Anonymous Rep

Why is rep anonymous? It seems to be by allowing people to keep their names hidden when criticising, you are encouraging cowardly behaviour. If someone has a genuine problem with the post on moral grounds, then by all means they can complain and get a mod to check it out (such a function does already exist and is anonymous).

Other than that it seems to me that keeping your identity hidden and criticising from afar, often without a reason, is childish and rude if nothing else.

Anyone agree/disagree? And before I even post this message, I'm pretty sure I'll be receiving negative rep just for the above.

Why is rep anonymous? It seems to be by allowing people to keep their names hidden when criticising, you are encouraging cowardly behaviour. If someone has a genuine problem with the post on moral grounds, then by all means they can complain and get a mod to check it out (such a function does already exist and is anonymous).

Other than that it seems to me that keeping your identity hidden and criticising from afar, often without a reason, is childish and rude if nothing else.

Anyone agree/disagree? And before I even post this message, I'm pretty sure I'll be receiving negative rep just for the above.

Rep is anon becuase people other wise will not rep because they are scared of getting it back. If the comments are malicious, the mods can see the names.

Rep is anon becuase people other wise will not rep because they are scared of getting it back. If the comments are malicious, the mods can see the names.

Rep should be all means be anonymous. If it is not, it'll promote hatred between members - the member giving the neg rep will be looked down upon and probably given neg rep back. Also, there will be a lot of controversy over the validity of the rep.

As I have been given negative rep in the past for simply saying something which someone disagreed with, I have to disagree. Anonymous rep is no better than shouting an insult at someone, and then hiding when that person turns around.

I've had a personal example. This post: http://www.uk-learning.net/showthread.php?p=554960#post554960 got neg. repped today and I know who gave me it, though it wasn't signed as only one member is able to give that amount of rep.

I felt angry at this, as I cannot see what offence the post could have caused. As well as this, it took away my third gem and my immediate action would be to neg. rep it back. That would be the vast majority of people's decisions too, I think. Sigh. What would you do?

Personally I'd prefer it if the points were removed and it just became an anonymous (or otherwise if you chose to state your name) feedback system.

That's just bizarre. Why would you get negative rep for that? It is true...

But if you had a huge amount of repping power, it probably wouldn't make that much difference to you to rep someone who is only able to rep a few points. That way, even if they do rep back, it doesn't do as much damage whereas your neg. rep would take away a gem or summat.