Suggestion Petition to remove the Anonymous account

[Mouth]

Let's call it a conflict of interest.

Isn't that the purpose of the Anon functionality, to still put forward a valid point of view but where a professional impact/association might enflame or negate? I didn't see any content that would have violated usual posting guidelines? Perhaps some more clarification on when and when not the Anon function can be used?

 

[we_are_borg]

Isn't that the purpose of the Anon functionality, to still put forward a valid point of view but where a professional impact/association might enflame or negate? I didn't see any content that would have violated usual posting guidelines? Perhaps some more clarification on when and when not the Anon function can be used?

I would say you are right if there is a conflict of interest anonymous will solve that.

As for Anonymous function this is in the rules:

No Abuse of the Anonymous Posting Feature
TAZ has an Anonymous Posting feature which is provided to allow for members to start threads and post replies without revealing their identity to the community. As you might expect, TAZ Admins know the identity of anonymous posters. This feature should not be used in situations where anonymity is not necessary. In addition, it must not be used to post anything which violates our usual posting guidelines. Improper use of the Anonymous Posting feature may result in an infraction, and/or restoration of the user's true identity to the post(s) in question.

 

[Mouth]

As for Anonymous function this is in the rules:

Yeah, hence why I suggested better clarification on when it can and cannot be used. No mention in there of conflict of interest being a scenario when it shouldn't be used, in fact I'd interpret that it's the exact scenario to use it.

 

[we_are_borg]

Yeah, hence why I suggested better clarification on when it can and cannot be used. No mention in there of conflict of interest being a scenario when it shouldn't be used, in fact I'd interpret that it's the exact scenario to use it.

I fully agree with you.

 

[Maddox]

The staff can see who it is and moderate it if necessary.

Actually 'The Staff' cannot see who is it - Administrators privilege only

One of the things that I do respect about you is that you stand by what you say, and publish and be damned is a sentiment I often follow myself.

 

[Matthew S]

I guess you've never had your comments ignored just because it was you saying them - irrespective of what you were saying. Too many times I've seen discussions flow where a person suggests something, is castigated for it, then I or someone else suggested the exact same thing in a slightly different way and been lauded as inspired - because it wasn't that person saying it.

Just to post a different point of view - perhaps some people are prepared to hear anything bad about the person being spoken about, regardless of the credibility of the person saying it.

Given that The Sandman removed the negative reactions, it seems there is a position that click-and-run disagreement is not welcome. In that light, using the Anonymous feature to effectively bully others without consequence seems to be a poor choice of allowable behaviour. The Anonymous feature makes sense if people want to discuss their erectile dysfunction.

I didn't see the thread in question, fwiw.

 

[The Sandman]

Yeah, hence why I suggested better clarification on when it can and cannot be used. No mention in there of conflict of interest being a scenario when it shouldn't be used, in fact I'd interpret that it's the exact scenario to use it.

Given that The Sandman removed the negative reactions, it seems there is a position that click-and-run disagreement is not welcome.

The comments that were posted weren't a problem per se which is why I didn't remove them initially. They certainly weren't removed just because they were "negative". I subsequently became aware of underlying factors which made it inappropriate for the person who posted them to do so.

 

[djbaxter]

Let's call it a conflict of interest.

Bingo!

 

[Joel R]

I find that the anonymous feature opens up a whole new set of unsportsmanlike behavior. Let's face it, the whole point of using anonymous is to complain without fear of repercussion. If you can't stand by your online Avatar's reputation, then you probably shouldn't say it. When they talk about the dark side of online behaviors, the anonymous feature is clearly in that category.

As a case in point, there was an Anonymous user who recently posted in the IPS forums. He made vague and ambiguous critiques against the software. To be clear, I don't mind criticisms against IPS - every week I find something new to critique and provide valid feedback to the company. Upon being pressed, he gave details that had nothing to do with his original complaint. You could tell that he was simply venting his frustrations and bashing IPS because he could, and hiding behind his anonymity. If he had an actual account, I would have been happy to engage with him either on TAZ or on the IPS forums or show him how to escalate his situation to IPS. Instead, I'm left reading these vague and ambiguous complaints. I never considered the forum software boards to be dumping grounds for complaints and hate comments, but it will certainly go that way if anonymous comments are allowed.

At the end of the day, anonymous behaviors encourage users to bring out the very worst without fear of repercussion. You can bring up difficult questions that challenge the status quo with your main account - that's part of what it means to participate in a multiplural and open society.

 

[we_are_borg]

If you think anonymous is out of order with comments report them the admins need to look at it and can take action against the person who writes it. Anonymous only works against users and moderators not against admins.

 

[Lisa]

Hasn't the anonymous function been a feature on TAZ for as long as TAZ has been around, even back during the vB days?

I voted for "I don't care either way". I don't recall ever using the feature to post. I prefer to post under my name, regardless. But I can see both sides of the argument of the feature itself.

On the one side, it is handy for those people who want to discuss certain items with relation to their sites without it being connected to them via any searches that happen. On the other, I have seen it abused over the years and used for causing drama. WIth the latter though, it's usually been picked up on fairly quickly by the staff here - but it does help speed things up by reporting any issues, of course.

So yeah... for me personally, not having the feature wouldn't affect me at all, but I can see how it's handy.

 

[TrixieTang]

I find that the anonymous feature opens up a whole new set of unsportsmanlike behavior. Let's face it, the whole point of using anonymous is to complain without fear of repercussion.

Repercussions are not always the result of bad behavior - as I pointed out previously, many members here happen to be staff on other members' forums. If you have an issue with a moderator on your site, and that moderator happens to also be a TAZ member, then what do you do if you want to post about the situation and get feedback? TAZ members aren't above being petty and doing stupid crap. If you were to post about such an issue with your normal account, you'd be running the risk of starting a flame-war or having that moderator go rogue and do something stupid on your own site.

 

[The Sandman]

I've decided to disable anonymous posting on TAZ since the poll shows no clear mandate for its use and it's not worth the headache for me to police it and to defend its use.

 

[Lisa]

I've decided to disable anonymous posting on TAZ since the poll shows no clear mandate for its use and it's not worth the headache for me to police it and to defend its use.

I don't understand why, after ... what, 14 years(?) of it being a part of TAZ that now it's suddenly become a big deal and an issue. But then, I'm seeing so many things that have happily been mooching through life for a long time suddenly becoming issues all over the internet. Must just be the times we're living in. Think I'll just go find a cave to live in lol

 

[TrixieTang]

But then, I'm seeing so many things that have happily been mooching through life for a long time suddenly becoming issues all over the internet. Must just be the times we're living in. Think I'll just go find a cave to live in lol

Gen Z has ruined our beautiful internet. It is time for us to declare war.

 

[we_are_borg]

I've decided to disable anonymous posting on TAZ since the poll shows no clear mandate for its use and it's not worth the headache for me to police it and to defend its use.

Why not use the account help desk if someone wants to post anonymouse they can post there and an admin can post it anonymouse. This way it gets screened and it can be used once and not multiple times after one and other.

 

[The Sandman]

Why not use the account help desk if someone wants to post anonymouse they can post there and an admin can post it anonymouse. This way it gets screened and it can be used once and not multiple times after one and other.

No - there won't be any process provided for posting anonymously.

 

[Rrich]

Better off without that option. You should only allow posts that are attributed to an account.

 

[R0binHood]

12 vs 11 votes to ban it? After just a day or two. Sounds like Brexit figures to me, started by an over reaction by one member.

There's nothing to police apart from if the anonymous posts are directly breaking normal posting rules, if they're not abusive and they're allowing someone to voice some kind of valid opinion securely, then why not? Lord knows there's plenty of contentious posts and divided and strong opinions from different camps on here. It's one of the main reasons I bother to visit this site. The issue here seems to be the overreaction from people taking offence to others using it in the first place, rather than addressing the contents of the anonymous post itself.

I find that the anonymous feature opens up a whole new set of unsportsmanlike behavior. Let's face it, the whole point of using anonymous is to complain without fear of repercussion. If you can't stand by your online Avatar's reputation, then you probably shouldn't say it. When they talk about the dark side of online behaviors, the anonymous feature is clearly in that category.

At the end of the day, anonymous behaviors encourage users to bring out the very worst without fear of repercussion. You can bring up difficult questions that challenge the status quo with your main account - that's part of what it means to participate in a multiplural and open society.

That may be the case in some cases, but definitely not all. TBH I had forgotten about the anonymous feature on here until this furor because it's only visible in the full post composition page and I rarely use that. If I had, I may have made many more posts voicing my opinion about certain things anonymously. Not to be angry or attacking or divisive, but because sometimes I do have very strong opinions on things. But I often bite my tongue or hold back because I don't want to offend or hurt peoples feelings or deal with the potential blowback. Perhaps I'm a pussy, whatever, I'm certainly not making a new account to post those thoughts, but sometimes you have to be frank and just put it out there and an anonymous account can be a good way of clearing the air and just being brutally honest.

I personally would have thought that would be beneficial on a forum like this. However if the admins make the decision to remove it then fair enough.

I do wonder how much more frequently or differently the feature would have been utilised if the UI to use it was more prominent, and it was available via the quick reply box too, so more users realised it was an option. Would we have seen more useful anonymous posts? Or more troublesome ones?

 

[doubt]

Would we have seen more useful anonymous posts? Or more troublesome ones?

#2