Anonymous not welcome
I feel this is appropriate time to restate my policy about anonymous comments. I urge people to include their names if they have an opinion - it only makes you look unsure of your statements and cowardly if you hide behind the anonymous tag. Don't worry, dissenting opinions (you can tell law school is rubbing off on me) are encouraged as long as they are well-intentioned (i.e. not meant as an insult or propaganda, for example).
I may delete any comments, anonymous or not, if I feel that they are offensive, inflammatory, or unnecessary.
6 comments:
My opinion is that you're way too uptight about the anonymous thing. Judge a comment based on its content, not on how you think the poster feels (unsure, cowardly, etc). They could be posting anonymously for whatever reason and it should not make a difference to you.
I have only left one anonymous comment on your blog before ("Why Bill Clinton?"). It was a valid question and didn't even have an opinion implied within it... I had nothing to hide from. It was just a question. What's the big deal if you didn't know who was asking it?
But that was just one example. In the other thread of yours about TV during Ramadhaan, the anonymous person gave some very reasonable opinions that were worthy of debate. How does it hinder discussion at all if they posted as anonymous?
For this comment, I put my name down. Or did I? It could be a fake name, or my alter-ego on the internet. Does this solve your problem? Maybe it is one of my 78 identities online, and I'll never use this one again. It is the same as anonymous. So, again, what's the big deal? Or are you against me using my name too? I have to know you to post comments to your blog, or have a blog of my own?
Reading back on this comment, it sounds like I am uptight myself and have no sense of humour, and maybe even angry, but I am too exhausted from all the crazy iftar parties to add in any humour or light heartedness. No offense intended. Just wanted to drive home the point about judging comments based on content, not on the name of the poster.
Thanks Omar for putting it so well. I don't think I need to elaborate too much what I was going to write in my reply. Just this:
Placing one's own name indicates ownership of and responsibility for what one said, in the same way that I or others who do include their name bear responsibility for their words. To not be willing to do that is cowardly, even if what was said was worthy in terms of content. It is true people staying anonymous may have other reasons, but how do we distinguish?
Secondly, it shows an intent for a genuine discussion, and a respect for those (me, for instance) who one is addressing or commenting on.
This blog, despite its name, is meant to be more than just Ali voicing his opinion or preferences. It can be more multifacted and enriching when others contribute. That's why I haven't blocked anonymous comments altogether or restricted it to registered users. But if someone is not willing to show that they intend to engage in a genuine discussion by at least signing their name, I too am under no obligation to entertain their comments.
Our mysterious commentator is right when he says using fake names is the same as being anonymous - this is something we'll have to deal with similarly I guess, although perhaps one could me more sophisticated in their choice of a fake name than simply my name spelt backwards? It is flattering though.
(By the way, I know who you are. Just wondering if you'll come out and let the others know too.)
Everybody needs to relax.
Habs came back from a two goal deficit against the Bruins the other day to win 4-3. Let us all remember this and enjoy the rest of Ramadaan in harmony, anonymous or not.
I agree with Liam. That was a great win by the Habs. They are off to a great start this year.
Omar said:
"I do agree with you that ideally, puritan objectivity demands that one judge posts based on comments, but this completely disregards our humanness."
I am all for acknowledging our humanness, especially recently since I am told on almost a regular basis by family and co-workers that I need to work on recognizing its importance more (that I am too robotic, too theoretical, too emotionless, etc). So, I am trying to see things from the other perspective, and most of your points make sense, and they are *not* contradictory to mine! (It is interesting to note however that you seem to be rejecting the whole content-based aspect of this argument and going wholly for the humanness).
In this case of leaving anonymous comments, I still feel that although responding by attaching your name yields many benefits, a well-crafted, reasonably opinionated, professional response that is left anonymously should not cause concern.
Why can't we ignore the garbage posted by users who are anonymous *as well as* those who leave their name? (Because, let's face it, just because they leave their name and we can hold them to their opinion does not make life easier -- they will still continue to troll, or reject valid arguments simply because they want to fight)
And, conversely, why can't we respond to nice, normal posts, whether we know the poster's entire history or nothing at all? It is not complicated to have the discussion, and the 'cowardly' adjective being ascribed to the poster should have no bearing on anyone else. So what if you think he's a coward, it's a flaw of his character, not yours. It does not make his opinion baseless.
We have a medium that lets people give their honest opinions that they don't have the character/courage to do so in person -- maybe it is something as simple/benign as a fear of public speaking in real life, yes, even among their friends. It does not make their points and their thoughts invalid.
Ali, I chose Dem Haila as an obvious 'joke'...laugh a little. :)
You said "But if someone is not willing to show that they intend to engage in a genuine discussion by at least signing their name, I too am under no obligation to entertain their comments."
Do you think, based on the content of what I have written, that I am not intending to engage in a genuine discussion? I think it is pretty obvious that despite me not signing my name, it is relatively easy to see who is having a serious discussion or who is not. You asked how we should distinguish between good anonymous posters who have their own reason to stay anonymous and cowardly ones who don't want to take responsiblity - that's just as easy, and with the same way. Based on their content.
And, Ali, I was always pretty sure some people would figure out who I am, because my style of writing / manner of thinking gives it away, but I cannot remember if you and I ever had a lengthy conversation, or when our last superficial one was, and assumed you would not be sure. Unless you can track my IP, and then it would be a dead giveaway. :)
And finally, for you Ali, I will give you my reason (two reasons, actually) for staying anonymous - If I was having a serious conversation in person, or with my name attached to it, I would most certainly 1) Want everyone to know what my opinion was and how it differed from yours, because I become very proud of my opinions and my reflections on matters (even though this subject doesn't stir up the same amount of passion in me than normal subjects would) -- especially if people starting agreeing with me; and 2) If, at some point, I realized (based on my own intellect and reasoning) that I was wrong, and you were right, it would be much harder for me to back down, especially after a long argument. Staying anonymous, if someone responds to this very long post of mine, shows me the error in my thinking, and it makes sense to me, I can readily admit that I am not right. More of these anonymous scenarios might get me used to admitting it publicly when I am wrong, which will totally help me with my real life problems of arguing incessantly.
Yes you may think that I am already gone down that path here (incessant arguing) in this thread, but really, I can be convinced still. ;)
Salaams!
You're right. It shouldn't have been 'reject'. It's more like 'not giving it enough importance'
And to re-iterate, I agreed with your points (anonymous posters write without inhibition, you cannot continue a relationship with them outside of a blog, non-anonymous writers are auto-regulated, immature people who have to identify themselves are forced to grow up, and it makes for good blogging).
But none of those points (except for having a relationship outside the blog) have a bearing on the specific case where an anonymous poster writes something potentially valuable and of quality -- and while Ali (and you) are obviously within your rights to ignore them on your blogs, there is absolutely no harm in letting them join in on the discussion - until they start manifesting the qualities of anonymous posters that you seem to be afraid of (not providing references, swearing, speaking without inhibition, trolling, etc - specific things, not just being 'cowards')
I am far too behind now in all the real world stuff I have to read. That's the last you'll hear from me. I understand and appreciate where you are coming from Omar, and I apologize for making it seem like you had outright rejected the value of content.
Post a Comment