Q: Is there a Steam thread about Anonymous Posting becoming allowed?

[battlezoby]

I believe that many posts should more by what they say, and less by who posted them.

UPDATE: Although I know this thread isn't going to result in the implimention of the feature ("anytime soon") I think discussion of it may lead to something useful eventually.(*)

The concept is to merely allow someone to hide their name while still requiring that they post from their normal account and be subject to the same moderation scrutiny. Obviously moderators would still be able to see the name for the purpose of warnings and bans, but it might help some lurkers with valid opinions to be willing to speak more freely.

P.s. And Steam should install a darn "preview" button already... it's so annoying to have to wait for the automatic analysis before I can fix spelling, grammer and arguably more importantly, fomatting mistakes (including the formatting-tags which currently aren't render prior to posting) which I dsylexically don't notice until after posting.

Update: Changed title for terseness and clarity. First paragraph is new.

* - And even if we don't get this new features, I think it's at least an academic issue reasonably calculated to maybe lead to some other "Steam ideas and suggestions."

[Judgmental Amaterasu]

Quint the Alligator Snapper eredeti hozzászólása:

Big Bridge.mp4 eredeti hozzászólása:

The awards have actual use. Anonymous posting is useless except for trolls. There's zero reason to attempt to hide on a discussion board with a valid post or opinion. Worrying about people seeing stuff on your profile is what the private profile option exists for.

What use do the awards have, aside from being expressions of opinion, which forum posts can also do (and more)?

They don't just "express" an opinion. You're also awarding someone points for the shop. Anonymous posting does literally nothing in the vein OP is talking about as just lurking won't stop someone's not private profile from being found and "belittled".

[battlezoby]

I just added: "I believe that many posts should more by what they say, and less by who posted them."

Some examples:

Some people may get their friends to spam reports unto a poster they don't like. Since this wouldn't apply to the collective piles of reports on an anonymous poster's posters in different games and generic-topics could be taken more seriously.

Some people may get their friends to spam reports unto a poster they don't like. Anonymous posting should discourage this.

Personal opinions of the poster are often inappropriately gauged by the poster. A more specific example: Some people are hated for, example, for posting "politcally-incorrect" views which they are not banned for - such I don't think such beliefs(*) should not trigger responses to their personality every time they post an opinion such as whether or not a game element should buffed or nered.

* - No, I'm not talking about myself here. For what it's worth, most "politically incorrect" beliefs I might have are so "off the grid", I'm not going to post them on Steam (or in most cases, anywhere. [Trivia: there are some "middle-ground" ones I'll PM but not post.])

[my new friend]

battlezoby eredeti hozzászólása:

Some people may get their friends to spam reports unto a poster they don't like.

Spamming reports doesn't do anything.

battlezoby eredeti hozzászólása:

Anonymous posting should discourage this.

It wouldn't discourage it.

[battlezoby]

my new friend eredeti hozzászólása:

battlezoby eredeti hozzászólása:

Some people may get their friends to spam reports unto a poster they don't like.

Spamming reports doesn't do anything

It's been admitted that the number of past bans and warning will effect the possibility of future warnings and the extent of future bans.

It's been hinted that the number of reporters is a factor in deciding who gets warned and banned. Further circumstancial evidence of this is when nearly identical infractions close to each other in topic and time result in one creating a ban, while the other doesn't even generate a warning.

my new friend eredeti hozzászólása:

battlezoby eredeti hozzászólása:

Anonymous posting should discourage this.

It wouldn't discourage it.

An example is cross-thread reporting of someone based on their name. In other words, people who are very quick to report a post that would not be reported if their name did not appear on it. If they don't know who posted it, they OBVIOUSLY wouldn't let the poster's identity encourage (or discourage) them from reporting.

In fact I would have outright said that it would "Prevent" reports based on the poster's identity, but an exception would be when they correctly speculate on the posters identity by context and/or content.

[my new friend]

battlezoby eredeti hozzászólása:

NOTE: STEAM SHOULD HAVE A PREVIEW FUNCTION but doesn't. I'M CURRENTLY POSTING IN ORDER TO PREVIEW THIS, Please don't respond to or quote this until I'm done editing it and remove this notice.

Why? I can quote properly without it.

[Sleepy Yoshi]

I definitely agree on the preview for sure. The forums in general have needed more functionality for quite some time imo.

On the anonymous posting I'm rather undecided but leaning towards the negative. The justifications given so far are less about a need for anonymity imo and more about moderation being applied evenly, fairly and there being more stringent repercussions for abusing the report function.

The thing for me is I don't really see how anonymity discourages any of the behaviour mentioned. If anything I think it creates an atmosphere that will encourage witch hunting. This is actually seen quite often here already where if you disagree with certain forum dwellers, typically "regulars" it must be because you're an alt of "x troublemaker" that has also disagreed and/or slighted them in the past. That's what I see a system such as this encouraging more of.

[Aachen]

battlezoby eredeti hozzászólása:

.... Some people may get their friends to spam reports unto a poster they don't like. Since this wouldn't apply to the collective piles of reports on an anonymous poster's posters in different games and generic-topics could be taken more seriously ....

Ineffectiveness of brigading aside, I don’t follow the point you’re expressing here. I don’t think you mean to insulate users from being reported, but what else could be your intent? Reporting someone does not guarantee action will be taken; spurious reports won’t accomplish censoring.

.... Personal opinions of the poster are often inappropriately gauged by the poster. A more specific example: Some people are hated for, example, for posting "politcally-incorrect" views which they are not banned for - such I don't think such beliefs(*) should not trigger responses to their personality every time they post an opinion such as whether or not a game element should buffed or nered ....

You’re trying to solve people disliking each other?!

battlezoby eredeti hozzászólása:

.... It's been hinted that the number of reports is a factor in decided who gets warned and banned ....

Link?

I'm talking about cross-thread reporting of someone based on their name. In other words, people who are very quickly to report a post that would not report if it was made by a different poster. If they don't know who posted it, they OBVIOUSLY wouldn't let the poster's identity encourage (or discourage) them from reporting ....

Would it?

Kneejerkers won’t merely act equally quickly when they see “anonymous” (or shortly thereafter when anons’ style, phraseology, etc. trigger their heuristics)?

.... In fact I would have outright said that it would "Prevent" reports based on the poster, but an exception would be when they correctly speculate on the posters identity by context and/or content.

Ah, so you’re aware that it won’t work as you advertise.

[my new friend]

battlezoby eredeti hozzászólása:

It's been admitted that the number of past bans and warning will effect the possibility of future warnings and the extent of future bans.
It's been hinted that the number of reports is a factor in decided who gets warned and banned.

You are incorrect. People spamming reports won't make that happen.

battlezoby eredeti hozzászólása:

I'm talking about cross-thread reporting of someone based on their name. In other words, people who are very quickly to report a post that would not report if it was made by a different poster. If they don't know who posted it, they OBVIOUSLY wouldn't let the poster's identity encourage (or discourage) them from reporting.

In fact I would have outright said that it would "Prevent" reports based on the poster, but an exception would be when they correctly speculate on the posters identity by context and/or content.

Again, people spamming reports doesn't do anything. Only a single report is necessary for a moderator to act upon the report. If the user violated the rules, the moderator can take action upon the person being reported. If the user did not violate the rules, the report is cleared.

[Mad Scientist]

battlezoby eredeti hozzászólása:

NOTE: STEAM SHOULD HAVE A PREVIEW FUNCTION but doesn't. I'M CURRENTLY POSTING IN ORDER TO PREVIEW THIS, Please don't respond to or quote this until I'm done editing it and remove this notice.

That seems a bit silly.

You could just look it over before hitting "post comment". 17 minutes later and it's still not done? Looks like it was done though, as I hit refresh and it was removed. You don't need to notify people, nor do you need to take a while to edit. "Preview" doesn't change leap first, look later methods.

Though preview would be preferable in general, for forums, for obvious reasons in regard to formatting.

[battlezoby]

my new friend eredeti hozzászólása:

battlezoby eredeti hozzászólása:

It's been admitted that the number of past bans and warning will effect the possibility of future warnings and the extent of future bans.
It's been hinted that the number of reports is a factor in decided who gets warned and banned.

You are incorrect. People spamming reports won't make that happen.

battlezoby eredeti hozzászólása:

I'm talking about cross-thread reporting of someone based on their name. In other words, people who are very quickly to report a post that would not report if it was made by a different poster. If they don't know who posted it, they OBVIOUSLY wouldn't let the poster's identity encourage (or discourage) them from reporting.

In fact I would have outright said that it would "Prevent" reports based on the poster, but an exception would be when they correctly speculate on the posters identity by context and/or content.

Again, people spamming reports doesn't do anything. Only a single report is necessary for a moderator to act upon the report. If the user violated the rules, the moderator can take action upon the person being reported. If the user did not violate the rules, the report is cleared.

I'm basing much of my speculation and reports on things that happen in non-game specific threads, but I don't remember the specifics well enough to say much more about them right now.

But some specifics I do know is that:

Someone (who ironically later became a pretty good friend of mine(*)) said I was like "Hitler and Stalin" because he thought I overestimated the cost of certain real-life gaming components. I reported that as "Inappropriate discussion of politically heated subjects" (or something like that.(**)) but it did not generate a warning.

Same person later got a one-month ban for "baiting." He did not receive a warning for calling most of the posters "Special Snowflakes" but I suspect that annoyed enough of the community members that they started so liberally and prolificly reporting his far less offensive alleged "bait" posts that he receive a one-month ban.

Honestly... I don't understand how the "Hitter or Stalin" reference should not be considered to be enough of a "heated topic" or "discussion of politics" to even warrent a WARNING. [This was before he called people "special snowflakes"] On the flip-side: I also don't understand how his related posts could be considered bait to such an extent that, in the absense of flooded complaints from the people he called "special snowflakes," it would result in a one-month ban.

* - A "pretty good friend" in absolute terms. An "exceptionally good friend" by "Steam standards."

** - I've heard rumors that "[Adolf] Hitler" is often considered to be heated political subject.

Disclaimer: Although I often report discussion of politics I prefer full freedom of speech. The primary reason I report such subjects is because it is so darn frustrating to see them posted when I'm pretty certain I would eventually be perma-banned if I responded to those subjects freely rather than just "getting the minimum about of closure Steam will allow" by reporting them.

[Gwarsbane]

I very much doubt anonymous posting is coming to the forums, how would I guess this? Because they have been doing too much to allow people to stand out with frames and avatars and stuff.

Also just because you post anonymous doesn't actually mean you are to the moderators and admins. You can and will still get reported for trolling and breaking rules and they will still see all the reports on your account.

It also won't stop people from getting their friends to report you, because all they will have to do is say "see this post in this thread here, go report that Anon user for X."


Also just because 10,000 people report you doesn't mean anything will happen to you. If you don't break the rules you won't get banned.

And as already said, you are already posting anonymously by using a made up user name. If you don't put any of your personal info on your profile no one will know who you are.

If you don't want people making fun of you or targeting you because of what you play or using what you play against you in some way, then make your profile friends only or private.

Seeing your name as "Anon1536342563454" as " battlezoby" doesn't matter. People will still call you out on the stupidest stuff or attack you when you've made a good point against them.

[ZOMBIECRUNCH]

I believe you may have inadvertently answered your own question. This is why we have moderators.

[Brian9824]

battlezoby eredeti hozzászólása:

It's been hinted that the number of reporters is a factor in deciding who gets warned and banned. Further circumstancial evidence of this is when nearly identical infractions close to each other in topic and time result in one creating a ban, while the other doesn't even generate a warning.

Which again, 1 report or 100 reports doesn't equal a warning or a ban unless the content breaks the rules.

So again, spamming reports does nothing, if a post breaks the rule then 1 report will get it moderated.

Also your idea wouldn't work, anyone can click on a posters name and view their profile and therefore lose the ability of users to report profiles for illegal activity.

What you suggest would just be used by trolls and scammers.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Big Bridge.mp4 eredeti hozzászólása:

Quint the Alligator Snapper eredeti hozzászólása:

What use do the awards have, aside from being expressions of opinion, which forum posts can also do (and more)?

They don't just "express" an opinion. You're also awarding someone points for the shop. Anonymous posting does literally nothing in the vein OP is talking about as just lurking won't stop someone's not private profile from being found and "belittled".

The only thing they do publicly is express the opinion. The points are handled entirely privately.

Furthermore, once you give someone an awards, you only lose points. You have no control over how that person uses the points they get anyway.

Regardless of how the points work, you've just acknowledged that the awards do express an opinion. And they do so anonymously.

So right now, if Alice wants to belittle Bob, Alice can award Bob an insulting award (such as the infamous jester) and do so without any punishment.

But if Charlie wants to say something that's not an insult but an informative comment without being belittled, he can't.

That doesn't make sense.

Now, I understand the criticism that an anonymous posting feature could be abused by trolls, and so it shouldn't be available. But that means that the currently-available means to anonymously insult someone's post should also not be available.

Furthermore, even if there were anonymous posting and people couldn't report profiles for breaking the rules, people can still report posts for breaking the rules. But, I'll be charitable to the argument and assume that reporting posts only but not profiles means that it makes extra work for mods since mods then have to link reports to the profiles (a process that could obviously be automated and likely already is which would make this counterargument moot). So, then, the argument is that anonymous posting shouldn't exist...but note that people also can't report profiles of users who harass them with insulting awards. So, awards should no longer be anonymous.

[Brian9824]

battlezoby eredeti hozzászólása:

I suspect some people place report due to the primarily to their past experience with someone, and not their current conduct. In some case, it might be as extreme as reporting nearly EVERY POST the hated person makes, which results in a warning or ban when the reports get lucky and the moderator finally sees something he/she thinks is a violation. Spammed "I hate this person" reports might frustrate moderators to the point of wanting to find an excuse to ban someone.

I'm not going to give details (right now), but I have a strong suspicion that in another incident (and (possibly in the example I already gave as well) spammed "This person is impolite" reports led to a warning and ban due to parts of a post that the reporters didn't even find objectionable!

Did you see my example where I believe someone called made a personal insult "special snowflakeys" directed at many users, and then [weeks or months later] got a one-month ban for something I thought was trivial at best?

The point of that example, is that the people who might have hated him might not have been able to know it was also him that made the posts that got him banned. And I believe that if people didn't hate him (especially for "special snowflakes") they might not have even reported the (IMO) minor offenses that the moderators banned him for.

Again no, your suspicions are without merit. Again the entire design of the forum goes against your suggestion and your suggestion would actively benefit scammers.

I'd people repeatedly report someone without merit they themselves get a warning/ban.

Sounds more like you've gotten moderated a few times and rather then addressing your behaviour your looking to make up an excuse that people are out to get you....