Registered users only

[branchandroot]

Okay, sorry everyone who's still over on LJ, but I'm switching the journal to commenting by registered (IJ) users only. I hope it will be a temporary thing, but I'm getting a small infestation of anonymice, and they're annoying the living daylights out of me. I refuse to give time or space to people who won't even be bothered to give a name when they try to disagree with me, and cower behind their lack of a return address to boot.

*sniffs*

Comments

[dancing_serpent.insanejournal.com]

Gah, how irritating! Okay, I'm a bit prejudiced towards anonymice in general, so don't take me too serious.

But hey, only a few days ago a really intelligent anonymouse requested membership in a closed community. First I thought WTF? and then I couldn't stop laughing. And changed the comm to registered users only, too.

[branchandroot]

*headdesk* Oh for pity's sake! Yeah, that's a gem, that is.

And, yeah, I'm really not a fan of anonymity when it comes to debate. It's just rank cowardice.

[dancing_serpent.insanejournal.com]

Yep! Either I stand behind my opinion or I stay silent when I'm unsure or when I don't want to offend. Nobody forces me to open my mouth.

[gisho.insanejournal.com]

Huh. Not to start a raging debate, but why do you feel it's rank cowardice? I tend toward the opinion that honest debate can only be achieved when all participants are anonymous; otherwise either fear, sucking-up, or pre-existing misconceptions blur the ideas being presented.

[branchandroot]

Well, there's anonymity and anonymity, and then there's flat out hiding. I think the level of anonymity provided by web handles like our lj names can be useful; they keep 'real life' stakes out of it for the most part. I would also agree that it's possible for a truly anonymous venue (with one-off handles) to produce good debate, but only if there is provision for dialogue. *considers* I would also say that the debate produced by that kind of environment is of extremely limited use, because it can't progress out of its singular context--if the handle is one-off then there's no opportunity for ongoing discussion over time.

And if there are no handles, then all you have is a lot of people throwing opinions at the wall and no possibility of dialogue at all, which, in my observation, tends to mean zero motivation to try to reach any consensus or synthesis of views. The opinions may all be quite honest, but they will also be extremely isolated, and that isn't a whole lot more useful (for producing new ideas and insights) than talking to oneself.

Someone who comes onto a journal and leaves an anonymous comment which, perforce, means any response to their comment will only reach them if they take the trouble to check back again... that's what I call cowardice. And unsigned anonymous comment even moreso. We're on a pretty level playing field, here; no one has any status to fall back on except whatever their record of text-action has garnered for them. To disavow a given text-action (our only identity online) says to me that the person who made it doesn't have the guts to stand by it or even bear any response to it from a peer in this context. I have zero respect for that. That's not an attempt at debate. It's an active denial of debate, and it pisses me off.

PS

[branchandroot]

And there's also the fact that it's necessarily uneven. The poster has identified herself. The commenter has not. While either an all-identified or all-anonymous set-up has decent debate potential, a set-up in which one side is identified while the other is not is, shall we say, problematic. And when the first point in the debate (the initial post and/or comment) is an identified one, then it is incumbent upon anyone who wants to join in to join in under the existing set-up and not try to shift the rules for his/her personal benefit. That's weaseling.