Would you donate your DU username to a collective of individually anonymous DU users?

[Boojatta]

You would sign in as you always have. Nobody other than you would use your DU username to sign in. What would be affected is the name that appears in posts. Every time that any member of the collective posts a message, the correspondence between members of the collective and temporary usernames assigned to members of the collective would be thoroughly mixed in a random manner. If you were a member of the collective, then you might occasionally notice that your post appears as posted in the name that you use to sign in, but if the collective is large then it would rarely happen.

There could be a warning included automatically in every post by a member of the collective: "temporary name assigned for this one message."

I think that such warnings would dissuade people from starting flame wars. What do you think?

An alternative idea would be to assign a temporary username that remains fixed during any one day. That way it might be easier to understand back-and-forth dialog that occurs on a thread within one given day. However, flame wars might be somewhat more likely to arise under a whole day system because there would be as much as a whole day available for people to acquire a disliking of a given DU member who posts under a known name for a whole day.

[sufrommich]

1. It's just a discussion forum. nt

[Boojatta]

9. Is innovation only for more important things, such as products with labels that say ...

"new and improved"?

[sufrommich]

12. There's a difference between "innovation" and needlessly

complicating something uncomplicated.

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Perhaps post this in Ask Administrator, first?

[Boojatta]

5. In principle this place is completely controlled by the Admins ...

but in practice I think that the members have a lot of influence, and I'm interested in the opinions of ordinary DU members.

[Occulus]

51. The ship done sailed, dix

Now we'll have troll swarms.

THANKS, BOOJATTA!! THANKS A LOT!!

:grr:

[Boojatta]

62. I don't understand. Your sarcastic thanks is for ... what? What happened?

[SidDithers]

3. I'd hate for some of your posts to show up with my name...

:hi: I kid, I kid :hi:

Sid

[blondeatlast]

39. ...

:spray:

[Cleita]

4. No. Thanks, but no thanks.

:eyes:

[northoftheborder]

6. don't see the point

[ixion]

7. Why not just create a group of anonymous users anon1, anon2, etc

Wouldn't that be more anonymous?

[Boojatta]

13. Yes, it would be more anonymous, but ...

the anonymous collective may consider their names more interesting and more varied than the names generated by your plan. They may consider this to be more important than the slight additional anonymity offered by your plan.

[ixion]

25. But they will also carry a context from the former proprietary owner

which has an effect as well... I wouldn't want just anyone to be posting under my user name. That's why I have one. :)

[Ohio Joe]

8. No. Fucking. Way.

They might make me look good... or something.

[apocalypsehow]

10. ...

Survey says!?!....*Bzzzzzt*

[ohheckyeah]

11. Why?

I'm sorry but I don't see the point of this.

[Boojatta]

14. The point is to reduce the amount of flaming that occurs.

[ohheckyeah]

17. Again, I have to ask why?

The mods take care of that and most of the people here seem to enjoy a bit of a flame now and then. It keeps things interesting.

[socialist_n_TN]

45. I don't think that you reduce the amount of flaming........

by changing the names. I RARELY look at the name of the poster UNTIL I've read the post and decided whether I want to get involved in the thread. Of course after I read the post, I'll see who it is and sure, a LOT of the times, it'll be a poster that I almost always disagree with. Or almost always agree with. IOW, I don't see a post by "Capitalist Pig" and AUTOMATICALLY say I'm going to flame this. The name of the poster plays no part in whether I respond or not.

It's a fucking discussion board. DISCUSS. That's why I don't use the rec/unrec feature and I don't use ignore. I want to know what people are saying. If I disagree, it hones my debating skills. If I agree it ALSO hones my debating skills because I learn a new take on WHY I agree with a position. I learn shit. DISCUSS, damn it! OK, maybe that was harsh, so.... :)

[Boojatta]

48. Are you assuming that a significant fraction of flaming is done by people like you?

I don't think that you reduce the amount of flaming by changing the names. I RARELY look at the name of the poster UNTIL (...)

[socialist_n_TN]

60. I have no idea and don't really care..........

If it gets out of hand the mods take care of it.

[Boojatta]

61. I was simply trying to understand your thought process.

There's no objectively true or objectively false answer to my question because "like you" is a concept that leaves lots of wiggle room.

[hfojvt]

15. I think I see part of the point

If posts were anonymous, then people would presumably react to WHAT was being said, rather than to WHO was doing the saying. Instead of people seeing posts by a known dillweed and then jumping in to state the obvious "yr a dillweed"

Another part being that communication is not always clear as to meaning, but once a listener knows that the speaker is a dillweed, they can/will interpret everything said as being extremely dillweedish even if they have to read between the lines.

[Cleita]

23. Er, I used to participate in a board where you could

change your user name with each post. No questions asked. Some posters adopted several personas on the board and posted mostly troll drivel under those personas. Nothing was more anonymous than that and trust me it didn't prevent flame wars. It totally increased them.

[Raine]

43. I was on a board like that too, years ago.

It wasn't even a political board but one based on TV shows and people would post under several names.:crazy: It was actually worse because there was no accountability. :-( People changed names and personalities whenever they felt like it. I admit I did too and the fighting was really nasty and personal. :grr: :nuke: The owner of the board finally made people register with one name :think: and civility (at least most of the time) has reigned ever since. :-)

[malaise]

16. No n/t

[Zax2me]

18. No...?!

Silly.

[seabeyond]

19. nope.... nt

[RevStPatrick]

20. No, I wouldn't do that.

Too complicated and unnecessary.
I want to be me.
Besides, what's wrong with flame wars?
I thought that was the whole purpose of the interwebz?

[originalpckelly]

21. Can we be peepee pals?

What, all you'll do is flush at the same time, and then our pee will mingle in the pipes.

:rofl:

[frebrd]

22. What's the point? And.......

No fucking way.

[freshwest]

24. No.

[Iris]

26. Huh? Why?

[NV Whino]

27. Could be interesting.

One could end up flaming oneself. :rofl:

[Boojatta]

28. That sounds like the opposite of narcissism.

called on the gods to punish Narcissus. They caused the beautiful youth to gaze into a pond at his reflection. He fell in love with his own image and drowned trying to touch it. In other accounts of the story, Narcissus killed himself out of sorrow and frustration. The gods then changed him into the flower that bears his name.

link

[HopeHoops]

29. No. I wouldn't trust them to post "That's what SHE said" or "NARWHALS! FUCK YEAH!!!1!" often enough

just for starters...

[SheilaT]

30. I can't even begin to imagine why this could be a good idea.

Heck, we're all pretty anonymous as it is, and I don't often remember the user name of whoever it was I've most recently had a spat with.

Plus, I recall very distinctly several years ago having a bit of a strong disagreement with another DUer, and then in a day or two, on another forum, that same DUer defended me to others. I no longer recall the other DUer's name, nor the nature of the spat, but it would have been quite different had some of my posts appeared under a different name.

It just isn't necessary. Some people are more likely to provoke ire in others. I rarely have a post deleted, don't too often get into a flame war, never put anyone on Ignore (although I sometimes suspect I've been Ignored by lots of others here), and I'm willing to stand behind all of my posts.

[Iggo]

31. YES!

[Boojatta]

33. It might take some time for the collective to grow to include more than two people.

[Iggo]

35. I know, huh.

But good goddam, it'd be fun!

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Why don't you make a poll about it?

nt

[Boojatta]

34. I don't care how many vote "No." I care how many would vote "Yes."

However, you do have a point: votes in a poll are anonymous and people who are likely to vote "Yes" are also likely to value anonymity.

[davidthegnome]

36. No way

My DU user name is one of the few things I've got left.

[LisaL]

37. Absolutely not.

[leftstreet]

38. Donate, no. Sell it, yes

It's what good capitalists would do !!

[blondeatlast]

40. Goody! I can be H2OMan AND Will Pitt! (Seems silly to me, quite frankly). nt

[Boojatta]

47. If H2OMan and Will Pitt decide to join the collective, and

you also decide to join, then a message that you wrote could be shown under the name H2OMan or under the name Will Pitt.

[dionysus]

41. what's that saying about having too much time on ones hands?

[Liberal_in_LA]

42. huh? BTW, this thread has been neg reccd

[Raine]

44. NO, absolutely not

my name is special to me. Anything posted under it reflects on me and I'm not having anyone else use it. x(

[rug]

46. I think we should all post as Boojatta.

[JANdad]

49. Unrec for teh stoopid

Too much time on your hands...get a hobby before you hurt someone...

[applegrove]

50. Don't like this idea at all. Posters should stand behind their posts.

[SoCalDem]

52. Patience, Grasshopper... the rec/unrec "feature" is going buh-byeee when DU3 is ready

Once that happens, I think that the most aggressive unreccers will fade away.. If they have to step into the sunlight and actually VOICE their opinions, they may think twice..

Right now it's easy to just say "unrec"..hit the button, and then run..

Personally, I never understood why an anonymous cyber-acquaintance could waste so much time and energy following certain people around online, just to shit on their opinions, but I guess some get a thrill from it..

life's too short to hold grudges, or to have / have to voice an opinion on everything from breastfeeding, to receipt checking, to smoking, to cooking with cornflakes, to Olive Garden cuisine, to ...well everything..

[DireStrike]

53. People would be even meaner. It's called 4chan.

[cherokeeprogressive]

54. What are the odds of my winning? Is the prize a progressive one? Does it get larger by the post? nt

[Boojatta]

55. Your odds of winning what?

Please provide a clue about the train of thought that led you to speak of winning.

[Ohio Joe]

56. Define.... Ironic

[Boojatta]

57. I'll wait for clarification from someone who isn't relying primarily on mind-reading skills.

[alfredo]

58. I will donate an old handle from last century:

Mammo The Talking Glue gun.

[Keith Bee]

59. We are Borg

Resistence is footsy. :evilgrin:

[Boojatta]

63. Kick

[Safetykitten]

64. Some people have WAY too much time on their hands.

[Boojatta]

65. Are you talking about us?

[franzia99]

66. Why would we want to do that?

[Boojatta]

67. Please answer the question just for your one DU username, using your own personal judgment.

Is there any particular reason that you would run with the herd or that a herd would follow you?

[Modern_Matthew]

68. Not enough sleep to comprehend any of that. nt

[Taverner]

69. Your description made my brain explode and leak out my ears

Sorry