>>5
Truly, the author of the original article has the nature of the troll. Let's peel back the outer layer of the adequacy-style under-bridge dwellers' protocol and look at the meaty core:

> Anonymity allows people to hide behind their computers while saying whatever they want with little ramification. [...] Pseudonymous systems [..] have been shown to work [just the same].
> Although [it only works if only honest people are involved], the reputation system [with its flaws, has not overmuch hindered] eBay's growth and popularity.
> Let's use Wikipedia as our example. Up until [sometime in 2002], they were an almost completely open, registration-free system [the details to which I'm too lazy to actually look up, considering that it is entirely voluntary].
> Members who have an investment in something within your community are far less likely to [express honest opinions or state the impolite obvious for fear of being caught in an internet celebrity drama fight and getting banninated by some LiveJournal prima donna admin's buddy].
> it's not the quality of the registration data that is the purpose of registration--it's the process itself. By requiring users to take an affirmative action (that requires some minimal effort on their part [such as setting up an e-mail address, remembering account details somewhere and possibly renewing subscriptions or changing passwords every six months or so]), it weeds out the casual [contributor who is not interested in playing bureaucracy games however informed he may be] from an interested [sad wanker with an axe to grind and virtually limitless time on their hands for said games who can fit within the forum rules while still remaining a wanker].

Yeah, I think that kind of does it, don't it?

>>18
Boom, headshot.