Assertion: A throwaway account is probably more likely to be banned than an identified account -- why else would anyone bother with throwaways?
If the throwaway account is banned, the original link-giver would lose their good standing. (sorry, I should have highlighted this to the original reply)
We can argue about whether the assertion is actually true, but even the perception that it might be true will make people reluctant to give out an invitation to someone wanting to create a throwaway account.
If I had my own named account in good standing, I suppose I might be willing to use it to create a throwaway account for myself, provided that I was careful to only use that throwaway for... I don't know... "lightly" controversial content that is only likely to be downvoted rather than abusive content that is likely to be banned. (Not that I would ever actually create a throwaway in order to be abusive! Just trying to think like a troll).
Actually, I guess that's what we wanted to encourage anyway, right? Controversial content should be fine; abusive content is not. Maybe this would work after all...
Case 1: Your assertion is correct. The system works as intended and bans decrease.
Case 2: Your assertion is incorrect. There is some other reason for making a throwaway (like talking about a former employer, for example) and the system works as intended. The throwaway doesn't get banned and nobody gets their account demoted.
Also these demotions could have a time element to them, where you can't invite someone new for, say, a year.
> You can still have throwaway accounts
How can both of these things be simultaneously true?
reply