Generality creep

[Guillaume Piolat]

On Wednesday, 3 April 2019 at 14:09:49 UTC, FeepingCreature wrote:
> It is fundamentally epistemically improper to demand action on 
> weighty evidence that cannot be ethically provided.

I've been perhaps overstating my point, but no I'm not going to 
namecall - let's talk about the anonymous accounts.

One prime example is in one message juste above ours.

Once Andrei started saying things remotely uncomfortable for D, 
one "helpful" anonymous individual posted it to HN. Surely the 
intent couldn't be positive for D.

It gives the impression it's OK to disrespect the leadership, and 
that it's OK to shit in the soup.

Such anonymous actions have been going on since the beginning of 
D times, it gives a baseline upon more respectable personas can 
act in ways they wouldn't have.

I don't _demand_ anything, one action that would make sense if - 
in my opinion - to stop anonymity in these forums, and add 
accountability back.