Adding Anonymous Topic and Comment Submission Feature

[JUPTurkey]

This proposal recommends introducing a feature to JupResearch that enables users to submit topics and comments anonymously. The goal is to foster more open and honest participation, especially regarding sensitive or controversial subjects like Jupuary. This feature would allow users to express their ideas, feedback, and opinions without fearing being judged or facing reputational risks.

Problem: Barriers to Open Participation

Jupresearch serves as a platform for collaborative discussion, but the absence of anonymity may deter some users from fully engaging. For instance, concerning Jupuary, a topic that has generated significant debate within the community, users might be reluctant to initiate discussions or comment on existing topics due to:

1. Fear of Judgment: Users may avoid sharing controversial ideas or dissenting opinions to prevent criticism or negative perceptions from other community members.
2. Social Pressure: Influential members or those in certain groups might refrain from public disagreement to maintain their relationships.
3. Reputation Risks: Providing sensitive feedback or sharing controversial ideas could negatively impact a user’s reputation within the community.

This lack of anonymity restricts participation and suppresses diverse perspectives essential for vibrant community-driven discussions.

Proposed Features

1. Anonymous Topic Submission
   -Users can select an “Anonymous” option when creating a topic.
   -Their identity will remain concealed from the public but visible to moderators to ensure accountability.
   -Anonymous topics will be distinctly labeled to set them apart from regular submissions.

2. Anonymous Comment Submission
   -Users can also opt to post comments anonymously on any topic.
   -Their username will be hidden in the discussion thread but accessible to moderators if necessary.
   -Anonymous comments will be marked to inform readers of their status.

3. Voluntary Identity Reveal
   -Users can choose to disclose their identity for a topic or comment later if they prefer.

4. Additional Point: Content Over Identity

All anonymous content submissions will be reviewed by moderators for approval. To prevent bias, moderators should not see the identity of the submitter while reviewing a topic or comment. Sometimes, decisions might be influenced by personal feelings—intentionally or not—or by the identity of the contributor.

To fully embrace the content over identity principle, moderators should only see the content itself during the review process. Once the submission is approved or rejected, they could then access the submitter’s identity if necessary. This approach ensures fair and unbiased moderation while maintaining accountability.

Example Scenario: Jupuary Debates

The Jupuary has generated strong opinions within the community, especially among those who support and oppose the “No” vote.

A user in favor of “No” might want to suggest alternative distribution methods or critique the existing plan -I am aware that a few community members have already done this, but more community members may want to make more suggestions or support in the comments-. However, they may worry about backlash from the community or damage to their reputation. With anonymous topic submissions, they can share their ideas without hesitation.

Likewise, users may wish to comment on any topic to provide feedback, pose challenging questions, or voice concerns without revealing their identity. An anonymous comment feature would allow them to participate without fear.

Benefits

1. Shifts Focus to Content Over Identity
   -Discussions will center on the ideas and arguments presented, rather than the contributor’s reputation.
2. Fosters Inclusivity
   -Less vocal or less prominent community members will feel more at ease participating.
3. Enhances Quality of Discussions
   -Controversial topics like Jupuary will benefit from a broader range of perspectives and deeper engagement.
4. Encourages Honest Feedback
   -Users can share their thoughts openly without the fear of being judged or facing backlash.
5. Supports Sensitive Topics
   -Users can engage in complex or delicate discussions without personal exposure.

Incorporating anonymous topic and comment submission features would significantly improve Jupresearch as a platform for open, inclusive, and meaningful discussions. By allowing users to participate without the fear of being judged. This feature will create a more enriching and collaborative atmosphere.

[Mbolorman]

Appreciate the thoughts but can’t really get why we need further anonymity in here. Thought the DAO main priority is to create an open forum that enables people to express their ideas freely? Has anyone been censured here even during this heated Jupuary discussions & debates? Why does anyone have to feel there can be some repercussion for expressing their views in here? Are we not anonymous enough in here with our web3 credentials? I have followed a lot of debates in here closely and I can say without a doubt that both sides of each debate have gone fully (head to head) without any reservations. So can’t understand the reasons for some extra level of anonymity.

Besides, have you considered some of the flip side to this such as:

• Reduced Accountability: Anonymous contributors are harder to hold accountable for decisions or actions that harm the DAO or its community.
• Sybil Attacks: Without some way to know who’s posting a proposal etc, malicious actors can create multiple identities to gain disproportionate influence over the DAO’s governance, skewing voting outcomes or resource allocation.
• Trust Issues: Anonymity may erode trust among members, especially if contributors are unable to verify the intentions or expertise of others.
• Damage to Credibility: If anonymous contributors act maliciously or unethically, the entire DAO’s reputation could suffer.

I feel striking a balance between protecting privacy and ensuring transparency and accountability is crucial for the long-term success of a DAO and I believe the DAO is already doing that.

[JUPTurkey]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and engaging with the proposal. While I understand your concerns, I believe some points have already been addressed in the proposal or might need clarification:

1. “Thought the DAO’s main priority is to create an open forum… Has anyone been censured here?”
The proposal does not suggest that anyone has been censured or silenced. However, as stated under “Fear of Judgment” and “Social Pressure,” some users might refrain from sharing their ideas, not because they are censured, but because of perceived risks to their reputation or relationships. These barriers are subtle but real, especially in sensitive debates like Jupuary.

2. “Are we not anonymous enough in here with our Web3 credentials?”
While Web3 credentials provide a level of pseudonymity, the proposal highlights scenarios where additional anonymity might encourage participation. For instance, “users might worry about backlash from the community or damage to their reputation,” even if their identity is tied only to an address or alias.

3. “Reduced Accountability, Sybil Attacks, Trust Issues…”
These are valid concerns, but the proposal explicitly addresses them under the Proposed Features section:

Moderators have visibility of anonymous contributors to ensure accountability.

Anonymity applies only to public visibility, not internal governance mechanisms.

4. “Trust Issues and Damage to Credibility…”
The proposal’s aim is not to replace transparency but to enhance inclusivity by “shifting focus to content over identity.” Anonymous contributions would be clearly labeled, and users retain the option to reveal their identity later, fostering trust while encouraging broader participation.

5. “Both sides of each debate have gone fully (head to head)…”
While it’s great that discussions have been open, the proposal seeks to ensure even those hesitant to join feel empowered. As stated, “less vocal or less prominent community members will feel more at ease participating.” The goal is make participation even more inclusive and diverse.

To conclude, I wish all proposals could be submitted anonymously but I know it’s not gonna be happen. I firmly believe in the concept of content over identity. What matters to me is not who made the proposal, but the substance and value of the proposal itself.

[Mbolorman]

Thanks a lot for addressing my concerns. I can see where you’re coming from with this and it will be exciting to know what others think.

[Rajaphilose]

In a community, it is important that to a considerate extent that one can verify who gave a comment or suggestion. Jupiter has over the last year created a platform that shows more than anything that the voice of every cat matters if you indicate an interest to say something. I have never seen anywhere where anyone was shut down for a comment or suggestion. Why? Because a friendly and respectable environment is preached and implemented in all Jupiter media.

Creating an added level of anonymity will first of all discredit the value of such comment. If you are afraid of what your comments will cause then I feel they shouldn’t be heard. One should know how to put forward his or her views in a way that follows the tenants in a community not try to find a covering to do whatever all in the name of authencity. Yes every voice is important but not all suggestions will be taken into consideration. Majority often wins. I dare say such proposals and comments that the majority adopt, are those that have real people behind them.

Creating a smoke screen because one is scared will just further open up our community to mischief and unserious content that tend to cause problems behind a mask. We really do not need that especially at this time.

I feel the way it is done at the moment is best for the safety and integrity of this platform.

I encourage cats to be bold and respectfully speak up and be heard because J.U.P is home for all of us.

Jupiter matters.
You matter.
$JUP matters.

[Rajaphilose]

Totally agree with your concerns.

[JUPTurkey]

Thank you for sharing your perspective I appreciate it. I would like to clarify a few points.

1- “Creating an added level of anonymity will discredit the value of such comments.”

Anonymity does not inherently discredit a comment’s value. As mentioned in the proposal, the focus is on the content over identity principle. This ensures that ideas are judged solely on their merit, rather than being influenced by the reputation or status of the contributor. Anonymous comments would still be labeled and held accountable through moderator visibility, as outlined in the proposal.

**2. “If you are afraid of what your comments will cause, then they shouldn’t be heard.” **

Actually thats the thing. Fear of judgment or backlash does not necessarily indicate the lack of validity in someone’s thoughts. Sensitive or controversial topics, like Jupuary, can deter individuals from speaking up, not because their ideas lack value, but because they worry about personal consequences. Providing an anonymous option can help alleviate such concerns.

**3. “Creating a smoke screen… will open up our community to mischief.” **
This concern is valid, but safeguards were included in the proposal to prevent abuse. For example, moderators will have visibility into anonymous submissions to ensure accountability, and the anonymous option is meant to encourage inclusivity, not shield malicious intent.

**4. “Those that have real people behind them.” **
Anonymous contributions do not negate the presence of “real people” behind ideas. Rather, it allows individuals who might feel constrained by social or reputational pressures to voice their thoughts. As mentioned, users would retain the option to reveal their identity later if they feel comfortable doing so.

5- The proposal emphasizes that anonymity is a choice, not a requirement. Users can decide whether to submit topics or comments anonymously based on their comfort level.

[Mbolorman]

You’ve made very good points here that I agree with.

[aped]

if comments are anonymous you never now if its just one person against every opposition, everyone has one of the cute profile pictures to flex like one of mine and coming from NFT background i can relate.

[noccommander]

My friend I can’t get topic approved under my name let alone anonymus

[JUPTurkey]

Thank you for your feedback! On JupResearch, all comments are already reviewed by moderators, and any hate or spam is not published. This would remain the same under the proposed anonymous topic and comment system. Moderators will still be able to see who submitted the comments and intervene if necessary. Therefore, anonymity wouldn’t lead to misuse but would encourage participation while maintaining the platform’s existing security and moderation standards.

[JUPTurkey]

Your comment just gave me an amazing idea! While a topic is waiting for approval, moderators shouldn’t see who submitted it. Sometimes moderators might reject a proposal based on their personal feelings, even if unintentionally, and the person submitting it could influence their decision. To fully embrace the content over identity idea, moderators could only see the content itself while reviewing. Once they approve or reject the proposal, they could then see who submitted it. That would be awesome! Let me also add this into the proposal

[aped]

sorry but so far my knowledge i am aware only the first 5 post needs approval, to encourage quality discussion for first 5 comments then has the freedom.

[JUPTurkey]

You’re absolutely right, and I apologize for the incorrect information. I misunderstood the system since I’m pretty new in here.

We can revise the system so that first 5 posts and anonymous submissions require approval.

Thank you for bringing this up—it’s a valuable point that highlights an area where the proposal can be improved

[JUPTurkey]

Just edited and added these into the proposal:

Additional Point: Content Over Identity
All anonymous content submissions will be reviewed by moderators for approval. To prevent bias, moderators should not see the identity of the submitter while reviewing a topic or comment. Sometimes, decisions might be influenced by personal feelings—intentionally or not—or by the identity of the contributor.
To fully embrace the content over identity principle, moderators should only see the content itself during the review process. Once the submission is approved or rejected, they could then access the submitter’s identity if necessary. This approach ensures fair and unbiased moderation while maintaining accountability.