Jerry Coyne has some “new” rules for his blog:
I have become aware that some commentors here have written very critical analyses of my posts on their own websites. That’s perfectly fine with me: the internet is for criticism and discussion. However, if you’re going to go after me on your own site, you will have to have the guts to reveal your own name—after all, I do. Most of those sites don’t say who is behind them. Such discussion should not take place behind the protection of pseudonyms, and I consider this kind of criticism pure cowardice.
It’s rather amusing to see a tenured professor frame their self-promotion as bravery. Nevertheless, someone in the comments section blows a huge hole in his rule:
I don’t post here often, but I find the anonymity rule troubling. Critiques should be judged on their merits, not on the merits of the people posting them.
Requiring real names of anonymous posters here who critique you elsewhere sounds like an attempt to shut down critiques. In reality, it will likely just cause you to be uninformed of and unconnected to the critiques.
While you’re allowed to be a petty tyrant on your own blog, do you really want to be?
Sorry, but that’s rude. You can make your point without using the word “petty tyrant”, so apologize.
Oh, the irony.