Unfortunately, due to reasons noted earlier (Re^2: Proposal: eliminate down-votes) I must downvote the OP.

The horse you are beating is dead. Its not pining, its passed on. Expired and gone to meet its maker. Off the twig, kicked the bucket, shuffled off this mortal coil!

It's a free monastery, it would be foolish to try to stop a monk from collecting downvotes,...
after that's already been tried and he's asking for it again and again and again...

Cheers, Sören

....

You know what? Plz don't answer!

I'll downvote you right away!

update

a small super search selection of similar PMD threads you started

written by any of sundialsvc4

2013-06-28     sundialsvc4     Huffington Post: "Let's Do Away With An
+onymous Posting"     PMD
2013-06-10     sundialsvc4     (Toward a better PerlMonks) Who do we s
+erve, and why, and how can we do it better?     PMD
2013-03-18     sundialsvc4     Once again ... is it time to get rid of
+ the Anonymous Monk?     PMD
2012-05-31     sundialsvc4     Proposal: eliminate down-votes     PMD
2011-11-30     sundialsvc4     We should elminate: Anonymous, and DOWN
+-voting     PMD
[download]

for more click search!

Not sure where the Huffington Post is located, but even in that distant quarters they must have heard, that in the age of PRISM and Tempora there is no such thing as anonymous posting anymore.

I'm not sure what you're looking for, the topic has been discussed here many times, see links in existing responses to this thread.

The only links I found were to other posts by the OP, showing his affinity for attracting downvotes, but no links to actual previous discussions of the HuffPost article. Am I missing something?

There will always be divisive topics on which people will be tempted to post anonymously because the things that they post in response to these topics might reflect badly upon them. If the Anonymous Monk did not exist, these folks probably wouldn't post; but because it does, there's a route to post anything at all because there's no way that anyone can know who it was.

I have heard the reasons that people want to retain anonymous posting. I will say I understand them but personally view them more as excuses than solid reasons. Many of the reasons that aren't excuses have real technical solutions. For instance, if you're worried about signing in because your credentials might be stolen, then we should get https: working. I've also heard that "signing in takes too long when I want to post a quick response". If the login adds so much time to the total time needed to post, then the login feature is astoundingly slow and needs technical help.

There are technical options that would still permit anonymous posters to post without their being able to misbehave with impunity. The best, in my mind, would be updating nodes to allow the originator to assert "the anonymous user may not reply to this node" and make child nodes in the thread inherit this setting. This alters the posting model to be more like Twitter's - if I don't want you to see your posts, I block you, and you don't get to post on my threads. You may choose to block me in response. If you're the Anonymous Monk, you don't get to block anyone. If someone chooses to block the Anonymous Monk, they may do so; this means that any responders must sign in to post on that person's threads. This makes the situation self-regulating; people who love anonymous replies can have them, people who don't may choose to not have them. If someone doesn't feel like investing in a login to respond to a "no anonymous replies" node, then that is their choice. Every poster controls their environment - except the Anonymous Monk, who, because they have chosen the advantage of anonymity, loses the ability to block comments on their nodes. If a user's nodes automatically inherited their "allow anonymous responses" setting, that would be extra-nice, but I'd settle for checking a "disallow anonymous responses" box.

So in this scenario, everyone wins. The people who dislike anonymous responses don't have to see them; trolls can be banned from one's threads simply by adding them to your block list, and people who prefer the older "anyone can say anything any way they want" can have that to just by leaving some boxes unchecked.

The true lack here at Perlmonks is the will to find a way to make behaving badly difficult and unrewarding, and the empathy to realize that being on the receiving end of it is acutely painful. This is not a technical issue, but a cultural one - and as such, given the culture, is unlikely to change. There's no way for a motivated outsider to contribute a technical step toward preventing abuse of the Anonymous Monk without having been accepted into the site maintenance group - and the likelihood of this happening if someone has expressed dissatisfaction with the social dynamic is low.

This is a technical suggestion; nonetheless, I expect a lot of emotional responses for the reasons I listed.

TL;DR: In a conservative culture, it's practically impossible to effect change.

You trivialize dissenting arguments as “excuses,” you ignore two major reasons anonymous posting is sensible: 1) low barrier to entry, 2) throwaway accounts are functionally anonymous anyway, you say we should get https working but have not offered to fix it or the clear text passwords, you left out the only sensible item put forward recently: separate anonymous posters from each other, you claim your cultural and social argument is purely technical, and you proactively paint any rebuttal as "emotional" instead of possibly rational and reasonable; this last one is why I reply and vote. This is the Internet. And the anonymous monk’s worst behavior does not even approach what passes for normal on Yahoo, YouTube, or any other site with major forums.

tl;dr --

This ^^.

The Anonymonks here are making above average posts on the internet compared to people with pseudonyms or even real names attached. Removing them would make the world a worse place.

this means that any responders must sign in to post on that person's threads.

The fallacy there is that the OP owns the thread. But posters only own their own posts. At best, the poster could say she doesn't want anonymous replies to her own posts.

Of course, this is just an engrained convention. We could change it, given sufficient "political will". I predict that perlmonks will never have it.

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

... new suggestion ...

If you want real consideration of your inherit-alllowable-anonymous idea, a seperate "clean" monkdiscuss would yield better consideration/discussion ....