Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

Recently, I asked a general question about bad behaviour. It was of the form "If you do X, what'll happen?".

I'm wondering whether people will try to look at my account and find out who did X, which'd be bad, as I don't want to make a big issue out of it. I want this dirty laundry laundered automatically and in private, not aired. If I could ask the question anonymously, then people wouldn't be able to delve into the dirty laundry.

Does mandatory non-anonymity in Meta make dirty laundry airing more likely, and if so, is this a reason for allowing anonymity on MSO?

share|improve this question
I dunno. Does the chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight? – Rosinante Oct 21 '10 at 23:22
It sure seems like meta has been around long enough that this thing you are curious about may have happened. Can someone link us to a real example? – Zoredache Oct 21 '10 at 23:50
You can always contact the team. There's a link at the bottom of every page. – Rebecca Chernoff Oct 21 '10 at 23:58
If you talk theoretics, there's got to be something to poke at – random Oct 22 '10 at 0:20
up vote 3 down vote accepted

I think there are at least two things going on here.

First, for really dirty laundry, where anonymity is muchos important, you can do as other have suggested and contact the team on the QT.

Second we have a tradition of judging the content, not the user. And I figure that the long timers--the high rep types--are the most likely to value and live that tradition and they are also the bulk of the regulars on meta. So I think that meta is at least moderately trustworthy when it comes to hanging out the issues even when the parties are identified.

And it is important that the actual cases of possible trouble be examined. Real situations are almost always messier than anonymous generalities.

It is worth thinking about how we could have a impartial, trustworthy entity to judge these things, but I don't see an obvious solution.

So that's not the answer you were looking for, but I would suggest that a pattern of holding past misbehavior against a reformed user is cause for censure at some level. I'm not sure how exactly that should be handled, but we need a mechanism.

Flagging the mods of emailing the team seems to be what you've got for now.

share|improve this answer

If the laundry is super-dirty, just air it to

We really do not want to create lynch mobs on meta, we often delete and anonymize discussions about particular people cause that is not what meta is about or for.

share|improve this answer

No way. Anonymity is one of the curses of the Internet. Then you get people who really feel they can say anything, since they think they're 'safe'. We want people to be responsible for what they say.

(There are some blessings from anonymity, but they're special cases).

share|improve this answer
No, I'm moral and responsible, a concept that escapes you. – Lance Roberts Oct 22 '10 at 17:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .