Repeating Myself, with added eyerolling

[neadods]

There are now apparently six comms dedicated to critiquing the nominees for the Children of Time awards, so many run by sock puppets that the latest stakes its claim to fame specifically as the non-sock comm. (Why does CoT continue to soak up this nonsense? It's not like there are multiple comms SMOFing about calufrax recs.)


I'm going to take this opportunity to repeat myself: by openly posting reviews under my name, I have gotten work. Semi-professional work. (Reviewing the Evidence, I Love a Mystery Newsletter) Paying work. (Once Written, Firefox News) Even the stuff that doesn't pay in cash or goods (Unreality SF) is adding to my portfolio so I can get more work (and things are being negotiated for future lines).

Four years of negative reviews in Reviewing the Evidence, and I have yet to be spit on or run out of (or even shunned at) Malice Domestic or Bouchercon. It hasn't been six days since I looked a professional author right in the eyes and explained why I gave her next-to-latest book a partially negative review. Mary Stanton was amazingly cool about it. We had a long conversation about those points in her series and her plans.


So frankly y'all, I have LESS than no sympathy for anyone who thinks that they "have" to hide their identity to "honestly" give an opinion.

Comments

[drho.livejournal.com]

While it's awesome that it's safe for you to share your thoughts, it's not safe for everyone. I don't think it excuses rudeness at who_anon or anywhere else, but, when people are tracking pseudonyms to real names and posting addresses online, I think anonymity is a legitimate option. The ideas are important, regardless of the source.

The only consequence to the racefail writers that posted personal information or defended questionable practices might be bruised egos, quickly soothed by friends or sycophants or Hugo awards. However, the consequences to authors and readers of color and fandom as a whole is much worse. Backlash on top of the original fail.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

when people are tracking pseudonyms to real names and posting addresses online, I think anonymity is a legitimate option.

Except that when people are that dedicated to finding out who someone is, anonymity is a short-term option. I haven't known a lot of sock puppets who managed to hold onto their identity for all that cosmically long.

The ideas are important, regardless of the source.

I'd love to agree in theory, but I've got friends in LoTR fandom and have heard about their difficulty, and a good friend was in Rat Patrol before the sock brought it down. One person, just one puppeteer was the source of both offense and defense AND the lurkers supporting both in email. (The LotR puppeteer created hundreds; the RP puppeteer created thousands. This is, incidentally, why I remain convinced that the anon meme has maybe a dozen people actually active in it, tops.)

When you don't know who is spouting the idea; if they mean it or if they just mean to make trouble, it does make a difference. Especially if someone is hiding behind their anonymity to dogpile someone they have a grudge against. Hear about the Dead Sea Scroll guy? He socked one of his own opponents; went online under a close pseudonym and "made" his hated opponent "confess" to being a plagiarist, among other crimes.

*Extremely* important to know the source of that idea!

[drho.livejournal.com]

When there is a real risk of offline harassment, the choice is being silent or being unsafe. I'm glad posting your real name isn't a problem for you and admire people that take the risk, but I would rather not know a name or pseudonym, if it means that people wouldn't participate in fandom or speak out.

I don't suggest every anonymous thing is worth reading or that it shouldn't be kept in perspective, but the same can be said for posts with names attached. As we all know, posting under a steady name doesn't stop grudges or lies or generally sucking the fun out of fandom. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for compassion or change or apologies or actual responsibility, named or not.

I see what you're saying about abusing trust or ulterior motives, but people have been accused of elaborate sockpuppetry even when their identities were clear, their tones mild, and their messages heartfelt. I wouldn't blame them for not trusting anyone on the internet with their legal identity or for keeping interests under separate accounts.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

the same can be said for posts with names attached

That's very true.

At the same time, I can't help but think about offline harassment, this fortnight before MediaWest. MediaWest is where a lot of the Beauty and the Beast war was fought in person.