring that people pick some psuedonym more distinctive than “anonymous” under which to register with Google/Blogger. “Registering” need not involve your legal name either in common practice, although perhaps Google’s fine print says otherwise.

Point of order: The vote at the right of the page is on “anonymous” commenting, but as people in this thread have been struggling to keep clear it’s only about requiring that people pick some psuedonym more distinctive than “anonymous” under which to register with Google/Blogger. “Registering” need not involve your legal name either in common practice, although perhaps Google’s fine print says otherwise.

I left out my point: Change the wording of the vote to be about “commenting under a Google/Blogger ID/psuedonym” or something like that.

I left out my point: Change the wording of the vote to be about “commenting under a Google/Blogger ID/psuedonym” or something like that.

And actually the vote should be done over, since many counts seem in already. We’ve got a butterfly ballot situation going on here. Let’s not have this go all the way to the Supremes.

And actually the vote should be done over, since many counts seem in already. We’ve got a butterfly ballot situation going on here. Let’s not have this go all the way to the Supremes.

MT: You are correct. I tried to point this out both in the actual article and in the comments.

I will further point out, you register through google, you do not register with the Vanguard. I have no way of knowing who belongs to what moniker.

Finally, the poll has a feature that enables you to change your vote.

MT: You are correct. I tried to point this out both in the actual article and in the comments.

I will further point out, you register through google, you do not register with the Vanguard. I have no way of knowing who belongs to what moniker.

Finally, the poll has a feature that enables you to change your vote.

Those who are interested in dialoging can post using the Other with a consistent pseudonym. Those who choose to post using anonymous should have the option of doing so. Those who are distressed by attempting to dialogue with anonymous posters do not have to do so if it is too “maddening”.. no one is twisting their arm to do so. In the end, this is about ELIMINATING an option for our posters. In addition, registration in any form adds adds another level to entering the Vanguard on-line community. This is something that should be avoided unless there is a good argument that the Vanguard will be better for it.

Those who are interested in dialoging can post using the Other with a consistent pseudonym. Those who choose to post using anonymous should have the option of doing so. Those who are distressed by attempting to dialogue with anonymous posters do not have to do so if it is too “maddening”.. no one is twisting their arm to do so. In the end, this is about ELIMINATING an option for our posters. In addition, registration in any form adds adds another level to entering the Vanguard on-line community. This is something that should be avoided unless there is a good argument that the Vanguard will be better for it.

davisite, can you give me one good reason why a person would prefer posting using the Anonoymous radio ball rather than using the Other radio ball and then typing in a pseudonym? I’ve racked my brains and have yet to come up with a single reason compelling or otherwise. Maybe I’m just dense … can you help me out?

davisite, can you give me one good reason why a person would prefer posting using the Anonoymous radio ball rather than using the Other radio ball and then typing in a pseudonym? I’ve racked my brains and have yet to come up with a single reason compelling or otherwise. Maybe I’m just dense … can you help me out?

“Matt Williams said…

Building on Wu Ming’s comment above. Perhaps the solution is to ask everyone to use threading courtesy and chose a pseudonym and each time s/he posts click on the Other radio ball and enter that pseudonym in the USERNAME box. It would add 10 to 20 extra keystrokes per post, which is relatively trivial compared to the number of keystrokes each of us use to enter our comments.”

I agree with this suggestion.

“Matt Williams said…

Building on Wu Ming’s comment above. Perhaps the solution is to ask everyone to use threading courtesy and chose a pseudonym and each time s/he posts click on the Other radio ball and enter that pseudonym in the USERNAME box. It would add 10 to 20 extra keystrokes per post, which is relatively trivial compared to the number of keystrokes each of us use to enter our comments.”

I agree with this suggestion.

“can you help me out?”

Matt… There are some who are more
“sensitive” to the concept of being identified IN ANY MANNER when posting their comments. It is not our perogative to judge whether it is a legitimate concern. For some, posting as anonymous gives them the freedom and comfort they desire. For others, using a consistent pseudonmym brings on “recognition”(albeit a pseudonym recognition) and with it comes comments, derision, etc.. some just do not want to “deal” with this. I agree that using the Other with a pseudonym is the best option but we do not have to ELIMINATE the anonymous option for those who prefer it.

“can you help me out?”

Matt… There are some who are more
“sensitive” to the concept of being identified IN ANY MANNER when posting their comments. It is not our perogative to judge whether it is a legitimate concern. For some, posting as anonymous gives them the freedom and comfort they desire. For others, using a consistent pseudonmym brings on “recognition”(albeit a pseudonym recognition) and with it comes comments, derision, etc.. some just do not want to “deal” with this. I agree that using the Other with a pseudonym is the best option but we do not have to ELIMINATE the anonymous option for those who prefer it.

davisite said…
“Matt… There are some who are more ‘sensitive’ to the concept of being identified IN ANY MANNER when posting their comments. It is not our perogative to judge whether it is a legitimate concern.”
davisite, I see the logic inwhat you are saying, but I believe your logic is flawed. With that said, I also see the logic in what I am about to say, but I believe my own logic is flawed … but here goes anyway. Unless I am wrong, the purpose of this Blog, and especially the Comments portion of the Blog is to promote [u]dialogue[/u]. Having upteen people all posting with the same name is a huge impediment to dialogue. It does however promote posturing on the part of initial posters as well as responders.

davisite said …
“For some, posting as anonymous gives them the freedom and comfort they desire. For others, using a consistent pseudonmym brings on “recognition”(albeit a pseudonym recognition) and with it comes comments, derision, etc.. some just do not want to “deal” with this.”

The solution to that problem is simply not to use a consistent pseudonym. That way the dialogue will be effectively directed, but without the overhead for those who wish to avoid it. For instance a thin-skinned poster could be Mary on Monday, Talia on Tuesday, Wu Ming on Wednesday, Tan on Thursday, Farook of Friday, Sam on Saturday, Sarah on Sunday, and then Moses on Monday. Kind of like the naming of hurricanes.

davisite said…
“Matt… There are some who are more ‘sensitive’ to the concept of being identified IN ANY MANNER when posting their comments. It is not our perogative to judge whether it is a legitimate concern.”
davisite, I see the logic inwhat you are saying, but I believe your logic is flawed. With that said, I also see the logic in what I am about to say, but I believe my own logic is flawed … but here goes anyway. Unless I am wrong, the purpose of this Blog, and especially the Comments portion of the Blog is to promote [u]dialogue[/u]. Having upteen people all posting with the same name is a huge impediment to dialogue. It does however promote posturing on the part of initial posters as well as responders.

davisite said …
“For some, posting as anonymous gives them the freedom and comfort they desire. For others, using a consistent pseudonmym brings on “recognition”(albeit a pseudonym recognition) and with it comes comments, derision, etc.. some just do not want to “deal” with this.”

The solution to that problem is simply not to use a consistent pseudonym. That way the dialogue will be effectively directed, but without the overhead for those who wish to avoid it. For instance a thin-skinned poster could be Mary on Monday, Talia on Tuesday, Wu Ming on Wednesday, Tan on Thursday, Farook of Friday, Sam on Saturday, Sarah on Sunday, and then Moses on Monday. Kind of like the naming of hurricanes.

Matt… dialogue is not the only function of the postings. Some just want to put their ideas “out there” and are not seeking a dialogue. I am particularly intrigued by the concept of aononymous postings standing unadorned and unidentified ,to strike a responsive chord with the reader or not. This is also a legitimate function of the postings on this blog.

Matt… dialogue is not the only function of the postings. Some just want to put their ideas “out there” and are not seeking a dialogue. I am particularly intrigued by the concept of aononymous postings standing unadorned and unidentified ,to strike a responsive chord with the reader or not. This is also a legitimate function of the postings on this blog.

davisite said…
“Matt… dialogue is not the only function of the postings. Some just want to put their ideas “out there” and are not seeking a dialogue. I am particularly intrigued by the concept of aononymous postings standing unadorned and unidentified ,to strike a responsive chord with the reader or not. This is also a legitimate function of the postings on this blog.”

And that function would be just as effectively achieved if the poster’s handle was Abraham rather than Anonymous. A chord is just as responsive if the poster is called Anita rather then Anonoymous. In fact there could be a real art to maximizing the impact of a post through creative choice of a posting name.

Marx, Metternich, Mad Anthony Wayne and any number of intriguing names could be creatively used; however, for the moment I’ll stick with Matt.

davisite said…
“Matt… dialogue is not the only function of the postings. Some just want to put their ideas “out there” and are not seeking a dialogue. I am particularly intrigued by the concept of aononymous postings standing unadorned and unidentified ,to strike a responsive chord with the reader or not. This is also a legitimate function of the postings on this blog.”

And that function would be just as effectively achieved if the poster’s handle was Abraham rather than Anonymous. A chord is just as responsive if the poster is called Anita rather then Anonoymous. In fact there could be a real art to maximizing the impact of a post through creative choice of a posting name.

Marx, Metternich, Mad Anthony Wayne and any number of intriguing names could be creatively used; however, for the moment I’ll stick with Matt.

Of course, the problem is that to remove the anonymous option, DPD would have to institute the google registration system which would make creating multiple pseudonyms a cumbersome plan. Since the Vanguard program does not allow for just removing the anonymous option, leaving it as it is and encouraging the use of pseudonyms(one or multiple),you may agree, is the best option.

Of course, the problem is that to remove the anonymous option, DPD would have to institute the google registration system which would make creating multiple pseudonyms a cumbersome plan. Since the Vanguard program does not allow for just removing the anonymous option, leaving it as it is and encouraging the use of pseudonyms(one or multiple),you may agree, is the best option.

Vincente wrote:

> My point Davisite is that requirements as such will not necessarily kill the debate.

It will kill many voices in the debate. For many people it will not be worth joining the debate if a fact you state will get someone mad (and get them working to “get back” at you and/or your family). I often disagree with “Frankly”, but I’m still glad he is able to keep posting without getting worried that his conservative views will hurt his business in this liberal town.