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 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.