BS: Anonymity

Subject: Anonimity
From: GUEST,guestguestguest(intruder)guest.
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 11:38 AM

watching the various threads lately, and i'm reminded of something my not-quite-sainted-but-very-often-correct mother said to me...

"it's easy to be civilized when someone is watching, but it's more important to be when no one is."

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Bert
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 11:50 AM

Nice thought guest, but unfortunately some guests seem to think

"it's easy to be an asshole when no one knows who you are"

We're glad that's not you.

Bert.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 12:06 PM

Well, my Mom, sainted to me, always told me I could say and do what I wanted, but I always had to be prepared to back it up, to have the courage of my convictions, but to always challenge what I believed. to do any of that required that I stand up and stand behind who I am. Anonymity just doesn't figure into that.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 12:21 PM

Unfortunatly anonymity is used often here for the purposes of flaming and getting people all worked up. I can't respect that. It takes a special kind of weasel and/or coward to use that method. My guess is that your average anonymous flaming poster is a male, owns a computer and has a very, very, tiny pecker. And has a complex about it. But that's just my opinion. Wesley Smith

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Kim C
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 12:25 PM

Well, I agree with all that... but also in the past there have been members who had legitimate questions of a sensitive and personal nature, which were posted anonymously, usually with the disclaimer "You all know me but due to the subject matter I can't tell you who I am." Of course that's a far cry from somebody who doesn't have anything better to do...

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:13 PM

As you may have noticed, there are a few of us who always use our real names. Joe Offer, Art Thieme, Dick Greenhaus, Jon Freeman, Clinton Hammond, Don Meixner, Don Firth, Rick Fielding, Malcolm Douglas, are a few whose names I could find in recent threads. (Funny, they're all male. And no doubt, that's not just a coincidence.) There are quite a few who use a first name and middle initial, and these include some women - I presume these are genuine. And I suspect there are some who use a nickname, but are known by the same nickname in real life.

But more important than a real name - as far as Mudcat is concerned - is a consistent name. That's the main thing you get when you become a Mudcat "member." I wonder if most "guests" understand that. I posted for a long time as "GUEST, Jim Dixon" mainly because I didn't realize that becoming a "member" was SIMPLE AND FREE. I just didn't bother to investigate, and that was my loss.

My impression is that people will take you more seriously if they know you're a member - not that members can't be flamers, or that non-members can't be serious - but IT HELPS. And who doesn't like to be taken seriously?

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: kendall
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:18 PM

Really? well, I'm a member, I use my real name, and no one takes ME seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Skeptic
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:26 PM

kendall,

You mean you've been serious all this time???? Troll told me it was all a put-on. *BG*

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:35 PM

I agree Jim, I hadn't noticed that before but I do tend to take someone more seriously when they use their "normal" mudcat name. Maybe we just get jaded by the flamer guests that are here for just that purpose. On the other hand I do understand the need for occassional anonymity depending on the subject and I appreciate a member letting us know that is what he/she is doing.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:38 PM

It's like my Sainted-while-still-living Mom used to say "Stupid is as stupid does". Or was that Forrest's Mom? I always get us confused. I try to judge the content of the message on its own, regardless of whether it's anonymous or otherwise. Of course, intent is a lot easier to figure when you have previous information about the person posting. Sarcasm, humor, and irony can look an awful lot like flaming when you don't know the intent.

I have been Jim Bartholomew since I figured out that Jim Wisniewski didn't read well on a marquee in the 60's. It's my confirmation name, chosen when I was a mere slip of a weird lad. I always use it. I figure if you're not willing to stand by what you say, why say it?

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Mrrzy
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:46 PM

I've been anonymous when I needed to... but (thread creep) the best advice my mom ever gave me was back in teenagerhood, when I asked for a raise in my allowance as I was starting to go out to clubs with friends, and wanted money for drinks. Mom said, and I've never forgotten it - that anyone who buys their own drinks in a club isn't doing whatever it was that they went there to do, well. In other words, no, you can't have a raise in your allowance. (Creep off)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:54 PM

When is it ever needed to be anonymous?!?! If ya haven't got the stones to put your name to a statement or flame or troll or whatever, then don't do it!!!

easy as that!

Anything else is cowardly, wet-blouse, nancying around...

again, another reason this place needs to step up it's Moderation... have them clean the place up of obvious flames, trolls, and off topic garbage... which is not to say that we can't go off topic at all, but you know the threads I'm talking about...

---

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: harpgirl
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:58 PM

Clinton, are you breathing that Downriver air again??? You should watch that!

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: John Routledge
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 01:59 PM

JIM DIXON You have the essence of the problem.Lack of consistency. Yours Hopefully a consistent Geordie Broon

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:05 PM

Downriver air? HUH?

LOL!!

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:20 PM

CH, you can't count the cost for someone else and say how they should conduct themselves. I mean, if you want to come and run my WHOLE life for a bit, maybe.... but to look at one part and think you know what someone else can and should do... nah.

~S~

Subject: Anonimity is BS!!!!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:27 PM

Huh?? what the hell are you even talking about Wysi??

Not having the stones to have the courage of your convictions is pathetic... I don't care who you are...

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:35 PM

CH, It's not so much not having the courage, I may just NOT WANT you to know. As long as I'm not flaming, trolling or genrally pissing people off, then it's my choice. which is my opinion. I'm sure I'm allowed one of those.

And by the way, Nancying around???? Hmmmmm, why don't I throw you a rope and we'll try pulling you into the 90's. If that works we'll bring you into the new Millenium....

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:50 PM

Nope... "nancying around" is a great descriptive, colourful phrase!! You can have it when you pry it from my cold dead middle-finger!! LOL!! Political correctness is the language of conformity, and conformity of language equals conformity of thought! Keep it... I'd rather think and speak for myself...

As far as the anonimity thing goes... I guess it's like cell phones... I don't really understand the urge to be constantly 'in touch' any more than I understand the desire to post anonimously... but yer right... as long as it's not a troll or a flame,there's no big thing, posting that way... and if you'll read my posts above, you'll see I said exactily that! I'm not concerned that, for instance, there was the goofing around thread a couple of weeks ago, where everyone logged off their cookie and got silly... I'm addressing the issue of blatant flames, trolls, and off-topic garbage, like Porn chains and such... Most MB on the net have Mods to deal with that kind of stuff... and don't give me any of that "We're not like most MB's on the net", because this place is no different than any other online community...

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Metchosin
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:55 PM

Clinton, sometimes you have the sensitivity and empathetic ability of a loaf of bread.*BG*

Particularly in regard to women and children. If you don't think stalking and harrassment has occurred in the real world as a result of real names being revealed on the Net you're sadly mistaken. It might be considered by some, to be cowardly not to say "I'm Joe Blow", when you're six foot and weigh over 200 lbs., but I can assure you that there are many women and children, where not giving your real name might not be considered cowardly, but a "*Good idea......" (*Farley Mowatt)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:55 PM

"When is it ever needed to be anonymous?!?! If ya haven't got the stones to put your name to a statement or flame or troll or whatever, then don't do it!!!

easy as that!

Anything else is cowardly, wet-blouse, nancying around..."

Guess I had to read between the lines...... :)

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 02:58 PM

Shall I tell about the time I started a thread as an anonymous guest? I started the thread called "Who is Hunter Thompson?" last summer.

I posted it as a guest because I was new to the Mudcat and I didn't know what kind of response I would get if I asked a question to which everybody seemed to know the answer (and I didn't). Everybody was very kind on that thread, and that kindness got me off to a good start here in the Mudcat. I think there are probably other people who post as guests for that reason.

Unfortunately, there seem to be a far greater number of people who post anonymously for the purpose of causing trouble. I wish these people would realize the extent to which they hurt the Mudcat when they do this.

I think it's also important for the rest of us to remember that the way we respond to these types of anonymous guests also has a big impact on the wellbeing of the Mudcat. The Mudcat is what we make it. Literally.

Carol

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Justa Picker
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 03:02 PM

The bigger picture here is that we are all guests in Max's house. It's his time invested in creating and maintaining this place, his computers, and his forum.

Those of you who don't contribute any of your time to help improve or enhance this place; or contribute towards the ideals that this place is founded upon; or share useful or helpful knowledge from time to time; or even contribute financially once in a while....are in my opinion nothing more than free-loaders and therefore have no right to complain about anything that goes on here.

If you're going to be a free-loader whether as a member or as some GUEST-ANON, have some class, respect and a little empathy for the other human beings on this forum who do make valid contributions in their own way or at least through their actions have demonstrated consistent well-meaning intent.

Freeloaders who complain here, to my way of thinking, are analogous to attending a Mudcat gathering at someone's place who's opened their home to all, and they show up with nothing in their arms (whether a case of beer, a bottle of wine or single malt Scotch, a food dish, flowers or plant, an instrument or a voice to share music with....whatever) and all they do is whine and complain about the food or lack of this or lack of that, or how much so and so annoys them and what are THEY doing here?.......and that basically the world owes me! The world doesn't owe you squat. You reap what you sew.
We've already got moderators here. They're called Joe Clones. Moderation is a form of censorship. I'm in favour of it here, and I think it could even be taken a few steps further. I think that members who abuse the privilege of being a guest in this house, by inciting hurtful, belligerent and malicious content (as GUESTS) directed through a cloak of secrecy should be warned once privately, and if this behavior continues un-checked they should be outed.

Given the fact that Max knows precisely the IP addresses of all who visit here, there is no true anonymity here (as he mentioned in a previous thread recently.) And he's entirely justified in having this information at his disposal in exactly the same way that you would want to know who's in "your house" at any given time.

Divisive anarchy, if left unchecked and unmoderated here, could ultimately destroy what one Catter recently and so aptly referred to as "the best place on the Internet".
I know from what I speak and I'll leave it at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 03:04 PM

Metchosin... learn to read would ya!?!? go back and review the thread, and you'll see that people posting for safty reasons are NOT who I'm talking about...

And well, I'd be really interested to see stats on the number of 'cyber' based stalkers... to see if it has any more creedance than say the urban myth of needles in halloween candy and such... There's safty and there's paranoia...

6 foot and over 200 lbs?!?! I wish! LOL!! I'm one of the wettest girls blouses I know!!! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: nutty
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 03:16 PM

Justa Picker - I've been trying to find the words but you found them for me - Thank-you for voicing my thoughts.
However,I would like to add that whatever damage might be done by anonymous GUESTS, far more is done by those well known to Mudcat who (for whatever reason ) assume various persona - as they are very aware of the damage they are doing

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Metchosin
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 03:17 PM

Ya mean I missed something other than you saying "or make a statement?" sorrry.....

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Pseudolus
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 03:18 PM

Metchosin,
don't forget "or whatever"..... :)

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 03:19 PM

Justa Picker, JoeClones are not moderators. Although we have the ability to delete posts, we don't necessarily do any such thing.

When Max first asked me to join the ranks of the volunteers, censorship was mentioned and I was asked (correctly IMO) not to take any action without first discussing the matter with him or Joe Offer.

My own JoeClone stance on censorship is that I do not get involved in any discussion over censorship. I use the edit and delete functions to fix problems and tidy up and leave the sensitive issues to Max.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 03:33 PM

Sorry, Metch... that came off harsher than I wanted it to...

I'm still keen to see actualy stats regarding cyber stalking... to see if it's more prevalent than I think...

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: GUEST,guestguestguest(intruder)guest
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 04:02 PM

i've always wanted to start a thread.

thank you for your participation and support.

Up the REBELS! (or some such)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 04:18 PM

Well, I take pride in posting things under my own name, but there are a few times that I thought it was right I posted under a pseudonym. I posted as "Mudcatroid" when I needed information about a couple of places I was going to travel to, and I didn't want the world to know I was going to be away from home (and I also wanted to surprise some people with a visit). I also posted anonymously a couple of times when I spoke of past romances - it behooves one to be discreet in such matters.
I've also posted lyrics anonymously on occasion. I remember one night when somebody worked very hard to answer three lyrics requests, all with lyrics that were horribly incorrect. I thought the person might lose heart if Joe Offer showed him up on three threads in one night, so I posted the lyrics under three different names. There are a few of us who are quite prolific and quite accurate in our lyrics postings, but I'd hate to see people feel like they should leave the lyrics posting to just a few of us. After all, Mudcat was originally a lyrics forum - everyone here should feel an obligation to contribute lyrics, at least occasionally.
But generally, I don't like the idea of posting anonymously. Too often, the anonymous posts have a leering, nasty quality to them.

-Joe Offer, and proud of it-

Subject: RE: BS: Anonimity
From: Matt_R
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 04:25 PM

Up yours!

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Stewie
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 04:44 PM

When I first joined Mudcat, for some reason my full name was rejected and so I opted for what most of my friends have called me over many years.

--Paul Stewart.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 04:52 PM

One of the things that can be a bit of fun (Gawd knows dealing with anonymous nasties is NOT) is trying to pick out when a member "goes underground" temporarily. Writing style is writing style, and although someone can "dumb down" when they've changed identities, they can't "smart up". We all have little quirks (punctuation, phrases structure, spelling, and agendas) and if you're small detail minded you can pick up on a style pretty quickly. My fave is when someone changes sex, but forgets and occasionally uses a male (or female) expression, when they're trying to be the opposite. It's funny how minds work. I can watch a movie, and notice the most minute details (funny edits, a 55 Chevy in a 54 film, a boom mike shadow, a watch that goes missing in the same scene) but am always asking Heather what the plot's about!

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: kendall
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 05:31 PM

You too eh Rick? why does that stuff bug us? I understand why women might post as guest. There have been cases of stalking right here on the mudcat, and, women feel vulnerable. Personally, I'm near 6 feet and just over 14 stone. Furthermore, I believe in the 2nd amendment. Of course, the stalkers are too cowardly to mess with men.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 05:45 PM

As a JoeClone, I don't believe in censorship. I can't see myself deleting any post because of content, although I might alert the Powers That Be to particularly vile ones.

The way I see Mudcat, is that it's a place that Max created which has come to be a community. Max is not our daddy. He makes no attempt to control what we discuss or how we discuss it. Why? I think it's because we're the ones responsible for what goes on here. A flamer here and there doesn't do the damage to Mudcat - it's the members of the community who CAN'T LET IT GO without commenting. You know - the ones who keep the flame alive and often escalate the arguing. The way to stop this from happening is not to eliminate the provocation, but to eliminate our response. How many of the past "gutless coward" started flame wars would have been flame wars if no one had responded? NONE OF THEM.

The answer is not to ask someone to moderate us, but to learn how to moderate ourselves. There are assholes in all aspects of life. We don't ask authority figures to make them go away, or leave us alone. We leave them alone.

We will either learn, as a community, how to ignore flamers, anonymous or not, or this will go on forever. My prediction is that there will always be a large number of people who respond - either because they just have to say something, or they don't know any better - and this will go on forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 05:53 PM

I use my real first name, and my surname is easy enough to discover. I've been using the whole thing since I got on the internet in '95. People leave me alone because I'm just flat-out nuts. 'Least I think that's it...

Hey Rick, did you catch me posting anonymously at all? (I never flamed anyone.)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Bert
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 05:55 PM

Nah! it's 'cos you're SCARY Jeri.

Bert (tee hee)

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 05:59 PM

No, Max is not our daddy.
And it bugs the hell out of me that I've got a kid who's as old as Max!

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: wdyat12
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 06:11 PM

Is there an age limit to becoming a member of Mudcat Cafe Radio Forum? I'm not so much worried about it for myself (I never get carded anymore.) If there is no age limit, then shouldn't there be a policy for protecting the kids?

wdyat12 aka Peter Woodruff

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 06:12 PM

SCARY?!?! You talkin' to me? I am NOT scary! I'm a perfectly rational human being, and I'll beat the crap outta anybody who says otherwise!

Subject: Censorship & Kids
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 06:25 PM

Hi, Peter - Check out this part (click) of the Mudcat FAQ. No, there's no age requirement here, but we're not billed as a children's site. I doubt that you'll find anything on Mudcat that's worse that what you can find on "Temptation Island" and other television shows. Nope, we're not going to get into the sort of censorship that would be needed to make this a "G-Rated" site. On very rare occasions, Max or I or one of Max's employees will delete an offensive post, but we stay away from censorship as much as we can.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: wdyat12
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 06:39 PM

Joe,

Thanks for sending me back for a refresher course in Mudcatiquette. I surely needed that after last night's antics. I never did find the disclaimer for age limits in there, but maybe that was your point. Point taken.

wdyat12

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: kendall
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 08:58 PM

Jeri is absolutely right. As Shakespere said "Nothing is bad or good, thinking makes them so". I've been in a few "Pissing contests" and, I kick myself for validating some air head, but, it's testosterone poisoning. Most women dont have enough of that to make them want to "mix it up" So...men are closer to the apes than the angels...so, sue us!

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 09:08 PM

about being anonymous..there is one form, which is simply using a 'handle'...catspaw, or Pseudolus..etc...or even a partial name like Bill D....those will usually provide all the safety necessary to prevent someone from figuring out exactly who & where you are, if that seems important to you.

But the sort of anonymity that we grit our teeth over is just 'guest' with NO handle...not even a fake one! If you feel a need to discuss an issue without using your regular Mudcat handle, then pick one..'guest..Rumplestilsken'..for the duration of the thread, or for future posts about that issue!!! It is totally maddening to have what seems like several 'guests' going at once, and being unable to have even a FAKE identity to reply to...or NOT reply to...

I truly wish Max would change the software so that a message would not be allowed without entering something after 'guest'......and I, for one, will NEVER again reply to anyone who can't pick a name. Wouldn't it be fascinating if everyone did the same and stupid, divisive, trolling 'guests' got NO response to their trouble making crap?!

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 09:10 PM

I can imagine lots of very valid reasons why someone might now and then want to post something here without it being directly identifiable as from them.

For example someone might want to tell a story about something that happened to them that was too personal - maybe something bad that had happened to them, and they don't want to have people coming on all sympathetic, because sympathy can be hard to take.

In those circumstances, a pseudonym is the way to do it, maybe as a GUEST with the pseudonym tagged on. That makes it possible for other people to respond to it, and for discussion to carry on.

But anonymous, just plain GUEST - that's like writing on a wall. Who wants to talkto a wall? And most of the time it's an indication of hostility to other people here. It breaks the bond of fellowship. And as William Morris said "Fellowship is life and lack of fellowship is death".

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 10:29 PM

'Picker:

The only professionals who always reap what they sew are undertakers.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Troll
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 11:12 PM

I use a 'handle' because they would stop me if they knew what I was doing.
Well Angie wouldn't but Freddie would and so would the others. Chuck would break the computer. He's like that, you know. He breaks things.
And Skeptic would just laugh.But he's not one of us, you see.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 11:36 PM

So how's Freddie working out for you, troll? I know he's new and all... does everyone trust him yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Anonymity
From: Troll
Date: 14 Feb 01 - 11:43 PM

He's sneaky. But I know things about him that he wouldn't want to get out so he'll behave.He has some of us fooled but he doesn't fool me.
I'm the only one who can type.

troll