But how would we know which AM postings are tilly's?
That's the point, isn't it? It doesn't matter that we can't tell tilly wrote them; the posts stand on their own merit.
Oh, certainly he could. What's your point?
That there is nothing to be gained by eliminating anonymous postings. That, in fact, you can't really eliminate them anyway.
I wonder if there are people who will defend both the XP system and anonymous monks.
Sure, I will. I have. You probably know that. Your musing seems to imply you think that they are somehow contradictory. I don't, but I'd be more than happy to hear your reasoning.
-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
| [reply] |
...it's being rumoured that tilly posted as an anonymous monk, and perhaps tilly has claimed that himself as well. But how would we know which AM postings are tilly's?
Why would knowing which AM posts were tilly's matter?
Having read your thoughts in this thread, I really don't understand why you'd block them, Abigail-II. Aside from your
observation -- an incorrect one -- that They don't contribute much, I can't see where you're coming from.
| [reply] |
(I must have missed this discussion when it initially happened...)
I wonder if there are people who will defend both the XP system and anonymous monks.
I'm an example. My view is that both exist to encourage people to participate. They work in different ways and encourage different people, but as long as both achieve that goal, I'm for both of them.
Note that I do not defend XP as being meaningful or intrinsically interesting. | [reply] |
What's your point? I defend both. XP is a social process, not any kind of objective measure, and likewise the Anonymonk account is a social feature of the site. Where's the ostensible contradiction?
Makeshifts last the longest.
| [reply] |
