And as a long time Internet user, I think the idea that members ought to be able to find out private information about other users by technological means (ie that Max use the technology to provide long time Mudcat users information about newcomers, whether guests or members) to be incredibly Big Brother oriented.

And another PS: I ignore the thread prefixes entirely. Not only does it seem like a useless bit of pedantry, it also lean heavily towards "enforcer" sort of environment. One of those "I want other people to behave the way *I* think they should." There is already way too much of that here.

Also, even if I sign on as a member using a verifiable email account, I don't want that information being available to members or the public, unless I choose to (make it optional). While Mudcat doesn't spam, it is much too easy for spammers to capture that data from Mudcat (membership has it's advantages for spammers too).

As to the hostility between members/guests over identity, I think the situation was created when Max decided to deal with trolls assuming the identity of members by creating a two tier system of posting. While the impersonation was appalling to some, particularly the victims of said trollers prank, I think dividing the forum into an "us members vs. them guests" technically was a big mistake. I always thought of it as an over-reaction, which would have been better handled by dealing with said offenders Internet provider, and ignoring it. The solution was overkill which built in cliqueishness and elitism institutionally, IMO. Which continues to plague the forum. It doesn't bother the members, of course. But seeing that as a newcomer, for some (and maybe many who never bother posting because of it who just go away) it smacks of an inbred elitism.

I'm purty sure Max won't go back to one size fits all posters, though. Which is too bad. Mudcat seemed much more democratic and egalitarian in the pre-member/guest split days.