BS: Guest Postings

Subject: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 05:40 AM

I must have missed the formal change from not tolerating guest postings to them becoming acceptable.
When did that happen?
Why?
Another aspect that adds to my reluctance to look in these days.
Al
(Abdul the Bul Bul).

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 07:19 AM

Max made the change some months ago, Al. Why? Because he saw enough reasons for it to make sense to him. I'm not comfortable with it either, but far worse in my experience is the behavior a few posters choose to exhibit.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 09:16 AM

The real trolls here have handles

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 10:50 AM

Abdul,

The change was implemented very quietly, It was apparently part of a simplification of the new membership process. It was not announced so that if you had no reason to apply to be a member, you would not have had a reason to read the change.

Also the rule "no personal attacks" was changed to   

"Anonymity and Guest Posting are permitted.

You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty. "

Also there seems to be less emphasis on enforcement of the rules and more reliance on us being adults. The overall atmosphere IMHO has improved. I think as more and more accept the changes, things will continue to improve.

Posting and starting threads as GUEST, seems not to be as serious a problem as I thought it would be. I find it easier to ignore snotty remarks form people afraid to self-indentify. Your results may vary.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 11:07 AM

On the thread about "When does a song become a folk song" I discussed the Irrelevant When.

What difference does it make WHEN Max made the change? You only ask, Abdul, so you can argue about the process.

I post as a guest. I help people make music and I discuss the literary aspects of lyrics. I share my favorite recipes and I urge people to keep their cats in the house. Yes, I'm a guest for reasons of my own, but I think I belong here.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 11:39 AM

Part of the reason for the change... and for the evident lack of supervision of " unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty" posts... is simply that it would take an army of mods to keep up with them and delete or edit them.... and the complaints and debates over what had been edited or deleted would consume more time & space than the original problem.

I...*personally*...wish the rule of --"use a consistent handle, even if you do not sign up as a 'member'"-- was still in force. leenia does, as do a number of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST,Guest Abdul
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 11:48 AM

Thanks Jack,
I'm fine with a'guest' that adds some further identification leenia, as you do. Just irks when we have a few different posters all with the same 'GUEST' ID.
Must admit tho,I don't like it, don't value anonymous comment either.
Al

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 12:01 PM

The "change" was merely Max going back to the way things were. The "no anonymous guests" thing was Joe's way of trying to improve Mudcat. IMO most of the nasties around now are ones who use a name (or in a few people's cases, a couple of names), and the main problem with anonymous posting is the people who bitch about it, who certainly DO derail good discussion. So if your main problem with anonymous guests is that they piss you off, try to figure out what the real problem is and who it belongs to.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 12:41 PM

Right on Jeri!

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 12:42 PM

I've always posted here as Guest Eliza, and have even ventured to start a few threads. I've tried not to be too controversial, and certainly not abusive or horribly rude. I've found that folk here have responded amicably to my comments and mostly offered their opinions in a very positive and constructive way. I've had help, advice and input which I've found extremely supportive and interesting. I too have noticed that the more, shall we say 'forthright' people here have posted under a name, not just as Guest. I get a lot of pleasure from Mudcat, and hope I may continue as a Guest. But I have never omitted my 'name' Eliza of course. (Anyway, my old lady's rambling style is probably instantly identifiable!)

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 01:08 PM

There is some possibility of debate over what exactly is "argumentative" or "snooty" for that matter. Musket made a good quip about "putting colonials in their place" the other day, implying that banning snootiness is picking on English people. That was funny.

I do like the standard of behavior being the much higher bar of "Don't be unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty" rather than "no personal attacks."

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: frogprince
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 02:02 PM

A lot of the regulars are aware of one individual who formerly posted as a member, but discontinued doing so for genuine and serious reasons. (So far as my own knowledge, no fault on the part of members here was involved). I would very much regret seeing that person, or anyone under similar circumstances, shut out from participation.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 02:22 PM

Eyup. My name being taken in vain I see...

Steady on the tiller lad.

I sometimes post logged in and sometimes not. The difference in my case being purely that the iPhone can't keep cookies and be logged into Microsoft Exchange due to corporate restrictions. The iPad for some reason is ok. As is my personal iMac. The work laptop blocks Mudcat. ( I told you Mudcat was perverse.)

I prefer to look at the content rather than the origin.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: maeve
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 03:38 PM

Sorry- Guest 22 Feb 14 - 07:19 AM was me without cookie.

And-What Froggie said.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 04:12 PM

"Eyup. My name being taken in vain I see."

I thought you were given a compliment.

"I prefer to look at the content rather than the origin. "

:-D

When you know the name you do tend to carry past content into current conversation.

Here is a thought,

Maybe we should all post as GUEST:

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 04:55 PM

April 1st is coming up. I kinda like the idea, but no posts will come up on a user search.
What I find a little strange is that some people love "Anonymous" doing stuff to bad people, but go after "anonymous" here. Fundamentally, and I'll say this again and again, it's not who people are but what they say and do that matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 06:19 PM

I would estimate that I have found over 400 lyrics or tunes for people over the years. Certainly not with the scholarship of people like Jim Dixon, Q, Masato and a few others, but I was able to help many folks looking for stuff that they were unable to find for one reason or other. That said, I had my steady handle misused--SRS could attest to that as could Jeri--so I will not use a name other than Guest, and I don't give a damn who doesn't like it. That's it, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: michaelr
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 08:24 PM

Peace, man.

So it seems that Mudcat now welcomes trolls as long as they behave nicely. Some policy, good luck with that. Is it naivete or just laziness?

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Leadfingers
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 09:44 PM

Back in 'The Good Old Days' before certain political organisations ( Or small parts thereof) started ripping off identities to cause trouble we had a Members List where we could post piccies , E Mails and such which meant that we were ALL vulnerable to be cloned by any one who joined for their own nefarious purposes . This meant (THEN) that a Mudcat Handle DID mean something . Max , sensibly , made this part of the site unavailable .

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 03:18 AM

A trouble with the present system is that one can never tell whether any two or more posts simply attribd GUEST are from the same person; which can, in some circs, make it difficult to follow the course of the discussion, or to know if one is in colloquy with one person, or two, or a group. So, solely for that reason, I would favour the return to some form of identification required for any post.

Unhappy, also, as have said before, with the use of the word 'argumentative'. Argument is what any discussion forum is about; without argument, many threads would just go nowhere whatever [or, perhaps I should say, even more would!]. Would not "aggressive" or "pugnacious" be preferable terms, as more specifically implying actual hostility, than "argumentative"?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST,Abdul the Bul Bul on laptop
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 03:53 AM

I'm fully aware of the situation to which SRS can attest, I was working in a small way along with her and others. However, as MtheGM explains more than one guest on a thread can be difficult to follow, I tend to move on.
Nuff said.
Al

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 04:03 AM

You were complimenting me Jack, but I have my reputation to think about you know!

I suppose the only issue with guest is that I, like some others here, have had naughty children posting in our names. I must admit, I found myself nodding in agreement with me once , till I realised someone more clever than me had been using my name.

Rather ironic that they inadvertently articulated my opinion.

To be fair, there have been a few more malicious ones too. Still, I suppose it gives them a break from surfing porn.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 10:29 AM

The troll who wore the BNP mantle (and many others) appropriated member names and set up fake accounts, appropriated member names to post as "Guest,Member Name," and set up fake accounts all over the Internet that were far beyond Max's reach (but many who were victimized didn't understand that.) That particular troll was possibly a disgruntled former member, and was certainly a sociopath who got pleasure from tormenting others. He actually has no allegiances except to himself and making people miserable. He turns up again every so often, usually identified behind the scenes by IP address after one of his typical posts turns up as a guest with an appropriated name. No prosecution occurred (that we know of) but he seems to have had other victims beyond the Mudcat membership and perhaps someone else was able to get facebook or flickr management to give him up.

Given my druthers, I'd get rid of the named trolls who post here, but as has been noted above, there is so much activity that keeping track of named and guest trolls is a big job and Max has generally left it for people to mix it up as they will. A PM to a moderator to point out particularly obnoxious attacks will usually yield results.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 11:04 AM

Its there an official list of moderators to PM?

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 11:09 AM

I don't think so, Jack - there are moderators who have different tasks to do with music documentation and sorting, not just herding cats in BS. I suppose just send a post to someone you know about and go from there.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Jeri
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 12:07 PM

The question about who the volunteers are has been brought up before. Like SRS says, different people do different things. We had a "Help" forum that was misused and closed down. A lot of the misuse was about telling us about things it was plain to see anyway, and complaining about somebody saying something the poster didn't like and then complaining about the volunteer's decision not to do what was demanded.

It's not pleasant to have people complaining on Mudcat. It's less pleasant to have them wreck a forum created specifically for "Help", and there's no way in hell I think people ought to be able directly hassle moderators. Max's e-mail is public. So's Joe's, and if Joe doesn't want to deal with something directly, he can contact the moderators.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 12:12 PM

"there's no way in hell I think people ought to be able directly hassle moderators."

I agree.

I was wondering what SRS meant here.

"A PM to a moderator to point out particularly obnoxious attacks will usually yield results. "

She answered it well here.

"I suppose just send a post to someone you know about and go from there. "

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 05:41 PM

The possibility of

naughty children posting in our names

is a grave problem. (I don't know if I was victimized as well; anyway I hereby solemnly declare that it is not I who is posting anything stupid, including this message!) It could be solved in a simple way if we could protect our nicks with passwords, as done in many other forums. There would be no restriction of privacy if we could do it without a mail address and - more importantly - without cookie.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 05:48 PM

PS: The protection could be for a limited time, to prevent trolls from reserving many attractive or well-known nicks. If the real James Bond found that nick taken, he would have to call himself JamesBond or James Bond2 etc. Unless the password happens to be 007.

(Still not I who is posting this ...)

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:33 PM

If you post as a GUEST with a handle, obviously you are wide open to have others posting in your name, but that doesn't apply if you sign in as a member, unless you have been foolish enough to let some nasty know your password.

Sometimes people explain that they sign in as GUEST with handle because they are using an unfamiliar computer, but I never understand that, because it only takes a couple of seconds to sign in.

Being a GUEST without a handle seems strange, especially when you get two hammering away at each other in the same thread. But I suppose if you get fed up with the way some people tend to carry on verbal assaults on named members from thread to thread it makes some kind of sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 07:04 PM

McGrath I can get my head around one person doing it. If they are the only one. Otherwise, the reader is justified in treating every such post as anonymous spam. I don't see any disadvantage at all in choosing a different but consistent nickname for each thread. But if folks don't want to do a simple thing like that out of respect for others, C'est la vie.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 04:33 AM

Until recently we were told that if we used a guest name we should use the same one each time, so I have only used a different one once, as part of the joke that was my post - so long ago that I can no longer remember what it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 24 Feb 14 - 05:49 AM

McGrath,

If you post as a GUEST with a handle, obviously you are wide open to have others posting in your name, but that doesn't apply if you sign in as a member, unless you have been foolish enough to let some nasty know your password.

More precisely: that doesn't apply if you sign in as a member (giving an email address and "your real name" to the admins, whose computers may be subject to spying), always use the same computer, the same browser, with "cookies" activated, and never delete your "cookies". Many regular posters including myself cannot or do not want to work that way, as leeneia and Musket stated above. We do hazard having others posting in our names, but we would prefer (not demand) to be protected against that. A simple optional password mechanism would be great.—

As for posting without any handle, the main problem about it is that it often happens accidentally. If such messages were rejected by the board software, allowing the poster to add a handle immediately, nothing would be lost in terms of privacy. Max seems to have decided against it, without mentioning his reasons, which may well be of purely technical character. (On the other hand, intentionally leaving the "From" field empty indicates that the poster is not available for discussions, not even inside the same thread - fine with me, but "GUEST,somebody" would do the trick as well).—

A single person posting under various monikers, so-called "astroturfing", is not "good form", but cannot be prevented if done skillfully. Reasonable readers must be aware that the number of Mudcat posters sharing an opinion is no indication of its validity or relevance, not even of its prevalence in the folk scene. Well-respected nicknames are more important.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Fossil
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 01:17 AM

For my $0.02 worth; I feel that nobody should be allowed to post unless and until they have joined up, got a proper moniker and agreed to observe the spirit and intent of the forum.

And also agreed to stop being ignorant, boring, God-bothering/hating, or scientifically ignorant.

Oh well, that rules us all out doesn't it? I try, but don't always succeed. But I do think we could do better. Block Songwronger would do, for a start....

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Fossil
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 01:22 AM

No, sorry, SW'r can stay. At least he/she is a unifying factor,(most of us hate the views expressed in his postings), has an identifiable moniker and offers some non-mainstream takes on current situations. Just wish he/she would forget Barack Obama and post about something else for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 03:31 PM

Songwronger is the closest thing we have to a troll right now, claims to be progressive but takes the "conservative" side to piss off liberals. I guess there are better words than troll, but then you are getting into the territory of medical diagnosis.


I think everyone is welcome as long as they abide by the rules.

The current rules are new and not widely known. Give it time I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 03:53 PM

No, I agree with Fossil, SW "offers some non-mainstream takes on current situations."

Don't care for his lack of respect for your elected President, but by and large he stimulates discussion and moves it away from the majority "liberal" line.

It's not a good thing to get too embedded in your comfort zone, the outside world is a lot "badder" than you imagine. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 04:11 PM

Akenaton, I agree with Fossil to. Songwronger is free to be anything he wants EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty.

Of course it is impolite to disrespect the President and extremely impolite and argumentative to baselessly accuse other members of overt racism.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 04:31 PM

Jack, how would you define 'snooty' please? The word is making me smile a bit; it doesn't seem too dreadful to be snooty!

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 05:10 PM

Think Richard.....Think "snooty" :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 05:15 PM

"Some were guests, when being a guest wasn't cool"

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 05:27 PM

Eliza, Max chose that word. I am only speculating.

I have to say Ake, Richard does come to mind. But I find his manner of speech and his measured condescension amusing most of the time.

Maybe Max means snooty to the point where you just want to take them outside and slap that smug look off their faces? IMHO, no one I have encountered on this forum has been that snooty.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 05:36 PM

no one I have encountered on this forum has been that snooty.

Damn! Must try harder... :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:29 PM

You've got nothing to be snooty about Dave   ;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 06:37 PM

snooty 

On being snooty

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 07:52 PM

More precisely: that doesn't apply if you sign in as a member (giving an email address and "your real name" to the admins, whose computers may be subject to spying), always use the same computer, the same browser, with "cookies" activated, and never delete your "cookies".

The thing about "subject to spying" is logival enough, though I wouldn't really see it as too rational. But "always use the same computer, the same browser etc" I don't think scans. It's perfectly easy to set any computer or browser to let us post as members, and adjust cookie rules as well, or delete them.

Signing in as naked Guest, true enough, that's easily done, and maybe .it'd be no harm in having something to alert us to it when we do it. I generally stick in a subsequent post to identify myself and apologise. Perhaps it's better to make our mistakes in public and say sorry rather than be saved from being shown up.

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Feb 14 - 09:15 PM

"Naked GUEST" I like that!

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 08:15 AM

[quote]
For my $0.02 worth; I feel that nobody should be allowed to post unless and until they have joined up,
[/quote]
If you don't agree with open forums why have you joined one?

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 08:40 AM

For the naked guest.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Guest Postings
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 26 Feb 14 - 09:58 AM

McGrath, it is a fact that some of us do not want cookies, for whatever reason. Another fact is that some of us do not want the world to find us here by our real names, for whatever reason. Mudcat has no obligation to cater for such wishes, but we are grateful that it does.

Another wish, in the interest of all Mudcatters, is to know which messages can be safely attributed to which regular poster, so that s/he can be held responsible in the course of a discussion.