Although I should probably be studying, I would like to take a moment to respond to a few points made by Tom, and then I'll probably be done with this topic. First of all, I think the contradiction cited in Tom's post is only a partial one which depends on the reader. Personally, I'm perfectly willing to read a post by someone who posts anonymously and consider its content (unless they have shown themselves in the past to be the sort of malicious anonymous posters which frequent this message board). Secondly, I think the manner in which messages are displayed lends itself to the use of anonymous posts I mentioned in my last post. With the volume of messages that show up here every day, I think it is a safe bet that many of us don't read every post, and the way some of us filter out the posts we don't want to read is to look at the handle next to the message title and rule out those by posters whose views on quizbowl we think we know and have rejected in the past, under the theory that "I know what I'm getting, so why bother to read it" (I must admit that I've frequently done this myself). At least with anonymous posting, a previously unknown handle makes it more likely in this case that one will click on the message, since there aren't any preconceived notions about what the content of the message will be (and besides, unless you click on the message and immediately check to see if it is signed, you'll probably read the post before even realizing that it is anonymous). So, while I concede that anonymous posting is not ideal, I think it will get more people in the door than would a message by a "notorious" poster whose reputation concerning the subject in question would keep many people from reading it at all. Kelly Kelly wrote, "For example, the (perceived) positions of many people on this message board about certain issues are very well-known, and this tends to lead to sweeping categorizations, such as "so and so despises such and such a format"; when this happens, a common result is that any point (valid or not) made by the person on that subject tends to be summarily dismissed by an argument such as "oh, he or she is just saying that because they hate the format". In a case like this, an anonymous post stating the same point might have a more positive influence, since it will likely recieve a more fair examination on its merits." Tom responded: "This is an argument I've seen made several times over the years to justify anonymous posting. While on the surface it looks valid, it contains a contradiction that invalidates it. If a person is making a preconceived judgement about the validity of an argument based on the poster, might not that person be equally likely to discount an argument on the theory that posts from anonymous sources are suspect as well? There is no inherent value to anonymity that gives an argument from an anonymous source any more validity than that made from an identified poster (and given the general level of anonymous posts encountered, I would argue for a face value of less for anonymous posters)."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST