How does anonymity promote honesty?

Richard

Richard

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
9,076
Location
West Coast Resistance
Display Name
Display name:
Ack...city life
Any long time user will have heard about or witnessed first hand how rude and obnoxious a poster can be when they hide behind the anonymity of the internet. Because such anonymity renders everyone faceless and unknown the poster is allowed to indulge in whatever behavior they desire. Increasingly, that behavior is rude and disgusting. It becomes so distasteful that it drives good people away from forums. How can that be good for the cyber community?
 
Richard, I agree 100%. What we have going for us on this board is a strong Management team who display no tolerance for that sort of sh*t! Posters who do that are told to leave.

That's why I hang out here instead of the other board (plus the infinitely higher class of people here:D )

P.S. remind myself to give kudos to Chuck and the others whenever possible!
 
Except for those of us that have met others from here, anyone, even with a name could be fictitious. So unless we have an annual meet and greet, how do you know who your talking to is really who they say they are?
 
I'm assuming that you are speaking about the rep system that is the reason Ben seems to be leaving, because the only other anonymous posting allowed here is on Medical Matters and Never Agian to promote discussion of topics that would not normally be asked and any off topic anonymous posts there are quickly removed.

What you have to remember, and so should Ben, is that the rep system is not anonymous. The user receiving the rep does not know who leave the rep, unless signed. But the management council does know and anyone leaving hate rep can be traced and have action taken against them by the management counsel. If hate rep is left all you have to do is bring it to the attention of the management counsel and just like a hate post it will be dealt with.

Missa
 
Michael said:
Except for those of us that have met others from here, anyone, even with a name could be fictitious. So unless we have an annual meet and greet, how do you know who your talking to is really who they say they are?
Click to expand...

"on the internet, no one knows your're a dog"
 
Richard said:
Any long time user will have heard about or witnessed first hand how rude and obnoxious a poster can be when they hide behind the anonymity of the internet. Because such anonymity renders everyone faceless and unknown the poster is allowed to indulge in whatever behavior they desire. Increasingly, that behavior is rude and disgusting. It becomes so distasteful that it drives good people away from forums. How can that be good for the cyber community?
Click to expand...
There is a flip side. Anonymity also allows a well-meaning person to offer constructive but hard-to-say criticism/advice to someone, or offer insight into a current issue by explaining an embarrassing bit of personal experience they would not share with their name attached.

The old saw is that the measure of a person's character is what they do when no one's looking. I think that applies to anon postings as well. Maybe that says something awful about what our culture has become, but the naive me would like to think it's simply a matter that the distasteful sticks out more clearly in our memory.
 
Ken,

There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but I think we as a society have lost an awful lot of the restraint that used to aid in constructive social discourse. I am in a profession where my colleagues and I review each other's work, and negative reviews have genuine and profound consequences. Moreover, it's a pretty competitive field. Many many years ago, I did these reviews anonymously. But it didn't take long before I came to appreciate that reviews of my own work fell into two categories: good, constructive reviews by people who signed their reviews and nonconstructive reviews by people who did them anonymously. At about the same time, for reasons now lost in the mists of time, I also came to appreciate that, while we may think we're being crystal clear in our writing, it is possible to be misunderstood, and if there is no way to check the meaning, the written review is worthless. Thus, I decided to sign all my reviews, and never regretted it. Moreover, in all those years, only once has someone whose work I reviewed negatively reacted badly. Most have gone out of their way to praise the constructiveness of my reviews even though I might have reviewed their work negatively.

Thus, my counter to your excellent point, that the best measure of character is what one does when no one is looking, is that one should also have the courage of one's convictions.

Judy
 
judypilot said:
Ken,

There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but I think we as a society have lost an awful lot of the restraint that used to aid in constructive social discourse. I am in a profession where my colleagues and I review each other's work, and negative reviews have genuine and profound consequences. Moreover, it's a pretty competitive field. Many many years ago, I did these reviews anonymously. But it didn't take long before I came to appreciate that reviews of my own work fell into two categories: good, constructive reviews by people who signed their reviews and nonconstructive reviews by people who did them anonymously. At about the same time, for reasons now lost in the mists of time, I also came to appreciate that, while we may think we're being crystal clear in our writing, it is possible to be misunderstood, and if there is no way to check the meaning, the written review is worthless. Thus, I decided to sign all my reviews, and never regretted it. Moreover, in all those years, only once has someone whose work I reviewed negatively reacted badly. Most have gone out of their way to praise the constructiveness of my reviews even though I might have reviewed their work negatively.

Thus, my counter to your excellent point, that the best measure of character is what one does when no one is looking, is that one should also have the courage of one's convictions.

Judy
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I wouldn't dispute anything you say here.

And in fact, an incident in which people brought complaints to me about this site but wanted to remain anonymous is a very large part of the reason I am no longer on the management council here. However, for all of the abuse of anonymity, I think it has a place. Not a large place, to be sure, but one nonetheless. And it seems to me that it's relatively worthwhile to blow off a stream of abusive anons if that means you get a few anon gems that you would not otherwise have gotten. The question, then, is how you can be sure you would (or would not) have gotten them.
 
judypilot said:
Ken,

There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but I think we as a society have lost an awful lot of the restraint that used to aid in constructive social discourse. I am in a profession where my colleagues and I review each other's work, and negative reviews have genuine and profound consequences. Moreover, it's a pretty competitive field. Many many years ago, I did these reviews anonymously. But it didn't take long before I came to appreciate that reviews of my own work fell into two categories: good, constructive reviews by people who signed their reviews and nonconstructive reviews by people who did them anonymously. At about the same time, for reasons now lost in the mists of time, I also came to appreciate that, while we may think we're being crystal clear in our writing, it is possible to be misunderstood, and if there is no way to check the meaning, the written review is worthless. Thus, I decided to sign all my reviews, and never regretted it. Moreover, in all those years, only once has someone whose work I reviewed negatively reacted badly. Most have gone out of their way to praise the constructiveness of my reviews even though I might have reviewed their work negatively.

Thus, my counter to your excellent point, that the best measure of character is what one does when no one is looking, is that one should also have the courage of one's convictions.

Judy
Click to expand...

I appreciate the thoughts expressed in your posting. I long ago decided that I would not enter into discourse here on the web in a manner inconsistent with how I would address that person face to face. Nor will I post as anon. Nor will I use negative rep. If I feel strongly enough about something to comment on it, that comment will be public, and it will be as fair as I can make it.

Some would say "do unto others". I just say, be polite. Hold your beliefs, but be polite about it. Incivility ads nothing to discourse, but incivility.

Jim G
 
Ken Ibold said:
There is a flip side. Anonymity also allows a well-meaning person to offer constructive but hard-to-say criticism/advice to someone, or offer insight into a current issue by explaining an embarrassing bit of personal experience they would not share with their name attached.

The old saw is that the measure of a person's character is what they do when no one's looking. I think that applies to anon postings as well. Maybe that says something awful about what our culture has become, but the naive me would like to think it's simply a matter that the distasteful sticks out more clearly in our memory.
Click to expand...
I'd been looking for the right words to explain this. Thankfully Ken beat me to the finding of them. :)
 
OK, fine. I wanted to hear the arguements afor and agin. All make very good points. But how to ident & implement the best method of resolution of the current problem? Submit answers, please.

To expand on what Missa said, why not withhold any and all rep points until after review by POA? That way the problem is nipped in the bud by the proper authorities acting in the proper channels. I suppose that increases the burden on mgmt but such are the distressing demands of hurtful, nonconstructive, anon posts and rep points.
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
To expand on what Missa said, why not withhold any and all rep points until after review by POA? That way the problem is nipped in the bud by the proper authorities acting in the proper channels. I suppose that increases the burden on mgmt but such are the distressing demands of hurtful, nonconstructive, anon posts and rep points.
Click to expand...
They are not anonymous. They are simply hidden from the recipient.

We've had, I think, three cases of abuse of the reputation system where we have had to delete those reputation remarks. Two of them were caught by us on our own.

Out of 1,610. What fraction of a percent is that?

Perhaps we should also withhold all posts until they're reviewed by POA? Just in case one of them also violates the RoC and says something mean.

But I don't think that's a tenable solution, and since there are 2 of us who have access to review all reputation comments, and I know Brian is as busy as I am, I think its safe to say that the Administrators will simply revolt over such an idea.

We don't want to see people abuse the reputation system - and we will take action when people do - but we're not going to restructure how things are running (quite successfuly, IMO) because one person is reacting overly strongly to getting a sniping remark levied at them in a cowardly fashion.

The undisclosed poster behaved badly, and we're dealing with it. That doesn't mean we particularly think Ben is reacting in the best of possible ways to all this.
 
Greebo said:
They are not anonymous. They are simply hidden from the recipient.

We've had, I think, three cases of abuse of the reputation system where we have had to delete those reputation remarks. Two of them were caught by us on our own.

Out of 1,610. What fraction of a percent is that?

Perhaps we should also withhold all posts until they're reviewed by POA? Just in case one of them also violates the RoC and says something mean.

But I don't think that's a tenable solution, and since there are 2 of us who have access to review all reputation comments, and I know Brian is as busy as I am, I think its safe to say that the Administrators will simply revolt over such an idea.

We don't want to see people abuse the reputation system - and we will take action when people do - but we're not going to restructure how things are running (quite successfuly, IMO) because one person is reacting overly strongly to getting a sniping remark levied at them in a cowardly fashion.

The undisclosed poster behaved badly, and we're dealing with it. That doesn't mean we particularly think Ben is reacting in the best of possible ways to all this.
Click to expand...

I Whole Heartily Agree!

You guys are doing a wonderful job and just because someone doesn't use the proper channels for resolution of 'bad behavior' towards them and then pouts, takes his toys and runs off, doesn't mean that the system is broken. It just means he's not using the resources available to him and getting mad, which is sad but really his problem not a problem with the board.

Missa
 
I personally like the way the rep points system is set up. If anything, I wouldn't mind seeing the total of pos/neg points given by a user, just not their names. No need to create unnecessary retaliation.
 
An interesting observation:

Complaints about censorship, the reputation system, and departures of members from the forum increased sharply about the same time that the amount of political discussion increased.

Does this mean that the political discourse is the CAUSE of the new problems?
 
I suppose 1 can be considered a sharp increase from 0...

But I think your observation is possibly more wishful thinking than actual related data.

There have been, to my knowledge, no complaints RE censorship since the increase in political discussion.
There has been 1 complaint about the reputation system since the increase in political discussion, and the reputation point in question was given over an aviation thread.
There has been 1 departure of same.
 
Heheh - are you familiar with the shirt that explains binary numbers and shows how to use them on one hand, illustrating the number 4? ;-) ThinkGeek sells it :)
 
Greebo said:
There have been, to my knowledge, no complaints RE censorship since the increase in political discussion.
There has been 1 complaint about the reputation system since the increase in political discussion, and the reputation point in question was given over an aviation thread.
There has been 1 departure of same.
Click to expand...
There was one complaint in a politically charged thread re: reputation comments. It was not, however, something that needed disciplinary action of any sort. It was more of a general comment to those sending comments via the rep system. No more was heard about it.

Very early in the PoA lifecycle, there was a user who complained about getting a negative comment and wanted it removed. Since the comment fell within the Rules of Conduct (addressing the content of the post vs the person), it was decided by the MC that it would remain in place. We do not editorialize comments nor who is addressing whom unless it's a violation of the RoC.

All in all, considering the variety of comments and points given out, I agree with Chuck. Statistically, the one or two incidents we've seen aren't even measurable in the grand scheme of things.
 
Greebo said:
Heheh - are you familiar with the shirt that explains binary numbers and shows how to use them on one hand, illustrating the number 4? ;-) ThinkGeek sells it :)
Click to expand...

Nerd humor... ugh. :)
 
Greebo said:
Heheh - are you familiar with the shirt that explains binary numbers and shows how to use them on one hand, illustrating the number 4? ;-) ThinkGeek sells it :)
Click to expand...


There are 10 types of people in the world.

Those that understand binary, and those that don't.


Remember, there is no place like 127.0.0.1 :D
 
My personal favorite T-Shirt from them is,
"NO, I WILL NOT FIX YOUR COMPUTER"
 
heh. at one point I had a t-shirt from ThinkGeek that said

"rm -Rf /bin/laden"
 
Last edited:
So if one thought one of these reps were funny, and not signed, is it ok to post that rep comment for a good laugh in the thread it was referenced to?
 
Sonar5 said:
So if one thought one of these reps were funny, and not signed, is it ok to post that rep comment for a good laugh in the thread it was referenced to?
Click to expand...
Hey, I figure once it's in your rep, it's yours to do with what you will! :eek: not the rep poster in question (I don't think) ....
 
Greebo said:
Heheh - are you familiar with the shirt that explains binary numbers and shows how to use them on one hand, illustrating the number 4? ;-) ThinkGeek sells it :)
Click to expand...

Shame shame shame. :D

Have you ever done binary addition/subtraction on your fingers? It's dirt simple. I got caught doing it in assembler class on a test in college while chasing a memory addressing problem down. I was knocking the problems out one after another. The instructor's eyeballs popped out of his head. The next class day he had me in front of the room explaining to everyone how to do it.

Do they even teach assembler anymore? It's insanely efficient.


More on topic though:

As far as rep points are concerned:
'+' only if it's reasonable and significantly above background noise.
'-' only if the post really goes out of the way to earn it.
If the receiver likes/dislikes the points, they will have my name on the end of the comment if they wish to contact me over it. IMNSHO if you can't or wouldn't want to stand up and say it to their face in public, you should not be saying it in the first place. It's all about proper etiquette and basic civility.

Anon should be reserved specifically for privacy such as Medical Matters and Never Again where it has a functional purpose to solve potentially touchy problems. Any other use for the anon option, especially for hostile or hateful remarks, is shameful behavior IMNSHO.

Real names would be far better than anon or made up stuff. I mean that's what you would do if you were in a room and met someone and talked to them. Internet is a crazy hoaxed up make believe world and as long as one is consistent, it shouldn't matter what one calls oneself. The reputation of the name is who you are behind the keyboard. One should treat the alternate name as an extention of who one is and not as a deceptive alternate identity for seedy purposes. I see it the same as a nickname and nothing more. I can call myself 'Abdul The Great' or 'Normal The Penguin' if I want to however that would not change the content of my postings or my behavior. It's all about consistency and an ongoing reputation - the same reputation you would have if you were standing in front of someone in a social setting.

Play fair. Be nice. And always remember what you were taught in kindergarten.
http://www.peace.ca/kindergarten.htm
 
Last edited:
Frnak's last comment really struck a nerve with me. Here's why: I'll pick Ron Levy for my example. I have never met Ron, all I know of him is from the POA and the AOPA forums. I don't even know if that is his real name. I've also heard firsthand some comments about him from folks who frequent this board. (no worries, all comments were extremely positive)

Because I do not know Ron I could hardly have an opinion about him as a person, right? But I will say this, when I see his name on a post you can bet I am going to pay attention to what he has written. He is consistent and therefore a known quantity to me. His posts truly are gems to be held and remembered. So while I may not know if that is even his real name I do know he is a consistent dispenser of valuable information.

Conversely, there are some posts I will not read or with great reluctance will read (but only to see if I may learn something and to prove to myself I am not closed minded) Those posts are also identified by the names attached to them. I've learned they are usually not worth the aggravation and it is only by the poster's chosen name that I would know if I should or should not open a particular post.

When that name, whether it be Ron Levy or other, is deleted or made anonymous I don't know what I'm getting into. Politics and personal beliefs aside, when the subject is related to something I'm interested in but is posted under anonymity I am immediately suspicious of it's content because the element of it being a known quantity is missing, therefore, it lacks the credibility associated with the name. Frank pointed this out very well.

So, again, how is the cyber community served? I mostly come to this and other forums to learn. But I do not learn or there is a great limitation placed on the transference of accurate knowledge when the poster is allowed to hide behind the veil of anonymity.
 
But Richard,

Aren't you also participating in anonymity as well.

I mean you put down Richard, but I look at your profile and there is no last name.

Which is ok by me. I used to have my first and last name listed in some boards profiles. And then one day someone created a new user name and listed my exact street address in the forums. (only post they made too). Now if someone asked me where I live, I'll probably tell them.

But what that person did was not very ethical IMHO. So now I just list Sonar5 or Joe .

So while I appreciate your comments and others on this thread, you may feel differently if others abuse the information that you list and use it in a way that you did not intend it to be used for.

Just food for thought.

Regards,
Joe
aka Sonar5
 
Sonar5 said:
But Richard,

Aren't you also participating in anonymity as well.

I mean you put down Richard, but I look at your profile and there is no last name.

Which is ok by me. I used to have my first and last name listed in some boards profiles. And then one day someone created a new user name and listed my exact street address in the forums. (only post they made too). Now if someone asked me where I live, I'll probably tell them.

But what that person did was not very ethical IMHO. So now I just list Sonar5 or Joe .

So while I appreciate your comments and others on this thread, you may feel differently if others abuse the information that you list and use it in a way that you did not intend it to be used for.

Just food for thought.

Regards,
Joe
aka Sonar5
Click to expand...
You make a good point but if I may exaggerate to better illustrate my point: should I put my street address, account numbers, driver's license, and other personal information too?

Also, I really am not anonymous for I have scheduled and met in person with several posters from this board. Some have personal information about me which I have freely shared with them. Some of those folks are known personally to POA moderators. Also, I have been logged onto POA since shortly after Chuck first opened the board and am a regular here.

If folks care to meet in person they'll find I am not anything less than open and honest, however there is a very real concern for protecting personal information from being picked up on the 'net. I suggest that all persons be very careful what information they share over the 'net. One tactic to avoid abuse is to maintain a low profile.

BTW: I've always been interested in why you selected "Sonar". Is it marine related with you?
 
I am the youngest of five Boys, hence the 5, and the word Sonar is actually my last name spelled backwards. Uh-oh there goes the anonymity... :)

I've had it since I was about 10 or so. In my low 40's now.

So actually it chose me, and I liked it so it stuck.
 
It's a delicate balance between the amount of information to put on the internet to be "valid" and avoiding the criminals (identity thief, stalkers, etc).

I think Richard has expressed it well: a user becomes known by the association between his/her user name and the quality of information they post. If it is unregistered or anonymous, it could be one of a million people, but a registered username becomes associated with the level and quality of posts.

As Chuck and others point out, folks are a lot less anonymous to the management council than they think they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top