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 wish. How about we just say I think too much?
>>41 would fail sociology if he studied it.
> Humanity can never embrace anonymity; not totally.
I guess you need to take a trip to 2ch.net.
>Contrast this to a meritocracy (something like capitalism). Now, your identity is everything. Your acheivements mean nothing without an identity to associate them with; the stronger the better.
Or something like an image board, where your only worth is in the text or images you supply to the whole. Only in this case anonymous achievements can mean something, if an idea can catch on.
>Humanity can never embrace anonymity; not totally.
Internet forums hardly encompass the entirety of the human condition.
People want to be the big name, the well-known poster. They want to be recognized by their online buddies and lord it over the "noobs". On almost every forum of that other kind, postcounts and registration dates become a mark of seniority which influences the reaction to anything put forward by the author. Now, not every member in any forum behaves this way, but enough do to make the pattern noticeable. In most general discussion forums you'll often find one or two extremely long threads dedicated to inane little games that are little more than an excuse to keep traffic flowing. They are usually dominated by a small circle of regulars who seemingly have little to do but play message board games. (see also shii's second bullet point http://shii.org/shiichan) Recently this kind of thing has expanded into posts earning points towards RPG-like stats, displayed under their names for all to see as if to say "look at me! look how much time and effort I've dedicated to this! respect me!".
There are a lot of people with tripcodes on 2ch. They even introduced a system recently which enables you to register an account on the site.
>>46
Yes, but mainly the tripcode users are registering, and it's still 70-90% anonymous.
> They don't even know about the option to stay Anonymous on these kind of boards.
I think that's a lot of it. They're prompted for name and email (or recently "link") so they fill in the form because they're not sure how the forum works. It doesn't say those fields are optional.
> People want to be the big name, the well-known poster. [...] respect me!".
What was your point with this? We already know trinket-laden forums encourage junk posting... it doesn't mean that's the only way things can be.
and I suspect >>41 would consider a telephone number to be an "identity".
>>44
Like I said, I don't study it. But I am going to proffer my thoughts on the matter.
>>45
Yes, or an imageboard. I was highlighting the differences between (for example) capitalism and communism, of which imageboards could be considered a hybrid in terms of the ideologies found there.
Movements/ideas/concepts don't need a figurehead, but the gist of what I was saying is that people feel the need for recognition, if not reward, for their efforts, whatever form that may take. Note that this is dependent on their social background. I'm going to say that I assume such behaviour (desire for recognition) is more common in capitalistic societies.
Correct; internet forums don't encompass the entirety of the human condition. I was making some very general statements about human behaviour here; not specific to imageboards. Apologies if that wasn't clear. If one were to state it mathematically, it could be said that the uptake of anonymity is a proper subset of the human condition as we see it. Imageboards are also a proper subset of the human condition. Clearly there is some intersection of these two sets, but neither is a subset of the other. (apologies again, my analogies suck, and contrary to how things may appear, I'm not particularly articulate)
> People want to be the big name, the well-known poster. [...] respect me!".
Just futher affirmation of what we believe, I think. I hate to say it, but I don't think we can squeeze much more out of this one, unless the direction changes.
No, I don't consider a phone number to be a discrete identity, but I think it's certainly a significant facet of one, for many people nowadays. Last I heard, mobile phones were quite popular with modern youth. Your phone number is how your friends reach you, talk to you, and send you (shudder) indecipherable fragments of perl. ^_^
People make relationships, get fired, get told about someone dying, etc. by SMS nowadays. If you want to talk about phone numbers, I certainly think mobile phone numbers are an important part of an identity. I don't want to say it's part of the identity directly, it's just a path to communicate to someone, but the fact that it's there changes how we communicate with each other, and indirectly affects our identities.
I think an identity is what you make of it. If a phone number is all that identifies an entity, that's an identity. An identity is what you present, but is absolutely subjective. The way we interact with other people means that we have a different identity for each person we communicate with, though similar as most of them may be.
Point in short: there's nothing that says an identity is a true and accurate representation of an entity. But my identity here as "someone called Furi who wants to blather about the human condition" is no less valid than my identity for which I have a house address, credit card number, and if you're American, an SSN.
>It doesn't say those fields are optional.
That's true. Perhaps the next release of wakaba/kareha could add "(optional)"next to the name field?
You know, the individual owners can do that. Change the string in the .pl file.
I agree with >>42 that there are different kinds of anonymity, and I think identity versus anonymity is quite apt. You are anonymous(or can be) at almost any forum, if you use a unique name, but you have an identify.
From what I know of 2ch(which isn't much...), it seems to be described as anonymity rather than lack of identify. It seems in most cases you have both, but they do log IPs so your anonymity is really the same as just about any other forum. In reality it isn't that much different than Slashdot or such where you do not have to register to post or can be anonymous (obviously I am not refering to usage). USENET was also easily just as anonymous with the remailer networks and such. Enough of anonymity though.
I can recall instances of where my identity on a forum changed my posting behavior. I do not want to be wrong or look like a fool, even in front of people I have no real interaction with. This reminds me of some experiment with a display in a grocery store that was rigged to fall (like a stack of oranges). When someone grabbed an orange and it did fall, they felt ashamed and some even made excuses to others near that they did not even know and are not to remeber or be remebered by.
I think this reaction has both negative and positive effects. With an identity attached I am less likely to flame someone or criticize them, and I will also avoid criticism. I find myself expressing uncertainty in my statements even if I am realitively sure of them just in case I do turn out to be wrong. I have even not posted on occasions on account that I might be wrong. On the other side of the coin though, I am more likely to double check and verify things in these cases. So you have people more willing to be an asshat if they don't have an identity and at least for me, less likely to put more thought/effort into (some of)their posts.
Another issue is even without a name attached to posts or an ID, most people have unique styles or certain idiosyncrocies that they can be identified by. Should a true identify-free board have an option to try and remove any of such traits?
In the end I do not believe that either "Western" or 2ch forums are supperior. Knowing who you are talking to is very helpful in cases. I would not imagine say.. LKML going well indentity free. I am not sold on whether not having identies by default (or the normal behavior) produces anything of value, however I find it more enjoyable (I guess the situations where I would rather not have an identity outway the ones that I do, and if I do want an identity I am free to choose one). In any situation where you have a choice however, I feel that people should not stereotype based on the choice (e.g. tripcode faggot).
On a side note this little text box is a pain in the ass to me. Task out and it shrinks back down, so I click in it and thus the cursor looses its place! Or if I click on the scroll bar it extends, but the page itself is no longer in the right place so I have to scroll the page down to see the bottom of the textarea!
Finally, as a result of this post not having an identity attached to it I have not bothered to fix things I know I misspelled, because I honestly do not care.
this debate is stupid, there is a name field, if you want to put a name in put a name in, if you don't then don't. There is nothing to debate/argue about it.
You have an AIM name or e-mail because you want to talk with your friends online.
Do you consider the people on a forum your friends?
That's the clincher. Anonymity isn't good for everywhere. I can think of one forum I read where everyone is friendly and wants to know each other well, and on that forum I feel fine using a login name. (2ch has a few of these, too.)
But on some random patch of Internet, you have few friends, and if you know what's good for you, you won't solicit random people to send you an e-mail. On the comments page of a blog, often you will see people call themselves Anonymous even though they don't know crap about "2ch culture". It's just the smart thing to do.
Of course a lot of users will "abuse" their privilege of posting anonimously in order to be assholes. That's kind of to be expected. On the other hand, you can freely speak your mind and that freedom does not only mean to be an asshole.
Contrary to register-only boards, you don't have to regard other people so much when you speak your mind for fearing you will lose your reputation or friends or whatever. And even if you aren't afraid of that, it's probably still better to post anonimously when speaking your mind freely about some controversial issue or when you take a controversial stance because when other people take offense to that you won't have to deal with ad hominem drama in the following discourse.
Also, it's just easy to make a comment anonimously. No need to register, no need to have an e-mail adress for that, no need to remember passwords. It doesn't get much easier than this.
>>61
Does anonymous posting on major boards prohibit making new friends? Imagine 2ch as a bunch of large clubs. If you go to meeting and see someone that is in a lot of the same clubs you are in you would likely talk to them and maybe become friends with them. When everyone in identity-less you cannot see this similarities. "Normal" forums with usernames would allow them still. Ofcourse there is another edge to the sword, people could see you post in conspiracy topics and think you are a nutbag. So it is a wash?
Both have their places. In a technical discussion it is good to know who is known from their knowledge of the area, but not to the point of devaluing anyone who isn't known's input. A place where people discuss controversial topics would probably be better without identies; less preconcieved notions of the post's content by the poster, less personal attacks.
It certainly isn't a new idea or unique idea though, as some seem to think.
Considering identites: Have you never, on register-only forums, had that weird feelings that all of the other users were the same person, only having multiple accounts to fuck with your mind?
> really anything on the internet is like that.
That kinda was my point there. This whole internet business is so disconnected from "reality" that the very concepts of "identity" or "individuality" have their meanings gotten twisted quite a bit.
>>62
I like that. Ad hominem, or more specifically bias, is really easy to do, even if you know what it means and try to avoid it. I think it's good to avoid the careful treading you see on some registered boards.
On more intelligent, not so friendly boards, it's especially important to avoid the positive bias you can often see. The ability to write and think well is a slippery thing, which you have to constantly work to maintain. If people can freely criticize you, it helps a lot.
I don't mind people who stay Anonymous or use nicks. I finally decided on this tripcode and use it about 50% of the time.
I can see where people who dislike the idea of tripcodes are coming from - yes, trying to attach a very specific name to your posts may seem like you care very much about this idea of your 'self'.
But not everyone's like that. Just because one makes teh choice to use a tripcode even though they could be anonymous, doesn't mean that they're necessarily self-important: on the contrary, they may feel responsible and accountable for whatever they say, be it idiotic, smart, spammy... Or maybe they're just used to the idea of using a nick.
Anyway, it's not like by choosing to be anonymous, you are necessarily doing it out of humility and lack of attachment to your ego. Just by reading this thread I get the impression that there are enough people who do it because of their ego - they don't want their self, their name, their reputation to be tarnished so they decide to be anonymous.
It's not that I'm a staunch supporter of either side, I really don't care - I'm in the middle anyway... for stuff like shiritori I don't bother using the tripcode... I just thoguht about it because I left an anonymous comment at my friend's blog, specifically about this person she talked about in an entry (whom she left nameless, but I knew who she was talking about), and she said if I was accountable for whatever I say and I wasn't afraid of saying what I did, then it would only be proper courtesy to leave a name, such as in letters to the editor. (Well, there's a reason why certain Western communities use the phrase "Anonymous Coward".)
I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's just another thing to throw in to this thread.
> Anonymous Coward
Do not bring slashdot into the hallowed halls of /soc/!
It's infectious! Madness! Death! Frist prost!
>Just by reading this thread I get the impression that there are enough people who do it because of their ego - they don't want their self, their name, their reputation to be tarnished so they decide to be anonymous.
True, there is that aspect, but there's more to it than just a protection of social standing. If you look through this thread and others on the same subject, you'll see testimonials of people who would normally be discouraged from posting on controversial subjects but did so anyways anonymously so their content wouldn't be judged against the bias created by their previous history of posts. When posting exclusively anonymously(even only within one thread) there is no reputation to build up or tarnish.
When you get into personal stuff like blog drama within a circle of friends, then I can see how it would be necessary to use names.
Arguments about taking social responsibility would carry a lot more weight if people posted with their real name and address, and not a pseudonym like pretty much everybody does. A pseudonym only creates a fictional identity, one free from any long-term or real-life consequences.
Anonymous posting seems a lot more honest, in that respect.
>>73
I disagree that your identity online is free from any long-term consequences. Most people will use the same names in multiple places and it is amazing what a google search alone will pull up (assuming a unique name). It is certainly easier to shed an old identity and make a new one online than it is in the real world, but it is still an identity. If you have a psuedonym that you use all of the time instead of your real one, would that not be more indicitive of your true identity than your real name? An identity is not any less valid just because it is a psuedonym.
It's possible to link a pseudonym to a real person, but most people have no idea how to do this. As a matter of fact, most people go out of their way to avoid their online personality being connected to their real one. What is that, but a concerted attempt to avoid consequences from what you do under your assumed online identity?
And I don't think you'll find anyone who manages to use their online identity in offline dealings, so it's hardly a "psuedonym that you use all of the time instead of your real one". I know people who have assumed new identities in their real lives, and that's something on a whole different level than online identities. Let's not pretend that has anything to do with this discussion.
My point was not that someone would use their online handle all of the time; it was that there is nothing intristict about a pseudonym that prohibits it from being an identity as valid as any other.
I agree that most people try to avoid real-life consequences from their internet identities; however, that is not that only reason people try to keep them seperate. Most people do not want a random crazy from the internet showing up at their door and stalking them. While that would be a consequence I do not believe it is really in line with what consequences we are discussing (e.g. prejudice).
It's an identity, sure, but it's not your real identity. I was just countering arguments along the lines that using a name means taking responsibility for your words by countering that since you are still hiding behind a pseudonym, you're still shielding yourself.
Identitys are lol; I've probably had 8 of them on the chans myself. ^^
People who've been on a forced-registration forum for a long time are probably at least vaguely aware of the potential for sockpuppetry. This can lead to a distrust or dislike of new users, and retreating further into a clique.
Pardon my lousy English, but what exactly is sockpuppetry? Do you mean something like going on and going on and going on about a subject and nobody listening to you? Or just being an attention whore?
I'm a regular at a certain forced-registration forum and I'm guilty of both, I admit.
>>81
Pretending to be multiple people. Say you register 3 accounts and then have the other two agree with you.
Nymshifting!
Tho, nymshifting is only changing nym....
While sock puppet is defined as agreeing with yourself.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sock%20puppet
What if the guy is disagreeing with himself? :)
> What if the guy is disagreeing with himself? :)
Metatrolling.
This might be interesting:
http://www.wechange.org/node/14
It's not like the philosophy wasn't there in the first place. Usenet, forums-you-don't-have-to-register, weblog-comments.
>>88
Usenet has already been covered in this thread, forums where you don't have to register still don't have something as simple as tripcodes to prove an identity and weblog comments are mostly irrelevant for open and free discussion.
> weblog comments are mostly irrelevant for open and free discussion.
That's the subject of a future rant from me, by the way. Weblogs are utterly useless for discussion, but that's what everyone's moved to. Hate grows!
>>87 It may be spreading on the Western side, but I notice more and more .jp imgboards that enforce ip showing. I know at least 2-3 .jp boards where every post has its poster's ip number displayed near it, boards which didn't show those before.
>>91
"at least 2-3 .jp boards" is hardly "more and more", considering that there are literally hundreds of japanese imgboards out there.
Every idiot newbie these days posts with a name & tripcode, even though it doesn't make any sense and just encourages more and more people to do the same.
There is almost no real need to post with a tripcode at all, yet people on the western boards overdo it very much. It gets really annoying and to the point where the communities don't look much different than your average drama-infested register-only forum.
I stopped posting with a tripcode+name almost completely about a year ago or so after I realized that there isn't much sense to use one except for vanity, attention whoring, seniority shit & other useless bullcrap. It also sets a bad example for other users. I wish more "oldschool" posters would set a good example in this vein and post more anonymously.
If I want to post with a nick and tripcode, I'll post with a nick and tripcode. If you don't want to use one, don't. Stop being a dramawhore about it.
>>94
It's all fine and dandy that you do what you do (much in the same manner as a man does what a man must do) but that totally avoids the (warning: pseudo-humanities ahead) sociological implications & ramifications that are the topic of this very thread.
It's cool that you have a one-liner like "If I want to post with a nick and tripcode, I'll post with a nick and tripcode. If you don't want to use one, don't." handy but that doesn't adress anything in this thread and it's pretty much an irrelevant statement.
Heh, nowadays I usually post tripcodeless more than I do with a tripcode.
I think some people though, they want their individuality noticed. And I don't really think it's bad if they do.
As for me, yeah, I do sometimes.
For example, if it's a continuing thread, and I want them to see that I am a recurring, dedicated poster.
So in a way, I agree with >>94.
>>96
I dunno. When I see such enlightening posts like >>93, full of wonderfully positive connotations, it really puts me in a frame of mind for serious discussion.
To be honest, I think the entire topic is wankery. That some people actually get worked up over it is ridiculous to me. It's much like watching some bored teen pumped up on bravado and testosterone pontificating about the irrelevant. Who cares?
I don't like boards that require registration, but I also think the people who deem that Anonymous is the One True Way are plain silly. They frame the discussion in such a manner that there can be only one answer. They emphasize the detriments of names, completely ignore any benefits, and do the exact opposite with anonymity. However, reality has shades.
If you don't agree, that's your discretion. If you stay anonymous, and let me do what I want, we won't step on each other's toes. That's what it comes to in the end, and people like >>93 can go jump.
Somebody write a firefox extension that removes all the names from these boards. It'll be interesting.
> I also think the people who deem that Anonymous is the One True Way are plain silly.
That's not what I was saying. 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.
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. This is not a holy crusade, it's a strategy to break up the crusty /. et al (lol "Anonymous Coward") mindset that still is present which implies that all anonymous contributions are basically worthless or cowardly and that only people with names are good users.
I agree that one extreme should not be replaced with another extreme, but to find a golden middle I think it can be useful to counter one extreme with another for a while. Sorry if you got offended in the manner I was communicating this.
Also, if you really don't care about the whole issue, why reply so verbosely to this thread? It makes you look silly.
> 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?
