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 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].