The moment that they started getting better organized is when they actually formed a small, internal group. I am sure that people will be pissed and tell me I am wrong, but think about it. They have spokespeople saying they did not do the PSN attack and they even posted something on their FaceBook page that was a video that stated it while they showed their logo. Think about that sentence for a little bit. Really, seriously think about it. The PSN attack is a perfect example of what Anon truly is, compared to what people think they are. According to the rules and way Anon works, if even one single person does something in the name of Anon, Anon did it. The other people who do stuff with this every once in awhile will just simply not partake, like how Anon works, but that does not mean that since many people did not participate, that it was not the hand of Anon doing it. It is impossible to say that Anon did not do something when there is even a slight bit of proof that they did. Who is to say they did not do it? According to what Anon is, you can't say Anon was not involved. If Anon was not involved even though there is proof, even if minimal, that Anon was involved and they were "framed", that means that Anon can decide who is working for Anon. If you know who is working for Anon, then it turns into less of a collective, and more of a group of people who will bring in a bunch of people to do stuff. Also, who are the ops in the IRC channel of AnonOps (one of the meeting points for Anon)? Who decides who is an op there? Why are there even ops in AnonOps? According to what Anon is, there are no ops. There are no leaders. Groups are formed per scenario. That would mean no spokesperson, no catchphrases, no logos, no way of knowing if Anon is behind something or not. What I can see happening is that the base group of Anon is starting to feel heat under them, so they are trying to get away. A place like AnonOps, which is supposed to be a huge meeting place for Anon is just a small subsection of Anon. A smaller group of people that go there, even if alot of people go there. The people that started this idea probably forgot about the fact that if you get thousands of people together in a crowded area, a few of them are not going to go along with the "collective" and do what they want even if everybody else does not approve. They still do it though. Hop onto the web and see some of the attacks Anon has done to see that not every attack has been "for justice and good" or something like that