Personally, I like having a recognizable handle, even if that means I get called on stupid things I say now and then. And I like having fellow posters have recognizable handles, because that (much moreso than the red stars) is what I use to sort out messages when I don't have time to read a 180-post-long thread. There are people who post here who I look for and whose messages I read through carefully whenever I find them (people on both sides of most issues). I enjoy that I know something about them and they potentially know something about me when we talk.

That being said, it would be a shame to lose insightful commentary from people who happen to be important enough or connected enough to need to worry about being found out. If they are saying that they need the anonymous option to feel safe enough to speak, I believe them.

As for the anonymice who take on a bit more of a trollish tone, much as I myself have sometimes seen red and blown my top responding to the vitriol coming out of many anonymous letter writers (especially on Broadsheet), I've also learned a hell of a lot from them (again, especially on Broadsheet, in fact often much moreso than I do from actual posts). Which just goes to show, for me, that just becuase your letter is responded to with what seems like "narcissistic soapboxing" doesn't mean the soapboxer isn't actually being influenced by what you've said. Sometimes it just needs time to take cumulative effect. It's too bad that, when people don't have handles with a recognizable history, you don't get to notice that someone you thought you'd never agree with has actually taken some of your ideas to heart, and you don't get to acknowledge them directly when you realize that they have changed your mind over time as well (I suspect there are half a dozen broadsheet regulars to whom I owe such thanks).

If losing the anonymous option means losing the oportunity to continue to be challenged and changed like that, though, I think I'm against it. I'd prefer the anon1, anon2 etc idea within individual threads. That, and some serious enforcement of standards for conduct done in a way that might open it up for community feedback but leave the ultimate decision in the hands of someone from Salon staff.

Another semi-related issue that I think a few folks have brought up already on this thread -- would it be a good idea to substitute a collapsed thread tree type of format for the current practice of giving us a way to "skim" comments by assigning editor's picks? I mean, much as they are occasionally the source of a schoolgirlish sort of thrill (look, mommy, teacher gave me a big red starrr!), they seem to inspire a fair amount of resentment.

I recall a conversation that carried on between three of four people on a thread about mental health that found all of us writing in at least four or five times. It was an extremely constructive experience, at least for me. And since we don't have a way of contacting or identifying one another that would allow the conversation to continue in another forum, it would have just come to a dead stop if there was a limit on the times we could contribute to the thread. It wasn't rancourous at all, just an exchange of experiences and ideas.

I would hate to see the opportunity for those types of extended conversations to go by the wayside because sometimes we are less constructive with our multiple posts. After all, it is in the back-and-forth that we actually get to respond to one another and demonstrate how our thinking is being affected by other letter writers, which is exactly what makes this something other than an echo-chamber on occasion.