Good? Bad? Trip- and capcodes only sensible for mods and admins? Useful for suggesting more contributors than just Sling!XD/uSlingU? Good for a community with no vanity and attention whoring? Or promoting trolling and DQN behaviour?
Discuss!
> I was saying there is a strong tendency on the English anonymous message- and imgboards to use names and this is getting out of hand and annoying.
Why is it out of hand? Why should anyone care?
> still is present which implies that all anonymous contributions are basically worthless
I never saw it that way, and I honestly doubt most people do.
Are you sure this problem even exists?
>My suggestion was to counter this tendency with a different behaviour for those who actually make good contributions: to post anonymously, so that others will be encouraged to do the same, even newbies.
How do you know this isn't in effect already? :p
I mean, you know know when a long time peoster is posting as anonymous... but you do know when they aren't.
> Why is it out of hand? Why should anyone care?
Read the thread, please (no offense)!
In short: I would like to see for the common perception of anonymous contributions to be more like Futaba Channel's Toshiaki/「」 (merely representing "everybody", the common, "decent" poster) and not just the snarky, cowardly Anonymous who "does not forgive". Also, I think we are all aware of the things that are ideally avoided in anonymous communities (content of argument over personal drama, etc.).
> Are you sure this problem even exists?
Yes.
> How do you know this isn't in effect already? :p
> I mean, you don't know when a long time poster is posting as anonymous... but you do know when they aren't.
Of course I cannot know completely... but I do know that a lot of newbies try to establish some sort of name-related identity on the boards (I frequent quite a few) and I attribute this to many "oldtimers" posting with names/tripcodes. Maybe that inference is incorrect, but it seems plausible.
I've read it, and I'm unconvinced. All I see is hand-waving about the human condition and our numerous foibles, and the occasional finger pointed at 2ch (by people who fail to understand the ramifications of scale).
There's a difference between desiring the ability to anonymously post, and desiring that everyone do so.
> Yes.
I prefer concrete examples.
>>104
You won't get any concrete examples, as I haven't run a script on all English sites for the last years, coming to meaningful statistics to present here.
It's a climate I am describing which I experienced myself, and if you aren't experiencing the same, then I'll repeat what I said before: We'll have to agree on disagreeing, then.
I have no problem with that, although I'd rather you didn't get worked up over it (are you >>93?).
You may not be a problem, but others who blindly follow the anonymous ideology will inevitably intrude on me, and that's not welcome. Nor do I like the sterile future that awaits if ever it were to succeed.
> Nor do I like the sterile future that awaits if ever it were to succeed.
Resentments! Prejudices!
> Resentments!
That's partly it. It's like every idiot comes out of the woodwork when protected by anonymity. Even slapping something as simple as a nick on them causes them to pause.
Look at me. I'm the cause of some of the longest flamewars that have graced world4ch, but you'd probably not guess it by my behaviour elsewhere. Now why is that?
I don't know about you, but I don't like the thought of an unidentifiable mob flaming each other, except as a momentary diversion, which why I prefer a mix of anonymous and names. If the balance is lost you'll either end up with a mob or a bunch of back-scratchers.
> It's like every idiot comes out of the woodwork when protected by anonymity.
wtfux taught me the opposite is correct.
> If the balance is lost you'll either end up with a mob or a bunch of back-scratchers.
Call me wapanese but I rather like the mobs over @ Futaba Channel & 2channel.
Comparing the miniscule WTFux to 4chan is a bit disingenious, particularly considering it's inhabited by former 4chan trolls.
I don't think it's a conincidence almost everybody there posts with a handle, anyway.
Fair enough. Do you think it would be any different if they didn't use nicks?
Let's put it this way: I think users who are annoying are extra-annoying if they constantly use a handle since their handle is likely to provoke additional annoyance.
Quite a few troublestarters seem to be aware of this.
> if they constantly use a handle since their handle is likely to provoke additional annoyance.
You mean in a Pavlovian sense? That's a valid argument, but even if you remove the nick the idiot is still there.
> but even if you remove the nick the idiot is still there.
True, but then again: people would be more likely to focus on the content (which is better in this case, IMHO).
Opinions are easy to dismiss. Persons/handles/names draw more attention to themselves.
We are different in this regard and I may have kote-phobia, but these days I tend to be suspicious of posts that are made by people with handles that seem to be troll posts, more than I am suspicious of anonymous tomfoolery - simply because in my experience it is easier to dismiss the latter and just move on.
I see things differently.
Nicks help me quickly identify wheat from chaff. For example, I know Sling is a mass poster, so I was able to do some things to make his posting life a bit easier. When WAHa comments on code or physics, I pay him more heed than some other anonymous. Cosmo Gunny is a friend. Albright, Shii, lolocaust, etc, etc, these people all have different meanings to me.
The reason is simple: I don't have the time to check every little fact that people post. I use a person's prior history as a heuristic in deciding whether their comments are worth consideration or not.
Besides, I actually like it when people use a nick, and I gain some understanding of their persona. A mass of anonymous hold no interest for me. I'm a social being, so identities, however tenuous, mean something.
>>117
I understand your points. But I did not suggest that nobody should ever post with a name anywhere. Nor do I think names are substantial to social interaction.
I'll expand on what I envision in a bit. I should try to be busy with something else right now.
>>117
I think that is a dangerous assumption. Why give these people more credibility than others? Or, why give them less scrutiny than any other well-written post? Is it that hard to simply discard bad posts? For any topic that really matters, you'll have to verify the facts yourself in any case.
As for your time, I think a better metric is activity, and quality of posts. You can't pay attention to everything anyway, so learn to judge quickly, and maybe return to something if it appears you were wrong.
> Why give these people more credibility than others?
Why shouldn't I? Why does society have recognized experts? If some unknown quantity makes claims about linguistics, and Chomsky made the opposite claim, who should I believe? I'm not a linguist.
It does not necessarily mean I toss anonymous opinions to the side either, but I certainly judge them differently. Also, people who build up a good reputation put it on the line every time they post, so they have added incentive to be right.
> learn to judge quickly,
An far more faulty heuristic than judging by names. Ridiculously so. I've studied psychology enough years to know that this just won't work.
But, let's ignore the body of work that exists in that domain for a moment. Let's look at an example most of us are familiar with instead: slashdot. If there's one thing I've learned from there it's that some people are really good at sounding authoritative, and peppering their assumptions with things I know to be true, or likely to be true, yet their conclusions are completely wrong.
Now, I'm a computer nerd. I've been studying computer science for many years, plus quite a few other domains. I've been banging out code since I was 13 or so. And yet some of these people still get through my filter. If they get through me, how does any normal person have any hope?
Going and checking facts doesn't work any more. In the modern world there's so much information (and it continues to grow exponentially) that it often takes years of training in a discipline to even develop a proper framework. Sometimes you don't have a choice but to take the word of experts.
I am not saying that all reliance on authority in matters of truth and/or correctness should be abandoned.
Clearly, having singular entities that can identify themselves over a longer period of time can have its merits.
There are people who you know you can trust. Many of them set up websites for offsite collections of facts, material, etc., they organize gaming clans, they point out mischievous misinformation, etc. A lot of these people post with tripcodes when they do these things. They are being helpful in their way and it makes sense how they do what they are doing. I am eager to forgive any vanity that might motivate them apart from that.
But on the western imgboards/message boards people with tripcodes/names post far too often for this heuristical authority analysis to make much sense. I don't need to know that it's Kihei^!WkSTz/miko who just posted "very moe." or JohnSmith!gEneRicAvx with "requesting sauce!" as a simple reply to a thread on the OS-tan board. I gain nothing from seeing that it's Sling!XD/uSlingU who makes generic Futaba Channel reposts. I don't care that it was Cockmongler!LOloLoHgnR who just replied with a boring flame to another user.
Of course I am also using the heuristics you mentioned to filter out authoritative contributions. Everybody does that. But it's a total overkill and defeating the purpose of anonymity if the majority of users posts with a handle for pretty much every (worthless) post. It's like a constant influx of static noise to me.
Why should I care or know who makes these posts? Of course, if you are generally interested in the specific, individual personality of each and every user, you will always be interested. But to me, personally, the use of handles on western imgboards/messageboards has been very inflationary in the recent past and my suggestion is to counter that somehow.
> I don't care that it was Cockmongler!LOloLoHgnR who just replied with a boring flame to another user.
If you don't care, then what's the problem?
> defeating the purpose of anonymity
Care to explain how?
I'm also curious about what you think the purpose of anonymity is?
> If you don't care, then what's the problem?
As I said multiple times already: It encourages other, mostly new users to do the same. Until I end up being on a site/community where the majority of normal/useless/generic posts are from users with names/handles.
Then, it also makes the "heuristic filters" less efficient if I have to check every person because suddenly everybody decides to be a personality. Scanning the name field for two or three mentionable entries in a list of ten is okay for me, Scanning the name field for two or three mentionable entries in a list of five dozen moots the purpose of the whole heuristic thing.
This might be negligible, though.
> I'm also curious about what you think the purpose of anonymity is
Cue the generic Hiroyuki explanation.
See also:
http://wakaba.c3.cx/shii/shiichan.html
Basically, I wish for a stronger, more natural anonymous userbase.
I think the general quality of community interaction would benefit from that.
Until this is truly the case, such an assumption is, of course, my subjective opinion.
> It encourages other, mostly new users to do the same.
And what's wrong with that?
> it also makes the "heuristic filters" less efficient if I have to check every person because suddenly everybody decides to be a personality.
On the contrary. A heuristic is useless if you have nothing to base it on. I think you're underestimating our cognitive ability to discard irrelevant information (in fact, we're so good at it we toss out a lot of good information too!).
> http://wakaba.c3.cx/shii/shiichan.html
I've always found that explanation wanting, for the reasons I've mentioned above. The only people it seems to convince are those already indoctrinated.
Points 1, 2, & 5 are valid. In fact, 1 and 2 are the reasons (with a couple others) that I believe these types of boards are so successful.
Points 3 and 4 are questionable. 4 reveals a simplistic model of human behaviour, which is obvious to anyone who has gone trolling anonymously. 3 doesn't deserve comment.
> And what's wrong with that?
I already said that, don't feel like repeating.
> A heuristic is useless if you have nothing to base it on.
For this matter it doesn't matter if everybody posts with a name or nobody posts with a name. Both extremes are making heuristics near useless.
I have already said numerous times before that I do not want either extreme.
As of now, it's too much irrelevant information for me, too many useless, generic posts with names attached. Doesn't make sense, as I said.
> 3 doesn't deserve comment.
orly? I think it's true, and it's one of the main reasons I am advocating this whole thing (btw: there's no point in using the word "indoctrinating" as there's nobody really teaching me or any of us. We're all pretty much newbies with our own opinions in this regard. Simply because my opinions are strong it doesn't make them less valid or less personal). At 4chan, for instance, it has completely gone out of hand (see http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1108009355/96,99)
> 4 reveals a simplistic model of human behaviour, which is obvious to anyone who has gone trolling anonymously.
I don't think I quite understand what you want to say here. Anyway, this point is valid insofar as point #3 is valid, since trolls striking at other people's reputation is just another way of saying that they are attacking their vanity.
Oh, and if you want my strong opinion in one simple sentence: Posting with a name should be considered a gimmick on these boards, not the norm.
Come to think of it, I believe I can come up with some additional reasons to that Shiichan list.
I'll post some of them later.
> I already said that, don't feel like repeating.
I missed it. Repeat it, or point it out.
> I do not want either extreme.
Good to hear. Neither do I.
> Doesn't make sense, as I said.
Maybe not to you. Who says it's useless to others?
> orly?
Yes, really. Why do you think enforced registration was created?
> At 4chan, for instance, it has completely gone out of hand
4chan is exactly what I had in mind. What makes you think any other site that size will fare any better? As far as I can tell, 2ch is full of idiots too, it's just that wotaku worship them.
> Posting with a name should be considered a gimmick on these boards, not the norm.
You still haven't convinced me. As far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't matter either way. Why should it?
> I missed it. Repeat it, or point it out.
Since you asked so nicely: More and more users using names leads to the majority eventually doing that which is in effect pretty much one of the two extremes.
> Who says it's useless to others?
Please tell me how names add any merit if they were attached to the following replies I just copypasted from various boards:
"And wasn't the same (japanese) voice actress both Misato and Excel?"
"0_0
Wait...Is this actually being made into an anime?"
"when do we get it with fansubs."
"you know waht would amke this better?
A BIGGER SOURCE OF THE ORIGINAL ONE"
"Who is she where is she from? Source please?
She's really cute.
thankies"
"I totally agree w/you. ^_~"
"needs a real usable resolution
like 1280x1024"
> Why do you think enforced registration was created?
I wasn't there when it catched on but my guess is that it was more of a measure to counter the increase of spamming than trolling.
> 4chan is exactly what I had in mind. What makes you think any other site that size will fare any better? As far as I can tell, 2ch is full of idiots too, it's just that wotaku worship them.
I am not sure what you want to say here. Do you think the situation at 4chan is wonderful and a-okay or what? And of course 2ch is full of idiots, as is pretty much any site on the internet that gets much traffic. Anonymity isn't a tool to counter idiocy, it's (apart from a few other, very nice things) an optional freedom to strip useless names and the attached drama, vanity and other rather stupid side-effects from the contributions.
> As far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't matter either way. Why should it?
Tone it down a bit with the rhetorical questions, okay?
Also: If it makes me a "wotaku" if I see certain things working better somewhere else than around here, then so be it.
It'd still be some sort of logical fallacy on your part, of which the show-off latin term eludes me at the moment, but whatever.
> More and more users using names leads to the majority eventually doing that which is in effect pretty much one of the two extremes.
And again, I ask, why does it matter? As long as people have the option to go anonymous, what's the problem?
> Please tell me how names add any merit
In this case, it looks like none. But why does that matter? Being Anonymous would add or detract, just like a name won't.
> spamming than trolling.
That might be, but spam was less of a problem several years ago than it is today; the growth has been exponential. :(
Trolls are always there, and they too are increasing in number.
> Do you think the situation at 4chan is wonderful and a-okay or what?
No, just the opposite. I don't like the direction 4chan is going.
> an optional freedom to strip useless names and the attached drama, vanity and other rather stupid side-effects from the contributions.
As well as any possible benefits, and just because the nick is gone won't have any effect on our vices. People will be jackasses no matter what. People won't like losing arguments, no matter what. People will make drama (I argue they create more drama as anonymous) no matter what.
So why does it matter if there's a name? In the end, it changes very little. Getting rid of names might replace a few problems, but it brings it's own baggage as well.
> Tone it down a bit with the rhetorical questions, okay?
It's not rhetorical. It's the core of my stance, and what you should be arguing against.
> show-off latin term eludes me at the moment,
Ad hominem.
It wasn't meant to be a personal attack, it's just an observation. I apologize if it was misinterpreted.
> And again, I ask, why does it matter? As long as people have the option to go anonymous, what's the problem?
Keywords: Heuristics failing with majority going with names, also the other points (drama, etc.)
Also, I think you are confusing options with actual tendencies.
> In this case, it looks like none. But why does that matter? Being Anonymous would add or detract, just like a name won't.
It matters for the above mentioned reasons. And "Anonymous" is just one big mass, it's easier for me to ignore the content of the name field if it is "Anonymous" than if every of those posts had a different name attached. If every post had a different name attached, that would be more time I would have to spend to screen through all of them. And those kinds of posts (regarding the content) are usually the majority of posts that are being made on these imgboards.
> People won't like losing arguments, no matter what.
Maybe, but it will be easier for me to accept it if I am wrong and just move on instead of having to defend my carefully crafted personality with all the authority, credibility, etc. attached to it.
In short: It seems evident that with names you will have personalities and with personalities you will have "more to lose" - of course none of this will matter if you have a general "lol internet" attitude to anything discussed online but I have observed places in which this is mostly the case to be pretty worthless for sincere discussion, regardless of names or anonymous.
The same also seems to me to be true for drama. A lot of paranoia & retaliation because of bans, for instance, seems to occur on some places like 4chan or SomethingAwful because there often people feel like they are singled out personally, for personal reasons. This makes for a lot of defiance, I believe.
> It's the core of my stance, and what you should be arguing against.
I am not arguing against you. I am not even trying to convince you. This isn't personal to me, it's neither for my personal gain nor against your personal gain.
I am merely trying to clearly type out my stance because I find it evident that it isn't as easily understood as I would like it to possibly be.
> just move on instead of having to defend my carefully crafted personality with all the authority, credibility, etc. attached to it.
I don't buy most of the rest of it, but this is a really good point. I've seen people "defend" untenable positions, and the only reason I can come up with is they didn't want to be seen as wrong.
I'd say it's only one element of a more complex equation, but it's a big one.
>>133
It's more that they don't want their own internet personality to be seen as being wrong.
Only fanatics will care if they were being proven to be wrong when posting anonymously.
>>117 - 133
if ever you needed a demonstration of why anonymity is superior, hereget
Is anyone familiar with the Craigslist community? There appears to be a thriving anonymous board there, although it's more rant based than discussion based.
I have a confession to make... I don't actually believe that registration is the sole cause of trolls, as lolocaust's quote in the article implies. Usually trolls enjoy seeing people upset and broken (which only happens on old-type forums), but sometimes they want to create political flamefests and don't care about the individual, and those will exist on any forum.
Although I didn't agree with lolocaust entirely, I used his quote to make a pre-emptive strike because if I said nothing on the subject some people would claim anonymous forums attract trolls. I didn't think such people would stick around long enough for me to hash out why trolling is inevitable and people have to learn to ignore it. I don't like having to assume that people can be so stubborn, but the Vanilla debacle (for example) serves to demonstrate that some people use the Internet to reaffirm their existing belief systems.
orz all around.
I have nothing to add.
Personally, I like people to name themselves. I like knowing who's been around awhile, and who's just passing through. I like knowing someone is awesome or an idiot. I also like knowing how many people are around, and how often they post. The latter two things are, admittedly, personal interest. I like knowing whether I'm seeing action from the same four or five people, or if there are dozens of people contributing. I like knowing if the comment in thread A is by the same guy that commented in thread B.
Names help me know what's going on. It's not vital, but it helps me understand the how things work, and what the situations are.
I can live without it, but I prefer not to.
I keep a name so, well, people know that yes, this is the same guy doing <Activity>. Part of it is egotism, I like when people say "Oh that Stupid Hed is a clever sort, I like him". I also do want to be accountable for what I do to some degree: "Will you stop posting that crap, Stupid Hed?" Me posting to this thread will likely serve as examples of both.
I suppose it can be argued I want to be known. Both for feeling like a big man, and so people can more easily call me out when I really do live up to my name. In the end, it strikes me as being more socialable.
Also, I admit coming from forced registration forums, so some of it may well be simple habit and being accustomed to it on my part.
> lolocaust's quote
huh?
>>141
Wasn't it you who said
> Trolls are not out to protect their own reputation. They seek to destroy other peoples' "reputation" ... Fora with only registered accounts are like a garden full of flowers of vanity a troll would just love to pick.
>>142
I attempted to start a debate at getvanilla.com and they banned me because I did not like their software.
If I have to hear about zer0kage's fetish one more time...
>>143-144
Oh, oh yeah. However, I didn't mean to imply "that registration is the sole cause of trolls" with that quote. Reputation is not necessarily something personal (although if it is it helps the drama).
>>140
Why can't you fell good/bad about yourself when people call you Anonymous?
You're likely right in that I would enjoy it. The thing is, it wouldn't really carry over to something else that I do. Rather, if I mess up, then it's just way too easy to ignore it and not have to pay any consequences. Conversely, if I do something good, it's soon forgotten, because there's really nothing to ID me for who I am.
It is egotism, I admit, but I like to think the benefit is that I don't act like a moron just because I had a bad day; or rather, if I do, people will remember it and tag it to me in the future.
>>148
Okay Stupid Hed I will be sure to remember these shitty posts of yours in some future event.
I used to post on register-only forums and I prefer anonymous posting perhaps partly as a reaction to their feudal nature. On 4-ch.net's /dqn/ we have a "rules" topic making fun of register-only forums and their rules and moderators and religions. To me, looking at these forums is very sad. It is like a few worthless people decide to start a board and they make themselves the big powerful admins and dozens or hundreds of even more worthless people show up and submit to this power structure, validating it. When I see how seriously these forum peons take themselves, how much effort they put into promoting themselves, how they close themselves off from the real world in order to live in a little corner, it's deeply depressing.
When anonymous posts are allowed, it is better. But unless they dominate, unless they become the de facto standard, the same sort of power structure will develop, and it is only a matter of degree.
Sometimes people argue that names are a good thing due to their potential to build a community. I think this is exactly why names are harmful. The internet is not the place to look for community. You're not going to build a personal, close-knit social group while standing in the middle of a huge crowd. The way I see it, the public internet is a huge crowd, and you can accept that, be anonymous and mingle with the strangers and see what new things you learn. Or you can stick to the people you know, and then you don't need a fake identity in the first place. I do both. I do use a name -- my real name -- with my friends, because I actually know them, as opposed to having argued with them on a website.
You cannot use anecdotal evidence to 'prove' that anonymous boards are better or worse. Just because you have posted on a few (or even a great deal) of bad register only forums does not make them all bad. Usenet used to be really good and anonymity was not the norm. The Well is a great community and a forum and it is completely not anonymous, you must post with your real name.
> The Well is a great community and a forum and it is completely not anonymous
That place is still around? Oh, man...
>>153
But people used their real names on Usenet, not pseudonyms, and they didn't have to register. And the 'net was a lot smaller then.
>people used their real names on Usenet, not pseudonyms,
really? i used a pseudonym... and then people started to realize how much usenet sucked, and i stopped using it.
You pretty much had to register.. you had to have an account on a server. I guess if you really wanted to you could post everything through anon.penet.fi, but how is that functionally different than registering a ton of junk users on a register only board with free email accounts? Not everyone used their real names too, but i'm pretty sure I covered that point with The Well...
You only need one account on one Usenet server to have open access to thousands upon thousands of newsgroups in dozens of categories. Anyone with an account on any other news server anywhere in the world has access to the same groups. If you don't see the functional difference between that and a making a ton of junk registrations on multiple individual web forums, pseudonym or not, you're beyond help.
>The Well is a great community and a forum and it is completely not anonymous, you must post with your real name.
It also charges $10. PER MONTH. Naturally that will filter out all of the 15 year old mouth-breathers as well as induce people to be active in order to get their "money's worth". This barrier to entry has more to do with its quality than its non-anonymity.
One account is still an account; thus your statement that you did not need to register to post on usenet is false. If you used the same psuedonym on multiple register forums it would be the same thing as posting in the same amount of different places as on usenet (the convience factor is totally moot in the context of this debate, thus functionally equivalent).
I love how you make my own point about The Well though. The quality of a forum can be influenced by how anonymous or registration free or whatever the hell you want to argue about, but no matter what you argue there are going to be counter examples to any 'registration is better!' or 'anonymous is better!' claims that is supported by only anecdotal claims. Specifically, your claims
>When anonymous posts are allowed, it is better. But unless they dominate, unless they become the de facto standard, the same sort of power structure will develop, and it is only a matter of degree.
have no actual support. How would The Well be improved by allowing anonymous posting from anyone? Where is this power structure--this cabal that you speak of?
To restate what several have already pointed out:
Anonymous IS an identiy. However, it is submitting to a mass identity rather than an individual. Entering a relatively unique label (with tripcode) in the name field only helps to make you slightly more traceable, doesn't make you a good poster or bad. I sometimes use more identifiable labels than Anonymous, I sometimes use labels (usually different depending on what board it is).
As I see it, to once again restate what so many already have stated, people need to stop whining and learn to deal with it. What's with the massive discrimination towards ID-people, denying them rights to behave like Anonymous does? I don't mind idiots using a name/tripcode, makes it easier to semi-skip their posts (I usually still skim through a piece of the text - who knows, they might actually produce something interesting for once).
I usually read every single post, unless someone's being an idiot and helps me to ignore his posts by IDing himself. I also never refer to people by their name but by post number, regardless of if they're Anonymous or not.
I've seen many cases where people who consider their main identity to be Anonymous temporarily take on a name+tripcode just to flame and cause aggravations. Vice versa too.
People need to drop the Holier-Than-Thou attitudes.
People complain about that Anonymous is a jerk and an asshole? Prove them wrong! Show that everybody isn't like that.
People complain about that IDtripfags are being jerks and assholes?
Take on a name+trip and become a good role-model! Show that everybody isn't like that.
Personally, whether I tripfag or not depends on what I wish to accomplish with the post. If I just simply want to tank some random person for uploading a really neat torrent, I post anonymously. If I in a thread want to post a more serious reply that probably will need to be identiable so that one won't have to refer to all ones previous posts if someone demands lengthier clarifications, or put up a longer and more elaborate version that the majority of people will go tl;dr at because they can't be arsed to re-read it and find the changes - I use a name.
I maybe should mention as well that I frequently post to 2ch as a tripfag, though probably 40% of all my posts there are anonymous. If it's a short irrelevant post: Anonymous.
If it's a lengthier post with something more important: ID.
If it's a lengthier post with something standalone: Anonymous.
Etc.
I never have had any real problems with people whining at me being a tripfag at 2ch, when I have been doing so. Giving some of my posts an identifiable label helps people sort the content quicker, to give them a quick idea of along what line the post will be. My 2ch label never got flamed, not even when I argued against lolicons. People usually see that label-identity as a producer of logical and sensible posts, who is willing to seriously listen to other people's arguments. Should they trust those posts more than Anonymous? No, not unless they have good reasons for believing otherwise. Which some people do. But only some.
Soon time to hit submit; What category does this post fall under (appart from the obvious tl;dr one)? Anonymous or tripfag?
Is this post irrelevant? No.
Is this post something that I am likely to build on, if I am to ever post again? No.
Anonymous it is, then.
Use your brains, people. There will always be idiots, trolls and assholes. I don't see why people feel it's so much easier to forgive them if they're being anonymous. Treat post equally, except for when it makes your life easier/better to not to - in the cases of where you have the upper hand (i.e. either know the Anonymous poster or the tripfag and thus being able to better tailor your reply/post to the person).
(wow.. this post is probably the longest one I've written for half a year or something. ah well. tl;dr! Cheers!)
You're ignoring the psychological effects on the poster when posting with or without a name. This is far more important than anything else, because your motivations and actions will be different depending on if you use a name or not.
>>162 that's because the cabal silenced all those who understood it- is shot
Nomina stultorum scribuntur ubique locorum
Translation: "Fools have the habit of writing their names everywhere"
I put on my robe and fool's hat.
I'll tripfag if I'm making a post about rules or something official but other than that I'm typically anonymous.
>>99
Use EditCSS or UserStyles.css and add:
span.postername, span.postertrip {display: none;}
The ID's still there, but it's close enough to pure "anonymity" to be useful.
Also, I'm anonymous unless I want something attributed to me. Which is rare.
I just wanted to comment that after several months of watching 4chan's /newpol/, I've become a bit doubtful about >>133. :(
People simply hate to lose arguments. That is all.
>>169
There's board out there, that put this into their main css. So, whoever want's to sign, can do that, but most people won't see it, unless they enabled it in their browsers. Fancy solutiton to the anonimity problem, I think.
>>170
The thing is, some are not in it for the ego but to proselytize. They just can't stand the thought of their truth losing out in front of an audience. But if it's merely a wounded ego that keeps an anonymous poster going, then that poster is an idiot.
>>172
It seems to me to be one-and-same. People tend to get their egos tied up with what they perceive to be the truth. Why else get upset when others don't agree?
So, I don't see how anonymity has anything to do with it.
Politics & Religion are controversial, I guess. You can't extend that to all communication.
I just like anonymous posting because I can't remember well which password goes to which ID on which website.
Was it really necessary to bump a thread which has not been posted in for nearly a year just to present that piece of inanity to the world?
If I had the time and patience, just for political protest, I would register in various forced-registration forums with an email created just for spam, and I would post a lot of spam in them, and probably something unwanted like hardcore gay porn, then after I got banned from one forum I would move on to the next forced-registration forum. But I would always post at the beginning of it an explanation like "I am only doing this because you are forcing people to register, I do not spam in other places". I have never posted spam, and I don't like spam obviously, but I would like if something like this happened. Just to prove that forcing people to register can't stop them from causing trouble. In that case it would have directly caused the trouble. Hopefully somebody who reads this will feel inspired and try that...
>>180
i tried that once, but there are like 9001 forced registration forums created every fucking day, so it's impossible for one person to have any significant impact on all of them.
Automate it, or at least partly automate it. Make a bot that searches for phrases like "phpbb" and "vbulletin", find the signup link, do as much as possible without intervention. If there's a captcha, pop it up in a dialog or something and continue on. You'd probably have to do mail verifications by hand, but in most cases a bot would be able to get 90% of the work done.
>>160
Speaking of Anonymous as the collective identity it has become..
..why is it that, when someone creates new/quality content, they will often abandon the Anonymous namesake? This isn't meant to be obvious. The mindset being something like, "I worked hard to make this, therefore I deserve recognition and its rewards." I'm not against the idea of people reaping the benefits of their labor, but if the benefits are mainly kudos from other anonymous or pseudo-anonymous people online, I can only imagine the point being to build credibility or to use a name as a folder, where all of your achievements can be filed together. Otherwise, it would be no different to use no name at all.
An example: I've been listening to the Chocolate Rain 8-bit Remix a lot recently - maybe you don't enjoy it, I do. According to the source I stumbled upon, the song was made by "coda". Great, the song kicks ass and it was made by coda - I suppose this could imply that coda kicks ass, or at the very least is skilled at making chiptunes; maybe some will think coda is a gamer-nerd loser with nothing better to do, who knows.. it's a two-way street. For the person behind the name, it must feel good to see that so many have enjoyed his work or have asked him to share his knowledge - very flattering.
If coda had shared his work with no name whatsoever, would it sound any different? Not to my ears, no - but to someone who has heard of coda before, who knows the name, prior works, or even the online communities he is a part of, his chiptune may be differently considered. Yes, we all know.. it's an observation that's been beaten to death. As for the praise his work received, the "on-topic" stuff would still be there (eg. "i love this song!", "what did you use to make this?") and he would not be deprived of the feel-good motivation for sharing his song with everyone for free. The only thing the person behind the name would have differently is the positive or negative credit associated to it. Of course, using a name causes all sorts of "off-topic" stuff to show up (eg. "you should get rid of the google ads on your site.."), things that while related to the name, don't really address the Chocolate Rain remix.
Now after playing Internet Detective I see that coda's favorite anime is NGE - some may find this lacking in taste.. does it make his music any less appealing? Does the fact that Lewis Carroll photographed children in the nude make Through the Looking Glass less of a book? How about something that isn't so liberally interpretable, then: was his math any less valid? The problem isn't in using names, the problem is in how we humans will cross-associate completely unrelated things that happen to be linked by a common name. Anonymity is really there just to save us from our own bad habits and logic.
Personally, I don't mind pouring time and effort at personal/social expense into making something, then offering it up for free to whoever wants it. I enjoy seeing it spread, being used/cited, affecting how people think and so on. This is how most of the Internet works, and I imagine these same positive feelings are felt by others for their works, too. You don't need to have a name attached to experience these benefits, so why invite the potential stereotypes, misunderstandings, or drama? To build up a name so the next time you break from anonymity and choose to use it people pay more attention to you?
Looking back to the beginning of this post, if Anonymous as a collective identity is to be anything, you have to be willing to genuinely contribute to that identity - the wheat, too, not just the chaff. Funny, though, perhaps the name "Anonymous" has been distorted beyond repair by the content and actions associated with the various *chans. Maybe by posting as Anonymous within a certain hemisphere of the web, one is ironically inviting people to assume they are a chronic masturbator, obsessed with anime, or an egotistical Internet tough-guy. Maybe contributors feel that the other Anonymous who perpetuate the stereotypes they dislike are getting a free ride from the benefits of their work, or they simply don't want their work negatively associated with it. To them, I would guess that Anonymous is just another pseudonym, why not choose one of their own?
I think that one thing we forget when looking at the japanese identity of "anonymous", is that we generalize that most contributions made to 2channel are anonymous. What are the individual artist's sites, then? As soon as an artist becomes recognized, he begins to have an identity. there might not ever be a name associated with it, but preferences stated in passing will build up into a character portrait, much the same as how >>183 saw bits of Coda's personality.
it looks like >>183 is talking about the english-speaking internet's idea of anon, which is completely different from the japanese. you know the green personification of all the board particpants who runs around pissing on people and tearing off the heads of furries. rumour has it that he's on steroids..
>>183
I have released a lot of content as Anonymous. I imagine many do, but those don't stick out in any way because it's the norm. When someone isn't anonymous in a mostly anonymous culture, that's when you take notice, so it seems unusual.
fwiw, Coda is one of 4chan's admins, and IIRC currently the main programmer for the site as well.
>>186
Of course! As many as they may be, anonymous contributions are impossible to measure. I guess >>183's point is to get more would-be content creators to understand it is OK to release anonymously, to be humble and avoid the whole e-penis thing. Now if only the rest of Anonymous would take the hint about humility....
Hi from Poland!
I like what we have in 4chan in terms of a user-specified level of authentication. I can has
• 1. Complete anonymity,
• 2. Reference to previous post number,
• 3. Name,
• 4. Name with tripcode,
• 5. Name with secure tripcode.
I've been using [3] a lot. Been impersonated twice on my main project, both times obvious harmless trolling. Some communities, most prominently /mu/ in my experience, use a lot of [4].
The absolute worst is Suckerbergland, which wants more than
• 6. Registered identfier,
wants
• 7. Registered identifier with iRL name.
So I'm on myspace with [6] and Suckerberg can keep his [7].