BS: Why have 'guests' anyway ??

Subject: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: technission
Date: 11 Feb 02 - 11:34 PM

I wanted to post to the thread, "Open Letter from Max to GUESTS", but I can't get the whole thread loaded - maybe because bandwidth of my connection is measured in one dimension, or it's a Mac problem. (PC'rs commence gloating) Anyway, I've crashed my browser too many times to try further. If ANY Mudcatter wants to copy this post to the end of the open-letter thread, I grant my proxy to do so and show my handle on it.

I can't access much of the "Open Letter" thread, but I think the size it has amassed in less than two days time is a testament to support from serious and well-mannered Mudcat users and >supporters< Now, what the all-fired heck GOOD are guests anyway? I say if >>anything<< they do jeapoardizes Max's funding, build the fence, shut - nay SLAM the gate - and what on earth is lost? I only discovered the 'Cat a couple of months ago, and haven't seen much flaming, and I know I am naive about internet security, but WHY does anyone with a sincere musical interest or question even WANT to post without becoming a member, or with any more anonymity than a screen name provides? What is the paranoia fueled by?? Enlighten me, I beseech you all! I could only read the first 30 or so messages out of 218 posted at that time to the "Open Letter" thread, but some member who posted that early in the thread did express the opinion that something would be lost from discussions if anonymous guests could not post. I think I saw a "GUEST" imply that there would be fewer lyrics requests from his or her point of origin. OK, folks I'm serious - guests and members alike, *please* explain what the advantage is, to the entire Mudcat community and/or to the posting party, in allowing completely anonymous postings?? It takes minimal time to join. What HARM can Max or Mudcat or nameless big-brother security programs do, that causes such fear to parties who wish to post, that they will only post if they can keep their identities secret from Max and his volunteers??

And GUESTS, read on. When I joined, I elected to allow members access to my email address - yet that address is not shown anywhere on the site. After the prompt action I got from Jeff sending a calendar and posting my picture, I seriously doubt my email is missing by his oversight or backlog of work; it is not there because I have not specifically asked him to list it - so he didn't list it without my express request to do so. Now, I just resubmitted the membership form, requesting that my email NOT be available to members. >>> So GUESTS, or fellow members, can you please demonstrate my vulnerability by sending me a message to my email address, consisting of the word "gotcha" and stating the time and date shown as the posting time of this thread post? If you can prove to me that you can locate me, and you are not a Mudcat staff volunteer, I will concede that you might share similar vulnerability - but I still want to know what difference it would make to (the collective) you, and what you're so scared of. Are you in a witness protection program? Are you a tax protestor? Shock me! Tell me your horror stories, explain why you must remain anonymous if your only criticisms would be constructive ones. Justify yourselves, I double-dog dare you.

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 12:15 AM

I am not going to get into this discussion with you I just thought I would tell you I tryed to get into 'letter from Max' also and couldn't do it, but I went to the thread 'guest to Max' and there was a thread link on about fourth post and I got into the entire thread, Rustic

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 12:28 AM

This is the only thing I am going to say on this subject, here or anywhere else. What I have to say is not directed at you, technission, or any person in particular. It's just my general contribution to the subject in question, and I have chosen to put it here.

This whole hullabaloo is not about GUESTS, or members. None of it is. It's entirely about people. All of it. Just people. That's all.

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: Sorcha
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 12:32 AM

Almost, Carol, almost. It is about people who choose to be assholes. It is about people who choose not ignore assholes. It is about people who think responding to assholes is fun.

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 12:35 AM

I agree with you Sorcha. Now, if all of these different kinds of people could remember that we are all still people, maybe we could get someplace.

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: Sorcha
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 12:49 AM

Yup, and Mudcat would win. I guess I should suggest this elsewhere, but what about a required, valid e mail addy for any Guest? That way, we could send an answer for requests and Max and the Elves/Clones would know where the Flaming Troll lives.........

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: technission
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 02:18 AM

I believe the consensus here (and if it is I agree) is that a genuine troll is best ignored, not to give 'em the satisfaction of a debate etc.- they're not worth the keystrokes! My primary concern is that as a newbie I could be overlooking some legitimate value to a serious/polite but anonymous post, and if there is a good reason for nurturing those I'm seeking that explanation to fill in my missing clues....Also it seemed from Max's Open Letter that some potential site funding might be withdrawn because of frivolously vicious posting or something...? Rustic, thanks for the tip, maybe I can fill in some gaps to satisfy my curiosity. Hey CarolC, not trying to tease you into saying anything further, just want to say re: your 02/12/12:28, that wouldn't offend me even if it was directed at me, and re: your 02/12/12:35 I think you nailed the basic human stupidity there that keeps us from giving peace a chance! But since I'm a glass-half-full kinda person I keep thinking maybe each day a few more people will remember the golden rule...And Sorcha, I agree the jerks don't deserve a response - but isn't it useful to have an occasional one show up? That way even if I'm bitchy I still look good in comparison! <8)# Ann O'Nymous

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 02:58 AM

Jeri said: Of course, it would have been better if we'd all just learned to ignore the silly trolls instead of needing to be protected from them. Too much to ask for, though.

Is it really?.........

Max did not want a a part 2 to his thread and he also indicated there that a letter from Max to members was on the way.

Perhaps members should wait until that thread comes along and read what he as to say, we could possibly have as many parts to that one as we wished?

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 03:59 AM

1) this is really just a part 2 to the whole thread... So with that and what's coming after considered, I hope it gets deleted...

2) Only Max hurts Max's chances at financing... a few banner adds on a separate Mudcat page, with an open invite for people to click away would solve 98% of the $$ problems this place has... but Max doesn't want to do that, so... fair enough... this is where the fact that it's not a democracy cuts both ways... Max can run it how ever the hell he wants to.. but apparently that involves passing up readily available sources of income...

So it's HIS choice... There are PLENTY of funding options open to him, but Mudcat is HIS baby, so he can do with it what he decides to do...

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: technission
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 04:13 AM

Big 10-4 on the waiting, I started this thread and hereby respectfully request it be stopped at this time. I would still rather it be attached to the 200+ post thread and be assimilated there without resistance. I just couldn't post there myself due to some failure (unprecedented!!) of my revered Mac to finish loading the whole thread. (kept getting error messages that a server somewhere had timed out after 120 secs.)

Can I hijack my own thread? >>> Does anybody know why I can't load the big thread? Mac is pre-G3 but not THAT primitive and I've never had this happen before, was it me or was the ether just too busy for my share to come through fast enough?

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 04:15 AM

Aren't Mac's primative enough to begin with?

:-)

(j/k?

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: technission
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 04:24 AM

Sorry, can't respond ClintonHammond; resolved I wouldn't feed trolls! LOL, ROF, etc LTCOML (my own invention? laughing the cat off my lap) Stick a fork in this one...8>)#

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 04:26 AM

I copied yer thread as per yer request...

It's up to a Mod to sick that fork...

And well, if you MAC folk didn't make it so easy, I wouldn't pic on yas!

LOL!!!!

ps... ltcofl... I'm gonna have to steal that one!

^5's!

;-)

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 04:27 AM

ltcoMl...

I'll steal it, right after I learn to type!

LOL!!

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 05:45 AM

Hey CarolC, not trying to tease you into saying anything further, just want to say re: your 02/12/12:28, that wouldn't offend me even if it was directed at me, and re: your 02/12/12:35 I think you nailed the basic human stupidity there that keeps us from giving peace a chance! But since I'm a glass-half-full kinda person I keep thinking maybe each day a few more people will remember the golden rule...And Sorcha, I agree the jerks don't deserve a response - but isn't it useful to have an occasional one show up? That way even if I'm bitchy I still look good in comparison! <8)# Ann O'Nymous

technission, could you please include thread titles and/or URLs to these quotes? Because I honestly don't remember saying these things.

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 06:27 AM

technission, I have sent you a PM regarding your 12-Feb-02 - 02:18 AM post to this thread.

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 06:30 AM

Well done Carol.

It was important to do that.

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 07:29 AM

Ok. I see the confusion. It looks, in your post, technission, like you are quoting things I said elsewhere. Now I see that you are giving responses of your own to what I have posted in this thread.

My mistake. No, you won't be teasing me into saying anything further. I've said what I wanted to say.

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 07:44 AM

I agree with the wise CarolC. This has never been about the member/guest thing, but about people, and the ways they behave, and are perceived by others as behaving.

Because a guest posts something controversial or critical of the site/owner, doesn't mean they are flaming, any more than if a member posts something controversial or critical of site/owner means the member is flaming.

It would be good to remember that many well-intentioned members have complained about the way Mudcat is managed in the past, as they will in the future. No one accuses them of flaming when they do, now do they?

Food for thought. Eat hearty, Lent begins soon!

Let's Mardi Gras!

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: GUEST,Hamshank
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 01:21 PM

Ummm. Can I ask a question? Were the original 'Catters all members right from the git-go? Hasn't the membership at this place grown from Guests stopping by, liking what they saw, and becoming members? In that regard, I guess guests aren't entirely useless, are they? Sure, the Mudcat forum gets some real pillocks as guests, but some of you members aren't the most pleasant folks, ya know. The thing is, this is such a bunch of silly shite! IGNORE the flamers and trolls, guest and member alike. Don't make it fun for them, and maybe they'll piss off. Stop letting them get your knickers in a twist.

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 01:27 PM

Clinton- We've had such a page full of banner ads for years. Just click on the "Help Support the Mudcat" logo at the top of the page.

Subject: RE: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 01:55 PM

Hamshank, all of us had to choose membership or not once Max implemented it. The place has grown from people dropping in as guests, but I think Max's decision is based on the fact the bad stuff seems to far outweigh the good stuff.

Shambles, my comment was pertaining to the fact that some folks will reply to the same stupid, obvious shit, every time and repeatedly. I find it hard to respect some folks anymore. I guess self control is harder than anything else, and many people don't even want to consider the possibility. Many people don't seem to even think they should. I've always seen the trolls as somewhat weak because of their need for attention and seeming desperation in getting it. I don't much like the impression I'm getting of those of us who feed them.

Ignoring trolling messages is the only thing that would work, but we've never given it a chance because people don't want to or can't keep their mouths shut long enough. That is the main reason why it's come to this.

Subject: RE: BS: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: 53
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 09:08 PM

I reckon that guests still have their rights to post as of now.

Subject: RE: BS: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: kendall
Date: 12 Feb 02 - 09:22 PM

The first amendment does not allow someone to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. The Mudcat does not allow personal attacks on other people. Sounds civil to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 09:04 PM

Right on the head there, Kendall. I like a good argument as do the best of us, but when attacks start getting personal for no other reason than the attacker doesn't like the way the victim sings/plays/looks/talks/wobbles/spells/fornicates or takes the top off their hard boiled eggs then something has to be done. Max has had to wade through all of this shit, not just the obvious. He and the other cyberelves have taken the decision to delete a couple of threads that were offensive. Even in Paltalk, the admin has the ability to 'bounce' people who are offensive (it's not had to happen for a while...) and maybe that should be the case here. There is a huge difference between spirited argument and personal abuse. Regretably, because a lot of people post at strange times, (like now, 2.00am GMT), they tend to be tired, emotional and more vulnerable or beligerent than if you met them on the street. Something you read at 4 in the afternoon may not have same effect as if you read it at 2 in the morning. I know this is the case with myself, and I daresay a lot of others.

I think we should still keep the guest entry, but there should be the ability to warn and ultimately bounce those who continuously post offensive material. I would be quite happy to go along with that. And yes, I have posted as a guest myself a few times, but never anonymously.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Feb 02 - 09:14 PM

Liz, the problem isn't guests, but trolls. Jeri's post is right on point........Try this one...Click here and take the pledge.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Why have 'guests' anyway ??
From: Guessed
Date: 14 Feb 02 - 08:03 PM

Are Guessed's OK?