I've always wanted to know why imageboards are encouraging anonymous posting so extremely. What's the advantage of anonymity?
For example, on 4chan, if you use tripcodes there, people will look upon you as a "tripcode fag". What's wrong with online usernames?
This discussion can be found on Wakaba's /soc/, and furthermore you are undoubtedly a stupid, tripcode-whoring faggot for opening this thread with such a pointed question.
>>2
Hey! No flaming!
I'd reiterate all the points that have been made in http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1110953600/ but I am too lazy right now.
Also, we have this thread on Anonymous posting:
http://4-ch.net/net/kareha.pl/1127551023
One more thing, though:
> What's wrong with online usernames?
It usually doesn't add anything to the form of communication and information exchange most of the time.
It has its uses but I have found posting and lurking to be much more enjoyable without having lots of fixed handles, signatures, avatars, etc. all the time. Except for required identification over a longer period of time (rarely needed) names and tripcodes don't serve any good purpose and are more likely to create drama (e-penis, cliques, tripcode cracking, etc.) which is not really what I am looking forward to on these type of boards.
Not to say that all users who post with handles are bad, though. Some are pretty classy and excellent and to be a good poster it really doesn't matter if you have a name or not. I find it more often than not that people who constantly use handles fall into the types of negative/annoying behavioural cycles which I pointed out above.
also http://wakaba.c3.cx/shii/shiichan
> What's wrong with online usernames?
Nothing. 4chan /b/ jumps on them because they mark attention whores, newbies and the self-important. The sort of people who are ripe for trolling, I guess. Don't take things in /b/ too seriously.
>>What's wrong with online usernames?
It encourages and builds unnecessary things such as reputations, and it makes it look like the named person can't do anything unless people know that it's him contributing, which leads to ego inflation and all sorts of other unsavory things.
Like I said above, a common view is that handlers/tripcoders want/need people to know who they are, despite the fact that nobody, aside from others like them, cares who they are. Being known and having a reputation will only make things worse.
> unnecessary things such as reputations
Maybe, maybe not. In some cases that's a bad thing. Sometimes it's good. None of us has the time to verify all the facts behind arguments, so sometimes we need to take the quality of the poster into consideration.
My favorite example: if WAHa says something about programming, I take it more seriously than unknown Anonymous.
I think this entire argument is silly. Forced naming and forced anonymous are both annoying. If you want to use a nick, use it, otherwise don't.
I like forced anonymous on some occasions. img+dat 4 lyfe!
here we have ID though
>>9
We kinda have Arbitrary_ID
For all sorts of funky ID modes, see http://4-ch.net/general/kareha.pl/1127721276/13-14,17-18
What's the name of that auto-naming mode where one gets individual names like "Betty Shuttleborough"?
SILLY_ANONYMOUS
haha, good name. ^^
I think on boards like this, anonymous contributions are the basic form of communication.
Adding names and/or tripcodes seems to be an added gimmick. There are good reasons to use these gimmicks, but people should be aware of what these good reasons are.
name is good somtimes , but i enjoy the freedom of being able to post comments two a person disagreing with him , and then later post a comment where we talk about somthing good , if i had a name he could be angry at me , but now he and i don't know who we are talking to.
"Names are good somtimes, but I enjoy the freedom of being able to post comments to a person, disagreeing with them, and then later post a comment where we talk about something good, if I had a name they could be angry at me, but now they and I don't know who we are talking to."
fixed!
>>7
So I assume you don't take a post seriously when it's posted anonymously regardless of the point he or she may have.
>>17
This has been discussed to death here: http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1110953600/
And to answer your question: I evaluate anonymous posts differently.
i would have written "silly_little_noob" as a name for the purpose of this thread. lol.
Personally, I consider people who post names are those who wish to have direct conversations regarding what they posted. Kinda like writing a "from" address on an envelope for the sake of encouraging your recipient to reply. Thread-wise, I'd use it so that a reply to a post may be addressed to me directly if I consider my post personal enough.
Otherwise, I like it anonymous to encourage a more "everyone say anything about it to anyone" kinda feel.
I guess a drawback to this freedom would be that people can try impersonating others. >_>
Hmm, why does my "ID" change? Is it because I'm using a dynamic IP? (please delete this one if it's too OT)
>>21
You can't really impersonate people without a name.
> Hmm, why does my "ID" change? Is it because I'm using a dynamic IP?
Yes.
Here I am addressing you personally without using your name. If you want to indicate to me that you're you, you can put 20 in the name field. Isn't life wonderful?
Also, here's a bunch of words. I think the first link is a bit too Web 2.0, but it's pretty good otherwise.
http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008640.html
http://www.4chan.org/blog/2005/11/09/in-response-to-anonymity/
Spread the love, A-san.
I'm not A-san. True story.
>http://www.4chan.org/blog/2005/11/09/in-response-to-anonymity/
>In the West, we do not have one universal internet culture. The closest thing we have is a scattering of acronyms and lists of popular websites, where people gather and bicker about who comes from where. It is a terribly feudal system, where the online populace lives out their entire posting lives ferociously dedicated to one particular forum and IRC channel.
The best description I've ever seen of western discussion boards.
>>26
Er, what I meant was, I was originally going to write something about where he got his anonymity religion from, but I decided that would be a waste of bandwidth and just applauded him instead.
> (4-ch is actually run by another, competing group.)
WHAT A LOAD OF SHIT!
The entire article is. Shii made a stronger case with less verbiage.
I don't know. Several people I showed Shii's article to have failed to be convinced by it. Maybe it is a neater statement of points to remind those who already agree why they agree, but it doesn't have the context that someone new to anonymous boards will require.
I'm not convinced of it either, but I find Shii's more compelling than the 4chan blog. The blogger obviously put some effort into their post, but in the end it's mostly hand-waving, while Shii got right to the point.
Anyway, I'd have found it more interesting if the blogger had read the thread in /soc/ first, because some of his assertions have already been found weak. If said blogger went through /soc/ he'd have found arguments that have at least survived a preliminary trial-by-fire.