One of the huge difference between PerlMonks and Slashdot is that Slashdot has always bowed to the whole "free speech" thing, since a lot of their topics, in order to get a valid, balanced viewpoint (as if that's ever been possible anyway), require the voice of people that don't want to be known.
PerlMonks does not suffer from that, and as a result, they can severely restrict what the anonymous can do, and can reasonably rely on a person's level or XP to determine the quality of that person's Perl expertise. I hope to God that PM doesn't change its policies to better reflect the "free speech" policies of Slashdot, because we've all seen what happens.
I feel just the opposite. Accountability would only mean people would not vote for fear of retaliation. Bad sentiment will develop. If someone wants to post a note explaining why they voted one way or the other, or why they marked their node for consideration (which, I understood, was to be done only in extreme situations), they're free to do so, but I think forcing accountability for your voting actions would hurt the voting process more than help it. Though don't get me wrong: I'd love to figure out who keeps going around and randomly -- posts for no apparent reason, or just because they don't like the person.