So Scott Rosenberg wants to improve the tone of the Letters feature. I notice he's given a red star to the most execratory, foul-mouthed, ranting letter on this thread, apparently because it expresses the editor's views and bears the writer's name.

Yes, Tim Behrend, we can read. We know we can continue to use handles. But since we are being urged to use our real names, and discouraged from using handles, some of us would like to explain that there are more reasons for anonymity than simply a desire to rant and cuss. I'd like to add something about controversial views. They do not comprise merely the obviously out-of-bounds. They include a sizable gray area surrounding the hot buttons, issues that glom onto other issues that include an obviously forbidden view. Everyone is sensitized these days to "code"; they've read the latest scorecard and "know" that A is code for B. Or that lots of people consider it code for B, and they just might be the people who Google your name. Furthermore, there's the sense that we're in a war of ideas, and that some ideas, tho not unsound in themselves, play into the hands of the enemy. And the rulebook continues to change. Recently I visited a blog with which I mostly agree, and found that lo, a conviction which I've long held and continue to hold is now considered by that blogger to be a reactionary view.

Rightly or wrongly, I believe that such ideas ought to be heard and considered. Thoughtful discussion is not so thoughtful when everybody has to toe a party line. But you never know when someone with power over your life will take offense at those ideas. That's why using a handle can be prudent, not cowardly.

It is indeed a letters-to-the-editor tradition in journalism that letter writers are supposed to sign their own names, although traditions aren't necessarily good things.

It's easy to see that asking letter-writers to use their own names would seem to put the responsibility for their words on those who wrote them.

But for me, not using my own name is an opportunity to express myself on a spectrum of topics that I would never otherwise comment on. Because if my opinion on a controversial topic conflicted with what my employer (or prospective employer) should deem appropriate, I could lose my job or miss out on a job prospect as a result.

There is always the risk that users writing under a shield of anonymity might express themselves libelously or incite uncivil discourse. So it's a good thing that Salon reserves the right to delete any letters that seem too unseemly.

Perhaps it wouldn't hurt for Salon to create a code of letter-writing conduct. Fortunately, few of the letter-writers so far would need such a thing.

I will "Editor's Choice" my own posts. Eminently reasonable, thanks for pointing it out, Traidep. Clarity should win out over modesty.

I kind of find it ironic that Scott Rosenburg's "Some responses and reactions from Scott" posting on page 5 didn't make the cut (no red star).

Um, if his generously long, well-written response to the tsunami of replies that this article has engendered, then what hope do mere mortals have? Or more snarkily, did Mr. Rosenburg spit in the editor's coffee mug or what?

Heh. Kidding. I'm sure it's an oversight, but you might want to change it for people just reading the Editor's Choice posts. :D

You will REGRET linking your real name to your handle. You may change your opinion down the road, or even tomorrow, but there it stays, locked in the amber of the Google cache, forever and ever and ever more.

It's risky enough that Salon can put a name to your handle and claim all your writing as their intellectual property. Suppose one day you are someone important -- they'd have a scoop on you (or whoever bought the info from them).

Really, trust me on this, just don't do it. I made this mistake elsewhere as an idealistic young man. NOT WORTH IT. Don't do it. You won't even know when that stray post comes back to haunt you. And it will. You are forever what your write on the Internet, and few of us need such an albatross.

-- John Doe

I understand the fears of those who want to respond anonymously because of potential retribution from an employer, authority figure, etc. Though I believe these are often the times when being anonymous is exactly not what one should be. But aside from these situations, I don't believe something is worth saying or commenting on if you are not willing to say who you are.

I always look at the name of the person (and affiliation, if included). It lends credibility and integrity. It contextualizes the response in a way that can illuminate the topic. An open, honest discussion becomes easily dismissed or even laughable with signatories such as some of those on Salon's editorial pages.

The idea of having readers rate the letters is great. In fact, it's been part of our plan from the start. We weren't able to build it into the initial rollout of this system, though. And we want to be careful to make it work in a fairly intuitive way; such systems can quickly grow too complex unless they're deftly designed.

Basically, from where I sit, the more tools we can provide for you to customize how you see these letters, the better!

I won't add to my previous comments on the name-vs.-anonymity matter, except to reiterate that we're aware of and want to be sensitive to the concerns many of you are raising about privacy, and we'll keep our ears open, and there are good reasons why we couched this discussion in terms of "encouraging" people to sign their names rather than "requiring."

Sorry, Salon, but I think your asking us to sign our names is way off base, especially the part that implies that it'll make us more thoughtful with our responses. I, for one, resent that. And to compare these posts to the Letters to the Editor in a newspaper is also pretty unrealistic. When I googled myself a few weeks back I was shocked to have been presented with links to two of my Salon posts (the only two containing my real name). I doubt that even google's massive mighty search engine extends into any letters I may have written to the editors of the Akron Beacon Journal or Cleveland Plain Dealer. As I explained when I asked you to remove those two posts from your database, my boss is a staunch Republican who might very well google me some day and might very well hold my political views against me. Personally, I have issues with Salon making our posts available to search engines like google but that's probably one battle I'm not going to win. So withhold your Editor's Choice stars if you must but I think it smacks a bit of elitism. As a matter of fact, I liked "N." 's suggestion -- let the readers rank the comments (instead of or in addition to the editors' ranking).