Hi Joan. Always enjoy your blog.

I'm all for eliminating Anonymous AND getting tougher with the abusive/attacking letters. I have especially noticed such posts in the Ask Cary section.

I have to admit, I get a little caught up in the drama between some of the heated exchanges. Nonetheless, some of those posts are downright nasty.

So, yah--eliminate Anonymous postings and get tough with nasty letter writers. As long as it doesn't take away from all of the great work you guys do for Salon.

Thx.

What I'd like to see is the following kind of system:

* Users can opt to be anonymous for a given discussion, since it can really help people share their opinions on controversial topics

* They may choose an anonymous identifier for that discussion, or they may be assigned one ("Anonymous Aardvark"..."Anonymous Coward")

* All posts by the user in that discussion will use that identifier

* The user cannot post in that discussion under other identifiers.

This would really help discussion, because people can figure out which Anonymous entities they're arguing with.

Also, it eliminates the possibility that someone can use Anonymous for sock-puppetry.

I haven't yet seen a site with this kind of persistent anonymity feature, but there's no reason Salon shouldn't be the first.

I don't understand the purpose of allowing the anonymous option.

In regular newspaper letters to editor section, they do withhold names....and I suppose if one wants his or her name withheld, perhaps if they have a compelling reason and a good enough letter, it can be published with the name withheld....if the editors decide there is a really good reason.

Otherwise, as screen names are virtually anonymous, the reason for absolute anonymity escapes me.

I really think we should keep the Anonymous posting available, even though I agree there are some trolls who abuse it. If I'm going to respond frankly to something on, say, Cary Tennis's column, but maybe don't want someone connecting to me (I use this board name commonly), I like the option. Keeping track of the posts, issuing warnings, etc. is time intensive on your side but ends up being the fairest way of handling it from the member's point of view.

I always liked "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot. I once registered it on a message board for my smartass comments.

Does this count as on-topic?

Well, I've got several identities in this world and one screen name on Salon-- so when I must shift I've got no where to shift to except poor old "anonymous." I just posted something to Greenwald about Kierkegaard. That dude used as many as a dozen psuedonyms per book! I would need five or six to negotiate the electronic world. I'm not sure I get the whole cowardly business. I see why one uses "anonymous" to minimize the risks of identification; I don't see how calling yourself "Bamboon Fred" takes on any particular bold risks of claiming one's words and ideas or understand how this fosters special engagement.

Would you like me to leave?

Can't stand intelligent conservatives?

I think I add a ton of value to this site, by drawing boundaries for liberals. When you guys lose your sanity and perspective - we bring it back to you with slamming arguments.

Can't stand the heat - throw out the stove? You'll freeze to death. I don't want liberal fantasy-land to get all icey. Plus you need us conservatives, stoking the flames of industry, too keep the economy going so you can have all the trapping of the uber-privledged existance in fantasy-land where everyone is a victim and no one is right and coffees are 8 dollars.

How long will this post stay up? I think it's relevant.

First, I like teho's suggestion about having an "anonymous identifier" attached to a user for a given discussion. This seems like a good solution to what seems to be a real problem here.

Second, have you thought about doing a complete overhaul of your letters format? The sort of (forgive my term) clusterfuckery of the letters section makes the facilitation of specific discussions rather difficult. A single thread could have 200 replies to it - why can't these be grouped, and sub-grouped, by the users themselves, as they reply? It seems that Salon has been using the same model for commenting that most major websites do, but is it really the best one?

nancerich -- the problem with screen names which persist for years, across various discussions, is that often enough info becomes available on a person that anonymity is compromised.

Lots of supposedly anonymous people have been "outed" on blogs -- there are a few disgusting conservative bloggers who made a sport of outing people and trying to get them fired. (Usually they can't do it without IP information, which they can get if you post on their blogs.)

So if people want to share a pertinent story that reveals a lot about their identity, they need to have the option of staying anonymous.

Anonymous or not?

you will have much MORE personal attack. Once anyone with an identifiable handle of any kind identifies himself as a "rapist" by failing to toe the party line then many people are incapable of restraining themselves

I usually post replies under my sign in account, but there are times when I still want to exercise the option of posting anonymously. Especially on those occasions when I've replied to an article in the "Since You Asked" section, where I might not want to offer a personal experience to the conversation while maintaining a level of privacy for myself. The original letter writer gets to hide behind a pseudonym, so why shouldn't I?

I think the letters did improve after account registration but, as you point out, there is still a lot of drive-by sniping going on, but some of the worst of that kind is done by people operating under legitimately registered aliases. Sometimes I even wonder if one person doesn't have two or three accounts. Occasionally I will see one reader posting a hitherto unstated (and usually kind of stupid) point, only to have it echoed in almost the exact same words in the next couple of letters.

I'm not sure what I would recommend for fixing it, however. I think a certain amount of rough and tumble is built in, but I do get irritated by some of the responses that don't seem to really address the topic.