> Not everything has to be a metrics based, data collected thing Very true, that's why my very next sentence prompted for a hunch, or some sort of reasoning.

> Not everything has to be a metrics based, data collected thing Very true, that's why my very next sentence prompted for a hunch, or some sort of reasoning. Nevertheless, when data are absent, you need theories, and then you try to apply those theories to reallity, see if they actually apply, fix wrong aspects of the theory and reitterate. Here is my theory: Anonymity is vital in a society where different classes of people have conflicting vital interests, such as our society. It is a tool to allow you to criticise without being beaten for it. Backing this up with a thought: Would you beat up a guy who went out publicly and said "We should all plant red roses, red roses are the best!" when you fancy yellow roses? No, noone gives an F for that. People care when these opinions affect their lives and well being, and crucially, they care when they have something to lose from what the other person proposes. That is the true incentive to retaliate. That's where the "conflicting interests" condition is coming from in the theory I proposed. Now, did we not have conflicting interests, anonymity should still be nice to have, but not as important, because you wouldn't have people hunting your head for lack of it.