That's a nice idea but it's in a way, a double-edged sword.

One advantage I could think of, for keeping the names constant throughout the issues is that whenever the issue in discussion is a really deep one, and the poster couldn't possibly type his entire position on the issue, any reader could put his post in context with what he's posted before, and thus understand where the idea is coming from better.

But then again such a constancy also has the flaws you point out, so kudos to you for thinking about this new type of forum.

One advantage I could think of, for keeping the names constant throughout the issues is that whenever the issue in discussion is a really deep one, and the poster couldn't possibly type his entire position on the issue, any reader could put his post in context with what he's posted before, and thus understand where the idea is coming from better. — hunterkf5732

Yes, that could happen for related issues. But if the poster wants to be understood he should link back to his other, relevant posts.

This way no one can judge a person's opinion/belief on a particular issue by their opinions/beliefs on a different, irrelevant issue. — Ovaloid

I can see what is good in your suggestion, but I think at assumes an epistemology of pure reason. "Let the ideas fight it out fair and square. Remove bias." On the other hand, ideas (positions,beliefs) are like experimental software for the living of life. The "fantasy" (as I see it) is to get beyond trial and error and beyond the need to ever update our "software." If only our word-math is sufficiently depersonalized and cold, we must find the imperishable truth of any given matter. But maybe the adoption of an idea by a personality says as much about the idea as the personality. We can infer in both directions. And maybe we should, at least sometimes.

It depends on the idea: if it's a philosophy of life then it's effect on someone's personality is important but I can't see how it would otherwise.

I would simply challenge the very idea of an irrelevant issue. Whilst it might be possible to divide knowledge into discrete packages bounded by logical distinctions in a purely objective, idealised realm, human beings just get the one brain in which every single experience, experiment, and calculation impinges on every other. From a lofty ivory tower you may think that my opinion on the voice casting for a Pixar movie has nothing to do with my analysis of the ontological argument but you cannot possibly be certain that it is the case because that's just not the way thinking works. In fact the greatest intellectual leaps are often made by bringing into contact apparently totally unrelated spheres of experience. To quote but one example, Richard Feynman would not have been half the scientist he was had his fields of study been schismatically organised for him.

I'll grant that. I obsess over "philosophy of life" mostly. I get my dose of objective science from mathematics (my career path).

I believe I could recognize the identity of most of the posters on here that I interact with, and quite a few that I don't, just from the character, the content and mode of expression, of their posts.

Is your point that people should have the freedom to judge ideas based on person?
I get your point about there being no irrelevant issues and everything is connected (although I'm not sure I agree) but I don't see how this will stop people from thinking that way just because they can't see others thinking that way.
The original idea (before I posted on this forum) was that a fully anonymous forum would be a bad idea because there would be no social pressure to post consistently (and possibly therefore think consistently). But I'm not sure how true that connection between public thought and private thought is.

The original idea (before I posted on this forum) was that a fully anonymous forum would be a bad idea because there would be no social pressure to post consistently (and possibly therefore think consistently). But I'm not sure how true that connection between public thought and private thought is. — Ovaloid

While I try to think consistently, it doesn't always happen. (A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind? I don't know.)

It depends how an issue is presented. For instance, one could say that capital punishment is ineffective and inhumane. Perhaps it is. But locking up somebody for 50 years in a small cell isn't exactly a demonstration of humane sensitivity. Maybe capital punishment is more humane than life imprisonment. It depends on which aspect one focuses on.

I like the idea a lot, and I've had similar ideas myself--I think forums tend to devolve into personal grudges/psychological baggage re personalities far too easily.

But I voted for the last option simply because it would depend on the content and quality of discussion.

Re "posting/thinking consistently" I rather feel it's a GOOD thing for people to not necessarily have to "play their role" a la being consistent in that way. Philosophy ideally should be something where one is not hesistant or afraid to change or abandon previous views. So something that removes the social pressures for constancy would be a good thing.

Good point
I guess total or near total anonymity seems to be the option that best suits everyone's wants then.

My thinking was that having no social pressure to be consistent across posts might enable people to have inconsistent ideas at a single time. But if it also pressures people into being constant in their ideas over time, I'm not sure.
Total anonymity is certainly the easiest option technically speaking.