 sj |
||
|
||
BS: One identity per thread?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,knotgrain Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:36 PM For those of us electing not to take and use consistently a chosen name (a.k.a. handle, pen name, etc.; take your pick), what's wrong with taking a name for use consistently within a particular thread, then taking a new name for a new thread? With all of the online resources available, we'd never run out of terms as raw material for names, that's for sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:41 PM Sure why not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: MMario Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:42 PM no problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: John MacKenzie Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:53 PM Is that one Guest Identity only? Or 1 Guest identity, and your Mudcat identity? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Mr Red Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:54 PM People with concern for the message would do that anyway. The real problem is those with opinions chosen to rankle with anyone who rankles easily. And they chose not to identify themselves - even for a short time. If an automated system with cookies or somesuch is being proposed: and with my understanding of how things work on the net it would not be without some cost in complexity and resources - which for an essentially free (to us) service is not good news. As an engineer I would counsel - failure modes are far more numerous than the few intended modes of operation. And the propensity for those not party to all the peculiarities of such a system we would sure find those failure modes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: katlaughing Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:56 PM Members only posting would take care of it, no problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Amos Date: 04 Jan 07 - 12:59 PM And seriously dampen the initiative of new arrivals to participate. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: katlaughing Date: 04 Jan 07 - 01:01 PM Only in the BS section, Amos. It would be an improvement imo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Wesley S Date: 04 Jan 07 - 01:06 PM I agree with Kat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: jacqui.c Date: 04 Jan 07 - 01:11 PM I agree with Kat - for the BS section. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Donuel Date: 04 Jan 07 - 01:15 PM What about false identity theft? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 07 - 01:20 PM ...and we'll all be queuing up in the guest room to shout "I'm Spartacus"! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,knotgrain Date: 04 Jan 07 - 01:22 PM Some who wish to post might never participate in the benefits of membership and therefore see nothing desirable in joining. Some of them might, however, consider registration, with cookie and login requirement, as long as there is a robust and clearly stated privacy policy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,nottingham Date: 04 Jan 07 - 01:28 PM What exactly are the benefits of membership? If there was there a discount at Camsco music, money off festival tickets or pictures of Kate Rusby in a revealing bathing shift one might consider it, but it seems that no such baubles are offered the bona fide member. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 07 - 01:42 PM I choose the name "Guest". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: CapriUni Date: 04 Jan 07 - 02:00 PM Well, registered Members can:
Those options don't appear in the drop-down menus to GUESTS or members who have logged out, so they literally don't see what they are missing. And, Nottingham, if become a member, and sign up for the SS exchange, I'm sure your Santa would be very happy to send you pictures of a scantily-clad Kate Rusby, if that truly is your heart's desire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 07 - 02:01 PM The above post is an example of identity theft. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 07 - 02:02 PM Identity theft at post 1:28 P.M. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,knotgrain Date: 04 Jan 07 - 02:24 PM I guess GUEST-the-identity-theft-monitor (a description, not a submitted name) won't have to worry about getting robbed of what he ain't got. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,nottingham Date: 04 Jan 07 - 02:26 PM Eh? whose identity have I stolen? I'm puzzled! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,nottingham Date: 04 Jan 07 - 02:28 PM I must be schitzophrenic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,nottingham Date: 04 Jan 07 - 02:29 PM Yes you probably are |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 07 - 02:37 PM Where am i |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,knotgrain Date: 04 Jan 07 - 02:40 PM CALLING ALL SHERLOCKS: A particular guest has certain punctuational clues in his posts. Have you noticed? Not being intimately familiar with any punctuation manual or guide, he evidently has not noticed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 07 - 02:50 PM Yeah I saw it. The guy who said he claimed the name guest wanted a bunch of people to scream "I am Guest." As if that one hasn't been beaten into the ground already. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,nottingham Date: 04 Jan 07 - 02:55 PM And I clearly can't spell schizophrenic! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 07 - 03:00 PM lol. Self-criticism is the first step on the road to recovery. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Jan 07 - 03:26 PM Adopting a pseudonym for a thread is a reasonable, if minimal, act of courtesy towards other people engaged in the conversation. Of course it makes for a somewhat one dimensional presence here, but fair enough, if that's what someone prefers. In any case, no one is ever going to know it's only a temporary pseudonym. What gets up my nose is when a series of nameless GUEST posts punctuate a discussion, and there's no way of telling whether one post is a continuation of a line of argmuent from a previous post, or a heckle from a new bod jumping in. And that needn't matter, because I generally skip over them - but then other people start replying to them, so that the nameless ones manage to impose their presence on a thread in any case. I can quite understand when people prefer to post as GUESTs-with-some-kind-of-identifying-name, however temporary. But I cannot see any motive for posting without that minimal courtesy, other than a desire to screw things up. So inevitably, that is how I interpret the practice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,knotgrain Date: 04 Jan 07 - 03:58 PM Until there is a requirement to enter identifying data in order to post, I will be inclined to defend the option of using no identifier. That said, I find the practical reason for taking a name to be the strongest. I can't be assured that I will definitively nail a point on the first try. Also, there may be replies that deserve to be addressed. If I have no identity within a thread, I have no continuity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: skipy Date: 04 Jan 07 - 04:17 PM Can we have a vote on this? The question is this:- "should we allow GUEST posts to random threads or not, with a proviso that poeple who normaly use their "handles" are allowed to post as guest when staring a thread & taking part in it if the subject is delicate/embarressing/medical/etc. & it could compicate matters for them when they are trying to share something or just looking for moral support"? My vote, to start it off:- NO GUEST VOTES, except for reasons above. Skipy (Guest) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,knotgrain Date: 04 Jan 07 - 04:22 PM YES to allowing GUEST posts, while the current system remains. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Slag Date: 04 Jan 07 - 04:38 PM No. No. You got the "schitzo" part right. "Phrenetic", perhaps? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 07 - 05:11 PM Slag, m'dear, there's no 't' in schizo. Comes from the Greek, meaning 'divided'. There's no tea in Little Chef any more either, but that's another matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Jan 07 - 05:30 PM When you fill in a form on the web they generally have some lines that are optional, but others that are required. You push the Send button and up flashes a little red star against the required line that you've missed - and without putting something on, you can't go amy further. I'd like to see that procedure applied on the Mudcat. No "name", no post. The only reason not to have that would, I imagine, be a worry that it might occasionally discourage some harmless neophyte who didn't appreciate that a "name" could be anything, and doesn't involve any kind of surrender of information. But I think on balance that would be a risk worth taking. Whatever - I wish people would make a point of saying "nameless GUEST" or some equivalent, in this context, rather than "GUEST". Most GUESTs use "names". They play a valuable part in the Mudcat, and they shouldn't be lumped in with the nameless variety, who don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: John MacKenzie Date: 04 Jan 07 - 05:58 PM Didn't we go through all this before? There was a rash of threads relating to happenings in the Yorkshire area I seem to remember with the same high level of intelligent postings in them! G ¦¬] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: skipy Date: 04 Jan 07 - 06:00 PM Sorry, I put "VOTES", I meant "POSTS", time I had a beer! Skipy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: ragdall Date: 04 Jan 07 - 06:26 PM I would think that persons new to this site are more likely to refrain from posting because of the nasty responses (made mainly by guests) which they read, than because they would be required to register in order to post. rags |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Bobert Date: 04 Jan 07 - 06:26 PM Long overdue!!! I don't know how it can be enforced but it gets frustratin' arguing with one person who posts as ahlf a dozen people... Then folks watchion the slugfest are thinkin' "Well, Bobert sho nuff ain't doin' too well 'cuase there's 5 people disagreeing with him" when there is in all actaulity just one person... Kinda like gettin' to vote over and over and over... It's not fair to folks, like me, who stick with one handle as it does give an advantage to GUEST who can pop up as anyone GUEST wants to pop up as... That's MO... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Tattie Bogle Date: 04 Jan 07 - 06:32 PM One identity per PERSON, not just per thread. No multiple names: only encourages irresponsible, inappropriate or offensive postings. While I could be accused of hiding behind a pseudonym, it's only because that's what everyone did when I joined a few years ago. Those Catters I know, know my pseudonym and my real name, and some have even more-or-less blown my "cover" but really I have nothing to hide. Trish Santer (Edinburgh) - so now you have it!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Bill D Date: 04 Jan 07 - 06:45 PM "I yam what I yam" Popeye I will NEVER understand what those who refuse to take a name or become a member feel they are protecting themselves from. Some folks cannot accept cookies (as on work computers, perhaps), but you do not have to provide any information that will 'identify' you personally, if you don't want to. Martin Gibson was a member for a couple of years and NO ONE was able to pin a 'real' name on him, although some sure tried! I guess if all you are gonna do is be obnoxious and petty, or if you have deep paranoia because you really ARE Donald Rumsfield, it makes sense...but abuse of the posting privilege..(yes excessive 'guest' posting ARE abuse of the forum) will eventually cause a change in the rules so that it is impossible. Sometimes it can be fun to use a funny name for a temporary joke, but in the last few years 'guest' has become just a refuge for those whose goal is more disruption than fun. Ces't la vie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: skipy Date: 04 Jan 07 - 06:53 PM I often sign my name as "Guest", but there again that is because it really is my name! Skipy. It is no secret, I have often invited you all to take a look at www.folkforms.org There you will see that it is my real surname! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,knotgrain Date: 04 Jan 07 - 07:21 PM I wonder whether it's possible to do something like some blogging platforms do; i.e., having the blogger (or as a parallel, the applicant for Mudcat membership) give some basic personal information and obtain a password, while requiring one who comments (or as a parallel, a guest posting to Mudcat) give some name and an email address (not to be published). I'll listen for what IT-savvy persons have to say on the subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Jan 07 - 07:24 PM If you participate in discussions here at Mudcat, you should have one identity. Period. Anything else is manipulative toying with the trust of others. Our GUEST posting is meant to make it easy for newcomers to post and ask questions. Using that function to assume multiple identities is a breach of the trust of this community. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,knotgrain Date: 04 Jan 07 - 07:38 PM Whatever conclusions I may reach, thank you, Joe Offer, for your straightforward laying out of your intentions and philosophy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: *guest* Date: 04 Jan 07 - 10:24 PM I disagree with Mr. Offer. I don't believe using multiple online names in a chatforum breaks any federal, state,or local laws; nor does it violate the ethical tenets of my profession. Perhaps some laws will address this issue in the future. Moreover, following the desires of a self-declared rule maker strikes me as a bad personal choice. Therefore, I choose not to follow Mr. Offer's declarations regarding this action. I intend no disrespect, Mr. Offer. Just exercising my free will, at this point. Cheers
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST, fauxfair Date: 04 Jan 07 - 11:05 PM *Guest* in what way do you disagree with Joe Offer? He didnt say it was a legal matter, or that it was any issue of professional ethics. Its clear then that you would be perfectly happy should he exercise his free will in pressing a button to delete your post, or even block your IP, not that he's likely to do so, of course, upholding as he does, your right to free speech. That said, there are many "self-declared rule makers" on the net & I suspect if you REALLY practiced what you preach, you would by now be regretting wasting money on a net connection. As well as regretting walking unannounced into someones home & behaving exactly as you pleased. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 07 - 11:11 PM And you are who . . . ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,knotgrain Date: 04 Jan 07 - 11:21 PM GUEST.fauxfair might do better if he would climb off his high horse. He purports to make a serious statement, all the while trying to get in a dig at a real rather than a phony guest. Check out the handle he's using. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,fauxnograf Date: 05 Jan 07 - 01:48 AM Handle schmandle - look, the Mudcat is by and large a masked balls-up, with most posters hiding behind something. There aren't many who use their real, full names. Clinton Hammond was unusual in that he did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Georgiansilver Date: 05 Jan 07 - 02:44 AM Yes Bill, Martin Gibson did have a name but also an identity even if it was false......GUEST could be anyone including you or me or next doors dog. |