 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. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,BATHROOM Date: 05 Jan 07 - 02:55 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,BATHROOM Date: 05 Jan 07 - 02:59 AM IDIOT! Pressing return submits the message if the text box is not active. Where was I? Ah yes - Martin Gibson was about as genuine as the Rev Hohner Castagnari. Names are pretty meaningless here, although they do help establish an identity. There are some that make the heart sink (why am I thinking of Hull9 here?) and others who you know will be making a positive contribution. But, for 90 per cent of the stuff here it matters not a whit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,Captain Ginger Date: 05 Jan 07 - 03:13 AM I wonder if next door's dog might not have some rather more enlightening and entertaining posts than some of the stuff here. Trouble is, it would probably start asking other dogs if they were catholic dogs or protestant dogs, and then slagging off other dogs' taste in bones... Nah, wouldn't work. Dogs haven't got the civillity required. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: skipy Date: 05 Jan 07 - 04:30 AM I've just been round & got next door's dog, he wants to say something, so I'm handing the keyboard over to him:- sdxrefc vgfx l,k;bc ghmgu kbnhg v.,/;',',c s v,.;llm, cx cxftfbrcx ycfdsl,; c. sxedgbyherdjiomt7ygh cflk;,dxs;cfhjubnkjlxcd vcj nb;l'fdxc;kovhgb Seems his paws are to big. Skipy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: The Shambles Date: 05 Jan 07 - 05:37 AM You may have missed the following editing comment as it was inserted into an existing post, where no editing action in fact occured and did not refresh this thread. "Federal, state, or local laws" and the ethical tenets of your profession have little or nothing to do with the administration of this forum. We are free to establish our own policies. Anonymous posting is a good thing to have in certain situations; but it has long been abused here, and it's time for that abuse to end. You don't have to register to post (at present) - all we ask is that people choose and use a consistent name. I realize that you are registered as *guest* - but I have to say that it's a user name that causes confusion and I'm sorely tempted to change it. -Joe Offer- If it is time for the so-called abuse of anonymous guest posting to end -: Will this start be to end the example set by the practice of anonymous guest posting and anonymous editing (and the insertion by them of editing comments where no action has been taken)? Is this not also judged by this unspecified 'we' to be an abuse of privilige? If it is only your view - given with no prior consultation with any others - and you are not presuming to be speaking for any others -perhaps it would be more honest to say so and use the word I? And when it is simply your view - and when you feel it must be expressed publicly - perhaps it can be limited to conventional postings which do refresh the thread and not inserted in editing comments - which do not. For what it is worth - my view is that I consider this to be an abuse. And if it is an example that is still set to continue - is not a message of a clear double standard being given to our forum? Perhaps before you are sorely tempted to interfere further with how posters wish to post - you could set the example of being seen to put your own house in order first? It would perhaps be better for you to being seen to concentrate on aspects of posting that should be under your control - rather than being seen to be vainly chasing shadows, on aspects which are not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,Captain Ginger Date: 05 Jan 07 - 06:01 AM For pity's sake Shambles, if you find the way this forum is run so damned unacceptable, why don't you just leave? The only posts you seem to make these days are to kvetch about the running of the place. Wouldn't life be nicer if you simply turned off the computer and picked up an instrument? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: skipy Date: 05 Jan 07 - 06:06 AM another can of worms! Skipy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,Mingulay at work Date: 05 Jan 07 - 09:00 AM I normally post as Mingulay, simply because that's the name of the boat I live on and is easy to remember in those "senior" moments that afflict us oldies. However, I normally register at the Mudcat Tavern as my alter ego 'Sick Squid' which I think is harmless enough. Hello Skipy by the way and a Happy New Beer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,knotgrain Date: 05 Jan 07 - 09:41 AM I see no harm in Mingulay's having one registration name and another posting name. A perception that certain members go out of and back into their respective member identities, depending on what is to be stated, can be disconcerting. That perception is expressed within several threads, and it would be helpful to know how widespread is member identity switching, or even identity abandonment altogether. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST, fauxfair Date: 05 Jan 07 - 04:09 PM Yes, I'm also a Member (but no more than that, not a clone, I mean) Was I 'up on my high horse' in my previous post? I was just responding to a very silly post by an anonymous person in the same vein as he (presumably a he) used. The name is just in same vein as 'Guest fauxno' or 'Guest fauxyes' or 'Guest fauxmaybe'...as in 'false', but also meaning 'fair' as to say that whats fair for Guest to do its fair for Joe to do (as well as the bad pun on 'foxfur' or 'fauxfur'. There you go Guest, that enough of a reaction for you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Captain Ginger Date: 05 Jan 07 - 04:16 PM Crikey, that's torn it. Looks like I've signed up for the Mudcat shilling. Still, no reason to change anything... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST Date: 05 Jan 07 - 04:17 PM And what's fair for a guest to do is fair for a member to do, too. Hop in and out of identities and say whatever, because guests do it all the time. The solution is simple, however. Stop guest posting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Wesley S Date: 05 Jan 07 - 04:37 PM RE: Captain Ginger "For pity's sake Shambles, if you find the way this forum is run so damned unacceptable, why don't you just leave? The only posts you seem to make these days are to kvetch about the running of the place. Wouldn't life be nicer if you simply turned off the computer and picked up an instrument?" Wecome to the Mudcat Captain Ginger - you must be new here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,knotgrain Date: 05 Jan 07 - 05:39 PM I came back in today intending to suggest that those inclined to post here post instead to the thread on posting with civility. Perhaps I should reconsider. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,knotgrain Date: 05 Jan 07 - 06:53 PM Let's not pretend that it's not obvious when a posting name, and by implication the user of it, are being mocked by variations on the posting name. Baiting goes along with the mockery. fauxno, should he wish to engage, could likely acquit himself well against one baiter, or, more likely, against a chatty gang of baiters. Admissions by members of identity switching are not common, I take it, but we have one in this thread, without being provided the member name. So membership has its privileges. When a member "GUEST" replies to a guest as "Guest," to which guest is the member "GUEST" referring? The clause "what's fair for Guest to do is fair for Joe to do" needs explication. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: John MacKenzie Date: 05 Jan 07 - 06:59 PM But isn't fauxno a master baiter Knotty G? Good G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Bill D Date: 05 Jan 07 - 07:06 PM Shambles does pick up an instrument at times...I have heard recordings, and he is pretty darn good! I wish he played more & typed less. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Mr Red Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:08 AM >SUGGESTION< for Max et al offer a cookie to a GUEST as a means of identifying them "next time they post on this thread". Then call them "FOR THIS THREAD I AM, fred". Those that can and want to will have that name until they hop on another/wipe/change PC. For genuine concerned posters who cannot allow cookies there could be a password/ID box that locks a chosen MEMBER AT WORK,name to anyone who "knows the chosen password for the thread". A hassle but if your identity is worth preserving you would do it. I would. >/SUGGESTION< Those that cannot or don't want to are in the same boat but it gives choices. Dynamic IP on broadband/at work means it is harder to be any smarter than the system above. Computers at my library effectively wipe everything before I can get in, for obvious reasons, but cookies are allowed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,why? Date: 06 Jan 07 - 09:11 AM Mudcat seems to be a community where, even though we use 'Mudcat names' we know real people by those names. There are some threads where it would be too revealing to post under that name (especially the serious side of BS). One guest name for that thread seems a polite compromise which we can adopt voluntarily |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Ron Davies Date: 06 Jan 07 - 03:19 PM Joe has stated his view. That should be the last word--and this thread could be closed without harm to anyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 03:36 PM This is not Joe's site. His word should never be the last word.
We have not decided to take action against anonymous posting - yet. However, we have asked people countless times to use a consistent identity, whether they are registered or not. We prefer to rely on the good will of people, not on coercion or commands. We still haven't quite figured out what to do with people who are not of good will. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Bill D Date: 06 Jan 07 - 04:03 PM Don't worry...it is not. He is only a trusted and experienced part of the team. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST, Topsie Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:40 AM Several people use this computer. It does not have a webcam, so even if Joe thinks the same person is posting under different names he cannot be sure - nor can I. It is easy to forget to log in and out. Much simpler to all be guests - and I would never knowingly post anything malicious, though maybe sometimes my posts may have been misconstrued. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Slag Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:25 AM For paranoids, you may use up to five identities per thread to make sure no one is getting a specific lock on your true identity, unless of course five is a coded number that automatically singles you out. If five or some other number could indicate your TRUE identity then you must use a different identity for each post but do NOT use the straight GUEST identity as others who are not wearing aluminium foil hats and accutrements need that particulars designator. If you have multiple personalities, those personalities which are not aware of the other personality(s) are free to use which ever identity they choose but it would be helpful all around if you stuck with just one. This is especially true if you ARE aware of other personalities. If you are a committed troll, none of this means anything to you whatever and you are just going to do what it is you do regardless. By the way this is not me. I was NOT here and I deny everything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: dick greenhaus Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:25 PM Lest we forget: The "Guest" classification was created because some trolls were posting over other Mudcatter's signatures. All it meant was that the name following the "guest" designation wasn't necessarily the name of a member. So I couldn't post as BillD or Clinton Hammond or Shambles, for example. Posting simply as "Guest" is simply rude, in the order of sending a letter with no return name or address. the only problem with posting as "GUEST:Whatever" is that anyone can use that handle, and responses become muddled-to-impossible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,for now Date: 22 Jan 07 - 09:34 AM I understand the preference for always having a posted user name, so as to follow forum discussions easily and to direct replies to a specific poster, but currently the technology is not in place for securing a guest user name; how then can it be rude not to use one? There are valid reasons for preferring to remain anonymous; accusations of rudeness or cowardice should not be generalized. If the decision is made to require membership or registration of all who wish to post, there is technology available to facilitate that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Scrump Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:12 AM I think it should be compulsory for GUESTs to use a name and not leave it blank, even if they use a different name each time. If GUESTs can't be bothered to sign up as a member, or choose not to use their regular handle, they shouldn't complain about having to use a name of sorts when they post as GUEST, instead of just leaving it blank. There was a thread recently where several individuals were posting simply as GUEST. They were all making (more or less, depending on your view!) valid comments, but it got very difficult to tell which GUEST was which, because none of them could be bothered to add a name. This made it difficult to follow the discussion and make sense of what was being said, presumably for the GUESTs themselves too! Even if they just put "1" or "a" or something, that would be enough to tell them apart (unless of course they all used the same number or letter - that would be just plain daft!) I agree with dick greenhaus - it's just polite to put some sort of handle in and not just leave it blank. I appreciate that occasionally people have good reason not to use their real name (or even their regular Mudcat membership handle) when posting, but at least they could use something to distinguish from other GUESTs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Joe Offer Date: 31 Jan 07 - 05:26 PM Well, the policy, as stated in the FAQ, is this:
"For now" says this:
So, "for now," I guess what I'm saying is that there seems to be a logical error in your argument. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: bobad Date: 31 Jan 07 - 07:12 PM Help available for paranoid guests |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,for now Date: 31 Jan 07 - 07:27 PM Logical error on my part is not the basis of our disagreement, Joe. dick greenhaus points out that the GUEST classification was created to prevent the impersonation of members. What protection does the classification provide guests? None. Statements critical of you and your team tend not to fare well, so our arguments are best put forward incrementally. One of us will get back to you here or elsewhere in the threads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST, incrementer Date: 31 Jan 07 - 07:59 PM Max evidently doesn't want to implement some form of registration system as much as he wants not to. That doesn't mean that visitors cannot or should not speak out about the problems that ensue from not having one. If the decision is made to require registration, prospects will need to be able to trust the site's security, its privacy policy, and the fairness of its administrative team. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST, incrementalist Date: 31 Jan 07 - 08:35 PM Much of the Mudcat preoccupation with identity is based in the desire to get to know, to some extent, others who post here. Not everyone who comes here sees that as attainable or important. Unless acquaintance is established through personal contact, or unless posters know each other offline, or unless names used in the outside world or other identifying facts are shared, posters are known to one another only by user names. So all the pretensiousness about giving names often comes across as bizarrely incongruous with prevailing concepts within the Internet universe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: kendall Date: 28 Feb 07 - 08:57 AM Bobad, that's one of the funniest things I have ever seen on the forum! Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST, incrementality Date: 28 Feb 07 - 12:57 PM Private joke, kendall? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: kendall Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:02 PM The world is full of things that I don't like. Control freaks and malcontents are two of them. And, yes, this is my real name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Bill D Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:51 PM -.-/./-./-../.-/.-../.-.. and that's his name in Morse code. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 Mar 07 - 11:22 AM "prospects will need to be able to trust the site's security, its privacy policy, and the fairness of its administrative team." ... or just bugger off and leave everyone else alone... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST, once a prospect Date: 01 Mar 07 - 06:23 PM Foolestroupe, Mudcat has you, and thus has the best, right? So you couldn't care less whether anyone else joins. But mudcat.org is on the World Wide Web. Newcomers might read the phony welcome. The phoniness suits you fine, doesn't it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 Mar 07 - 11:10 PM Unfortuneately, unlike the anonymous, I know I'm not 'the best' - whatever that hell that subjective judgement may mean.... - the first 40 years of my life was nothing but those that objective testing revealed WERE inferior to me bullying me just how worthless I was.... :-) Mudcat is what it is... it stands or fall on what it is - and that includes all the nasty mouthing and negativeness as well as any 'good stuff' (whatever that hell that subjective judgement may mean) ... an on that basis Mudcat stands or falls. When/if I decide I have had enough, I go away for a while. When I want more I come back. 'Mudcat newbies', unfortunately for those control freaks like you insisting that it is nothing but crap run by crappy people, will make up their own minds about the value of what they find here at Mudcat. You only reveal your own negative character traits by dumping shit on that which you cannot control... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Gurney Date: 02 Mar 07 - 03:14 AM Speaking personally, I can't see what reason anyone could have for NOT joining Mudcat. I've been around here for a while, no-one has tried to sell me anything, spam me, or abuse me in any serious way. If I wanted to post anonymously, I could use my son's computer or delete my cookie (and later reinstall it automatically) as I've done several times whilst chasing viruses/Virii? I cannot see any advantage in NOT joining, providing you intend no mischief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: John MacKenzie Date: 02 Mar 07 - 04:42 AM Gurney, unfortunately there are some sad inadequate people out there who's only power is anonymity. They are either bitter and feel as though they have at some point been 'dissed' by this site, or they may be the usual social misfits who can never make their point in a normal face to face conversation. I have come to the conclusion that the only humane thing to do, is to pity these poor sad people, and to ignore them. This deprives them of the last vestiges of their imaginary power to influence anything. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: Gurney Date: 03 Mar 07 - 04:45 AM Giok, I hear you and agree that some people are sad cases, but I feel that a number must be redeemable, the problem being in the selected method. Some I suspect to be very young, and see us as 'THEM', a kind of authority to rebel against, safely. Some are just provacative people, impish sods, and want to initiate an argument. Again, safely, because if they did it in a pub, they'd only do it once. One or two regular members of this site may have been like this, once. Some may be the worst cases as you describe, but they can't be total idiots, just bitter and twisted. They often contribute in good English, after all. I don't like the notion that I'm playing their game with them, so I try to behave as if they are naughty children who need manoeuvering into a better frame of mind. Sometimes it works, but I'm in a time zone well out of step with most members, so by the time I get on, most are in bed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,Terry K Date: 03 Mar 07 - 08:18 AM I tend not to Login any longer because this is a multi-user computer and there are two other people I know who have "contributed" to Mudcat on this machine. Which means if I have not logged out, their posts go under my name and I get the credit - or otherwise - for them. So which do we think is worse - posting as a Guest or having people posting under someone else's Mudname? So I'll continue being a Guest and if I forget sometimes to add my name to the Guest tag, so be it. Maybe everyone gets a bit too anal about this whole issue. cheers, Terry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Mar 07 - 10:07 AM "Which means if I have not logged out, their posts go under my name and I get the credit" "So which do we think is worse - posting as a Guest or having people posting under someone else's Mudname?" There's just no answer to that, really... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: GUEST,Terry K Date: 04 Mar 07 - 03:42 AM My point entirely - yet if you go back through the thread you will find posts from lots of people who think they have the answer. For my own part, I don't give a damn if I occasionally come across a post by some anonymous tosser whose input is less than useful - just skip over it and move on. If it's a post by some anonymous person which does help the thread, great, read it and appreciate it and still move on. It's just possible there is no hidden agenda behind the anonymity. It's the Internet, it's just, like that. Terry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One identity per thread? From: kendall Date: 04 Mar 07 - 09:19 AM I have no idea what it's like to be paranoid, but a few years ago, there was a move in Maine to do serious background checks on all teachers and teachers aids. That set up a huge storm of protest from many teachers who resented the invasion of privacy. There was one whom I dated briefly, and she was almost hysterical about it. Why? because she had spent time in a psych unit and she was afraid they would find out. When I went to work for the government I had to pass a background check, and, not having anything to hide, there was no problem. Having "Secret clearance" doesn't mean a thing to me. We Americans love that word "Privacy" even though it doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution.
-Joe Offer-
|