Should anonymous MyTakes count toward "editor of the month" awards? Including NAMING the anonymous author when the award is given?

····•• BACKGROUND ••····

A day or two ago, the September Editor of the Month award was given to an Editor who has literally NEVER posted ANY content under his own username. The award was based ENTIRELY on myTakes he posted as "anonymous".

When the award was given, this Editor was -- of course -- NAMED as the winner.
Not only was he named, but he was also IDENTIFIED as the author of several of these -- purportedly "anonymous" -- myTakes.

In other words, his anonymity was suddenly revoked... at least for the myTakes mentioned in the award thread.

····•• THE QUESTION/ISSUE ••····

If "editor of the month" includes anonymous work, then...

... the "community" aspect of the site is undermined, since the community can't really engage meaningfully with the author;

and, MUCH more importantly,
... the integrity of the "Anonymous" label -- and, by extention, the integrity of the site itself -- is tarnished.
I don't think this particular editor really cares, but, I'd imagine that MOST anonymous authors choose to be anonymous for a reason -- and I think it's important to respect that choice.
To me, at least, it's a violation of trust to suddenly NAME anonymous authors -- even under the guise of giving an award.

Is this OK? What do you think?

  • Yes, anonymous myTakes should count toward these awards... and it's OK to NAME anon authors who win awards.
    31% (10)26% (10)29% (20)Vote
  • No, these awards should be given to authors who claim their work. And it's NOT OK to NAME anonymous authors -- their choice to stay anonymous should be respected.
    69% (22)74% (28)71% (50)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

1|2
10|25

Most Helpful Guy

  • Let's take a step back here and first identify how an Anonymous editor can receive ANY recognition to begin with. Nobody knows who they are, save for those with superpowers (read: website admins).

    If they reveal their identity later, one may ask: Why post anonymously in the first place?

    No, anonymous editors don't take risks, hence they don't deserve the chance to receive rewards.

    2|1
    0|0

Most Helpful Girl

  • The Takes should count, but I don't think the person should be named. I don't know why you can't just name the Takes. I don't think a well written article should be discredited just because the author doesn't want everyone knowing they wrote it. I have an anonymous Take myself because of career reasons and if I get a reward for it, great, but I don't think having to say I wrote it to the entire community is necessary for recognition.

    1|0
    0|0
    • 1mo

      Gave you MH for raising interesting counterpoints, even though I'm mostly on the other side of the issue.

      You do raise a valid point here -- but, also, I think the validity of yr point is limited to authors who **mostly** engage with the community under a username, and who **only infrequently** post anon (for understandable reasons, such as the one you gave here).
      For an author who posts literally anything and everything anon ALL the time -- everything from takes to comments to replies -- I don't think yr argument here applies.

What Guys Said 24

  • [I know you and your followers are going to dislike it but, face it!]
    This is for righteousness!

    Who are you? Show me your ID card. Is your name redeyemindtricks? Nope. You are as much anonymous as he is. This is an anonymous community. Anonymity is a solid feature of this site. It helps users to say and do what they can't otherwise. (Even tho I don't use this feature)

    "Not only was he named, but he was also IDENTIFIED"
    https://s18.postimg.org/f4ea37h0p/Untitled.png

    "the "community" aspect of the site is undermined, since the community can't really engage meaningfully with the author"
    -No, it just means that you are holding some kind of grudge towards specific users. Why do you want the name of the author. If 'A' person says 2+2=4 and 'B' person says 2+2=4. It will still be the same thing. Why do you care about whether 'A' said it or 'B'? This is just ostensible favouritism. Judge by the content and not by the poster. This is fucking admins' business.

    "and, MUCH more importantly..."
    https://s18.postimg.org/f4ea37h0p/Untitled.png

    ______

    To be honest, I know what step did you take in response to that and I really respect it. You are rich by heart (and literally too lol, I must say)
    But THIS? This is... nonsense. (Just like Fathoms said hahaha).

    1. Their site, their rules.
    2. Do you have any 'scale' of quality?
    3. They are giving 'rewards', not many sites give it. You are not entitled to them because they are not making you to do a job. Make them earn profit and you will earn appreciation (in form of gift card). This is business. (They never complain when you use adblockers). Quantity matters!
    4. These are myTakes, not articles. Everyone has one's way to speak, to describe, to represent. At the end of the day, the one who'll write just because of passion will be the happiest one, not the one who is after money.

    I've been watching him from long time ago. I know what kind of person he was. (You were not here back then). I observed him, getting better. Of course he posts a lot of disgusting things, but what he was and what he is now, is really appreciable. His hard work shouldn't go unnoticed.

    And unlike your 'favorite' users who wanted 'money'. He doesn't care about gift cards. I've seen him giving gift cards to random users he doesn't even know, just for the heck to make them happy.

    He is rich. Rich by heart. HE worked for it. HE won it. You? Keep talking about him.
    img.picturequotes.com/.../...ss-people-quote-4.jpg

    4|1
    0|0
    • 1mo

      I don't think anyone was really upset about not getting a gift card. At least no one *said* anything like that, anyway.

      __

      "But THIS? This is... nonsense."

      ^^ This is actually why I made this question and poll. You can *disagree* with what I'm saying here -- yeah fine. But, "nonsense"? Uhm no.
      As of right now, at least, a solid majority of users agree with what I'm saying -- so, obviously, it's not "nonsense".

      __

      "I've seen him giving gift cards to random users..."
      ^^ ... and some of us just do nice things for people, without having to broadcast it. :*

    • Show All
    • 1mo

      And just out of curiosity, who are her favorite users that wanted money again?

    • 1mo

      @CHARismatic110 dunno. Don't care enough to remember.
      Don't take offence. I didn't think about you while writing this.

  • No because it defeats the purpose of being anonymous in the first place. From reading the opinions, it looks like fathoms already got permission before he mentioned the myTakes. But that's just silly. If someone wants to be anon over some silly subject that's not that sensitive and wouldn't mind to be revealed at some point then they shouldn't be writing the myTake in the first place and expect a "reward" for it. I always claim my work on here because barely anyone likes blue anon (18-24) and I won't look stupid if it gets mentioned on an "editor of the month" myTake. If it's a sensitive subject then I just won't allow opinions.

    2|0
    0|0
    • 1mo

      I don't think you see the 18-24 unless the writer replies to comments. But... yeah. Yr first sentence (it defeats the purpose...) I'm totally on board with.

  • Fathoms is beyond annoying... This is what happened on my last mytake

    -I needed more pictures

    -He changes my entire title of my mytake

    -When I asked him if he could put in pictures to get it promoted, he said he couldn't do that cause it wouldn't be my work

    -And knew full well I couldn't post something similar again... And it was probably my best mytake

    -He then claimed my mytake was probably too long to get promoted

    -Which means he doesn't fucking read all of the mytakes that gets written, which is his only fucking job on here

    -Continuously shows bias on what gets promoted based on what he likes and agrees with, not based on actual content and detail

    And then gives editor of nhe month to an anon... Who everyone on that dude's takes shit on for being bad... So it wasn't even like it was good anon. They were all literally trashed, except for the 1 that was purely a satire response of a dumb mytake about porn

    2|2
    0|0
    • 1mo

      If you're going to make it so you can call out anons for awards, don't let this site have anons, which is already the dumbest thing in the 1st place. It's the Internet. It's anonymous in itself

    • 1mo

      I agree with you about all of that

  • The anonymity on the site is much more damaging to the formation of a Gag community than giving an award to an anonymous poster.

    And no one has a 'right' to anonymity. Gag lets people get away with that way too muc as it is.

    If Gag decides that getting an award forfeits anonymity, I say, 'Good. Finally SOME limit to ghost writing on Gag.'

    3|0
    1|0
    • 1mo

      What about Takes where an anonymous author describes her experience of having an abortion?

      Or where an anonymous author describes, say, the experience of being stalked? (... in which case being identified by username could very realistically enable further stalking)

    • 1mo

      Nearly all of us have user names that can't be traced to our actual identities, anyway. Why not at least reveal yourself by username, so we know a little about you.. your location, past Gag activity, at least that. Assuming your aren't still essentially anonymous by keeping your ^&* profile private!

    • 1mo

      I agree with the general sentiment of that comment -- that's what I meant when I wrote about undermining the "community" aspect.

      But, I do think there should BE an anon option, at least.

  • Reveling someone's identify who chose to be anonymous is a no-go. Unless they asked him about it first.

    It doesn't make much sense that anonymous myTakes count towards editor of the month. I'd leave them out and put a warning when switching your myTake to anonymous

    3|2
    0|0
    • 1mo

      I guess they did ask him first. But the rest of yr comment still stands, yeah.

    • 1mo

      I agree with your point about anonymous Takes not counting towards Editor Of The Month.

  • They should not named nor awarded. I'm still stumped as to why any user would WANT to post a MyTake anonymously.. Leave the monthly award to those that choose to post under their username. Has the "revealed" user posted any response positively or negatively?

    4|0
    0|0
    • 1mo

      I linked to the thread, you can click it and see.

      The user has a non-private profile, with NO activity history. He has literally never posted ANYTHING under his own username -- not even so much as a single response to a question or comment.

    • 1mo

      I see now.. This only further confuses me! I seen fathom s name (had to space there lol trust me) awarding.. Whoa 1337 questions on the profile and 201 takes, none being visible. I don't what to say redeye

  • No, I do not think they should count. First of all Anon mytakes are supposed to be anon. If I wrote a mytake thawas so controversial I would have to go anon would I want people toknow it was me? No I would not. Secondly, I also dont think titles should be changed, pictures added, or our mytakes tweaked for any reason unless we give them permission or they ask us permission to change things, In my opinion the editors and writers wrote these takes so they should have control over what should change or not in their takes.

    2|0
    0|0
  • I think the loss of anonymity is the bigger issue. A lot of people share majorly personal stuff here, and for some the only way to do so while feeling safe is to keep a private identity.

    "the "community" aspect of the site is undermined, since the community can't really engage meaningfully with the author"

    I'm not so sure what I think about this. Is the ability to engage meaningfully enhanced when the author's identity is known? Absolutely. Does anonymity make meaningful engagement totally impossible? I don't think so.

    My solution would be to eliminate any anonymous Takes from consideration.

    1|0
    1|0
    • 1mo

      Yeah. I guess he did grant permission ahead of time, but... still, breaching that barrier between anon and non-anon *in any way* is pretty sketch.

    • 1mo

      I totally agree. If you're gonna post your content as Anonymous (something in not a huge fan of as a writer anyway) then you should receive accolades anonymously.

  • No, That guy is a complete coward anyway

    4|1
    0|0
  • Damn!! Really though question. I think they should count. And the titles should be published in the unveil of the results. Although the author should be asked beforehand if they want their real name next to the award.

    1|0
    0|0
  • This depends on the editor - I know he wanted the editor of the month so I am happy he got it.

    2|0
    0|0
  • I'd like the anon button removed completely

    3|1
    0|0
    • 1mo

      What about takes that deal with particularly sensitive ideas?

    • Show All
    • 1mo

      That's true
      Still you don't get known going anon all the time right

    • 1mo

      Yeah... anon ALL the time is stupid.

  • I think the anonymous editor should be named, but his myTakes shouldn't be mentioned.

    3|2
    0|0
  • Book writers who remain under a surname or pen name still show to awards and until matey say who they are

    2|0
    0|0
    • 1mo

      ... right, but, those awards are given to the same name that's on the books. The pen name isn't "Anonymous".

    • Show All
    • 1mo

      That's one of the reasons why I made the poll, is basically that question.

    • 1mo

      Oh OK. So let's say it's for the recognition in the community. We're not gonna appraise or recognize someone that just by anonymous. Personally, I wouldn't. At the end of the day, we all have a username and a photo and choose how to represent each other according or not according to who we are

  • You bring up a good point

    2|1
    0|0
  • LOL exactly what I said. WTF is the point of having the option to post as anon then? Lol whatever, since it doesn't apply to me anyway. I got bigger balls and self-confidence than to post anonymously. Always post public.

    1|0
    0|0
  • I definitely think outing anonymous posters is about as internet-wrong as it gets.

    1|0
    0|0
  • I have voted B.

    1|0
    0|0
  • I have a split opinion on this one, so I can't really answer the poll. I believe they should be eligible, BUT they should remain anonymous, since publicly naming them defeats the whole purpose of having anonymity on this site.

    1|0
    0|0
  • they can count towards it but you can't reveal anonymous content!

    1|0
    0|0
  • Nope, i think only those who are public and can show their work.

    1|0
    0|0
  • Editors should have to give up the right to be anonymous when writing mytakes.

    1|0
    0|1
  • Of course they should be. That said I can't imagine Gag would reveal someone's identity without asking permission before. If they did and permission was given then there is no problem to begin with.

    1|0
    0|0
  • Why all this hate? First of all, I gave Fathoms77 my permission to post these MyTakes, he didn't post the links on his own.

    And if you are so dissatisfied, go sue the site for making me Editor Of The Month, along with the others who complained too.

    And I'm not the only who posts always anonymously.

    3|0
    3|2
    • 1mo

      I made a poll to see how others think about the situation. That's all.

      Wherever you think you're seeing "hate", you are mistaken.

What Girls Said 9

  • All "My Takes" should be All NO... Anonymous.
    I don't have Anything against ANON, for I, myself, will do this Pink thing when venting or Avoiding certain Sore Subjects. However, to go to your own defense, @redeyemindtricks, I will Agree it is only Right to Show who you are, and for me, it isn't so much the Award, but to show WHO you Are, as An... Editor.
    Good luck and Great question. xx

    1|2
    0|0
    • 1mo

      *How does someone want to get Well known if you go ANON? xx

    • Show All
    • 1mo

      Good one, hun. I was not aware of this, and I have to say you are right on this one. xx

    • 1mo

      Thank you for the Like, @redeyemindtricks xx

  • Well, I was wondering who that was!
    Hahaha

    I say no, anonymous people are anonymous for a reason, and I can't take them too seriously, because it's like I'm reading something without any background all the time - if I don't know who they are.

    1|1
    0|0
  • He only won because of the amount of takes he wrote, let's face it. You churn out stuff for this site and they reward you, it's always qantity over quality.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. He chooses to go anonymous for everything. Not sure he wanted to be outed like that.

    1|0
    0|0
    • 1mo

      I guess he did grant permission to be outed... but, he actually even told me (in the comments on one of his takes) that he purposely goes anon all the time so he can basically be a troll.

    • 1mo

      Oh, I know. He made his current account after being well-known on his other one. He wanted to go from popularity to anonymity. He even changed his typing style, so it would be harder for him to detect.

    • 1mo

      What was his other username?

  • No because then it defeats the purpose of being anon in the first place.

    1|2
    0|0
  • No. I don't think they should count but they especially shouldn't name the author. The anonymous feature exists for a reason.

    2|0
    0|0
  • Wow I had no idea that happened. I read the mytake about the editor of the month and I was reading the comments under it.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Yeah, that made no sense to me.

    2|0
    0|0
  • Why not? I mean, if they put a lot of effort in their Takes why shouldn't they be eligible just because for their OWN personal reasons they posted their Takes anonymously? Also, why do people claim that it's brave to post stuff with your username? You're still anonymous anyway, unless of course you're using your own name and your personal picture as an avatar.
    People have multiple reasons for going anonymous and one of them is the fact that they are not interested in the social aspect of the site. They are not here to make friends, nor are they here in order to build a reputation.
    However, if they work hard for something, then why shouldn't they get rewarded for that? Why should they be discriminated for the sole reason that they don't want to post under a username? Isn't that unfair?
    I don't understand why people are so salty about that. Let a poor man be.

    2|0
    0|0
    • 1mo

      "You're still anonymous anyway"

      ^^ This is true -- and, if anything, it's a good argument to remove the anon takes from the running.

      Like you said, everyone already has a certain amount of anonymity anyway. So... if someone wants to be even MORE "anonymous", then, the only possible reason would be to remove her- or himself from EVERYTHING tied to a username... right? Including awards and recognitions?

      In other words -- YOUR exact point, here, is a very very good supporting premise for what I'm saying.

      If it were a choice between "Anon" and REAL-LIFE names... then the whole argument about "their own personal reasons" would absolutely have merit.

Loading...