Ray A wrote:This is a bit of a diversion. But in any case, I’m very sympathetic to posters who desire anonymity; especially posters who use familiar monikers and establish a reputation for intelligent and enlightening commentary. The idea of “exposing” such posters out of a misguided notion of revenge or “getting even” should not be tolerated. Jersey Girl’s suggested penalties seem reasonable to me, but may need some fine-tuning. I think in the end anonymity can be used for productive criticism, or destructive criticism. The latter doesn’t bode well for the future of the Internet.
There is a lot to chew on here. I view anonymity as important to those who struggle with Mormonism and those who seek to defend it. Critics of Mormonism here would especially seem to value their own anonymity very highly. Interesting how different aspects of this issue collide right here on MDB, and we struggle to find the right way of handling it.
I personally regret that I felt it was necessary to enter into such a discussion. I disliked the FAIRboard and I dislike MA&D. I am not eager to restrict freedom, but I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there must be more robust protection of anonymity, and I believe it will benefit both critics and apologists to have it. Religious debates are highly contentious and become extremely personal in short order. I cannot rely on the restraint of others and their goodwill, or, rather, I will no longer rely on that alone.
The policy ideas that Jersey Girl, beastie, and Scottie have discussed are reasonable in my opinion, and I do not see them constituting a restriction on the productive discussion of Mormon issues from either a critical or an apologetic perspective.
Thanks again, Ray.
, who can identify me.