I agree, and I would add that people don't avoid names in all cases. The trend against naming names is especially annoying because it basically only emerges wh

I agree, and I would add that people don't avoid names in all cases. The trend against naming names is especially annoying because it basically only emerges when there is a power imbalance, and thus serves only to protect those in positions of power as they continue to act poorly. As an example, have you ever heard anyone say "I don't want to name names, but a certain local cleaning service has been very disappointing to me." No of course not, they'll say the name of their cleaning wo/man and trash them, because why should they give a shit? I mean it's "just" the cleaner. The waitress at the bar? Screw her, what do they care about her reputation, trash her if you are unhappy with your service. But deal with someone in a position of authority and suddenly its all kid gloves and politeness. "Oh I don't want to be unprofessional and name names, but I worked for a game company where I did 8 months of unpaid OT and then was laid off after release." Great, that helps exactly no one avoid the same situation you found yourself, so now another college grad can be exploited. If you worked for EA Tiburon and they screwed you, say it! If they treated you well say that too! Bad actors should be named and shamed or else they never have to pay for their actions. Thanks to this post I can avoid O'Reilly as a publisher, and more importantly I can know that working with the editors named is a good idea as they were honorable people, but if I see that this Laurie person is involved with a potential publisher I can avoid them too. I have a theory that this excessive deference to authority is why you can see so many people in upper management skate from one failure to the next, as no one has the balls to name them as poor performers, so they never have to reap consequences of their actions. Good on the author for actually having the integrity to call things as they are.