BS: Why not just BAN Guests?

Subject: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 07:50 AM

I tried a search but it was taking too long. This may have been around before.

If guests come in here, spit and snarl and then bugger off, why not just ban guests altogher. Why is there that facility anyway? Is it so that someone can decide to say something unpleasant and not be PM'ed?

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST,OTOH
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:05 AM

The purpose of the forum is an adjunct to the folk music collection known as the Digital Tradition. Ban guest posting, and you defeat the purpose of having a forum for guests to post queries about the Digital Tradition collection, or something they have not been able to find in it or the forum threads through the antiquated search engine.

If you play in the BS threads--even in the music section--expect to get burned every now and then by both guests and members.

Shit happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: theleveller
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:07 AM

I can't say I've noticed that happening a lot since one particular Guest got slapped - maybe I'm not looking in the right places. It's nice to see guests like Eliza Carthy and Phil Beer dropping in - and they were emminently sensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:15 AM

I now introduce that great song by ABBA

"Mamma mia, here we go again"...

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:23 AM

"The purpose of the forum is an adjunct to the folk music collection known as the Digital Tradition. Ban guest posting, and you defeat the purpose of having a forum for guests to post queries about the Digital Tradition collection, or something they have not been able to find in it or the forum threads through the antiquated search engine."

That's been the bullshit excuse forever. Policy means 'Gee, I don't have to think'. Why not just ban the fuckers who do get nasty?

"I can't say I've noticed that happening a lot since one particular Guest got slapped - maybe I'm not looking in the right places"

Maybe you're not. Of course the Brits seem not to be able to talk about music without fighting, so perhaps they simply chose a chicken-shit way out and slapped the esaiest Guest. There were and are three other Brits who deserved the same treatment, but for political reasons, they didn't get slapped. I think your remark is uncalled for and cheap; closer to brown-nosing than common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST,Spitandsnarlandbuggeroff
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:29 AM

If a guest annoys you, ignore him. Simple. Anyway, it is easy to sign up and say the same thing as a guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST,GUEST,spitandslobber
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:37 AM

More bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:38 AM

See how easy that was?

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:49 AM

I would bet a fair amount that any forum that allows guests gets a substantial number of visits from folks who come out of honest interest, but who are just dipping their toes nervously into the on-line experience. There are also people who are just a little slow to officially join anything; they attend the church for a while, then they join. I would also bet that a number of respectable Mudcat members started by dropping in as guests.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:54 AM

I think Mudcat was around before the Digital Tradition was hosted here.

I know the DT is a lot older than Mudcat, but as far as I remember from history threads Max invited Dick & Susan to add the DT to his site.

sandra (Guest for a few posts before joining)

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 09:14 AM

Well, it seems to me that Joe and the Clones manage Guests ok. The new rule of requiring a consistent username seems to have mitigated the flame wars somewhat, although I wish that the unmentionable lady in Minneapolis would pay more attention to it. I could do without the obvious bigots, BNP, ultra-nationalist and otherwise - and they get squashed pretty fast - but I suppose that is the price one pays for an open Forum. Some of the threads degenerate pretty quickly into yet another "yes they did - no they didn't" discussion between the usual suspects, which is a waste of bandwidth, but that almost always involves two (the same two) members with the occasional Guest contribution. All in all, it isn't perfect, but it is folkie. And what is folk music after all, if it can't include different opinions and the occasional dissonance?

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 09:15 AM

OH yeah...and banning Guests is a lot like banning bodhrans.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 09:18 AM

I like GUESTs myself except, of course, when I don't... But that isn't that often... I think we have in place ways of dealing with abuse and would agree that sometimes that sytem tends to be abusive but, all in all, if the most abusive stuff gets deleted, I can live with that but deletions should be the last option and not the first... But most GUESTs are not abusive and just want to maintaion some level of privacy... I understand that...

Alot of members are also practicing musicans and its almost impossible to discuss music and events without one's identity being known so why not become a member???
B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Mr Red
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 09:26 AM

That old chestnut.

I have to say there are Festival organisers who persist in posting as guests which I can understand - they would have to field PMs from angry punters and the abused therefrom.

BUT

I do detect a certain flaming from them, and in one or two cases posing as people in their pay. My response to that would be

j'accuse.

But then as a folkie I have to be tolerant of "opinion". How would my opinions be tolerated, else?

But Guest postings are a minefield. It emboldens the arrogant. Even if it diminishes their chosen endeavours. There is such a thing as negative publicity.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Tweed
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 09:27 AM

I've had a blues forum since 2000 and used to allow anyone to post, but due to spammers screwing it up several times, I was forced to make a sign up/password format to keep them out. I've never understood how the folks who run this place manage to do that. I mean, sure there's some nasty guests who drop by here and ruffle feathers, but you never see viagra ads or brittany pics trashing the place. Whatever y'all do, you do good at it and I give you the Tweed Salute of Admiration!!

Anyhow, my point was to say that in making my Fieldhollars forum exclusive, I lost a whole lot of people, artists etc. who found it interesting enough to drop a line or story on it if they didn't have to go through the whole secret handshake thing. Still plenty of hardcore members hanging in there but it was good for all of us when there'd be surprise input from the odd unexpected source.

I say, and this carries no weight whatsomever obv corse, that if the Joe Offers and Clones can keep this place as tidy as it has been kept and don't mind doing it, then change nothing. I didn't want to change my forum's security system, but I just didn't have the time to police it 24-7.   

Tweed

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Stu
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 10:13 AM

"Of course the Brits seem not to be able to talk about music without fighting, so perhaps they simply chose a chicken-shit way out and slapped the esaiest Guest. There were and are three other Brits who deserved the same treatment, but for political reasons, they didn't get slapped."

Why do you say this?

Why single out 'Brits'?

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 10:27 AM

The reason we do not ban Guests, I think, is that we want to encourage folks to come in and feel welcome to converse without (as Twe3ed calls it) a secret handshake thing. It is a homey, friendly courteous attitude on the part of Max and Joe.

Now, sometimes folks come in who aren't used to nice places and friendly people and have a lot of bitterness and have to act it out by posting crapulous invective on one button or another.

Should we let the unbridled aberration of a few dictate our policy? Be ruled, again, by the lowest common denominator?

Why not --instead-- decide we want to have a certain standard of affection for friends we haven't yet met, and cleave to that, and handle what we have to handle on a case by case basis?

I think Guests (as a class) should be welcome. Individuals (registered or otherwise) who generate misery should be dealt with and (if nothing else works) ousted.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: kendall
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 10:54 AM

"Whatever it is, I'm against it."

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 10:55 AM

On the subject of spammers, the guitar forum I own and administer has something called a "post flood safety check" that makes it so that people can't post more than one post per minute (except the admin and moderators). We never have problems with the kind of spamming that can clog up a forum. We only get about one piece of spam every few months, and it's always from someone who is promoting either their own music or someone else's music. We only allow members to post in the guitar forum, but that's not because of spammers. If Tweedsblues had something like that, it might not be necessary to require membership for posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:04 AM

"Maybe you're not. Of course the Brits seem not to be able to talk about music without fighting, so perhaps they simply chose a chicken-shit way out and slapped the esaiest Guest."

Well, that's certainly the Guest's take on things. But does that go for all the websites who have banned her?

"There were and are three other Brits who deserved the same treatment, but for political reasons, they didn't get slapped."

If the reasons are "political" and "chicken shit", why not name and shame, Bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:16 AM

I think we should ban guests in the BS section only.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:34 AM

I'm with Kat on this one. If you want to sling BS you should be a member. And use one name. ALL of the time. No exceptions - and no characters either.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:40 AM

I find many similarities with this ongoing 'guest' debate with the illegal alien / undocummenteded immigrant argument one constantly hears on the U.S. News networks .... you know, all crime and terrorist activity is the result of these people who have snuck across the border.

biLL (who would prefer not to carry 'i.d. papers' with me all the time)

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:44 AM

The reason this is called a Forum

is because

some are Agin'em and some are Forum!

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:45 AM

If you do ban guests you will lose some people who are annonymous because they are civil servants, elected officials, celebrities, reporters, District Attorneys, Judges and others who must depend on annonimity.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The few tolls who seek refuge as Guests are a small price to pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:48 AM

Donuel .... good one .... you can't ban guests because ya gotta have someone to blame.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 11:55 AM

Near where I live last friday ICE and police went into a paint factory and hauled away hundreds of employees.
Some were legal immigrants, some were not. Some had legal US citiaens as a spouse and some did not.
PEOPLE,
They are taking people away, they are taking half of your wealth in property value and dollar value and fuel costs...


Why should this tiny forum act just like the goverment?

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:02 PM

This issue comes up over and over and over. The problem Mudcat has is not Guests, it's assholes. Some assholes are registered reg'lars, and some are chicken-shit anonymous whingers, and some are both.

But not all Guests are assholes, and not all assholes are Guests, so get the target correct before you fire away, Gridley.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:06 PM

I also think that banning guests ignores the real problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST,OTOH
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:12 PM

Amos has it right. Carol, what is "the real problem" in your opinion?

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST,In Your Humble Opinion
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:17 PM

What IS "the real problem" Carol?

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST,OTOH
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:19 PM

I meant to add the DT isn't separated from the forum when someone who has no inkling of the existence of either uses search engines to find a song/tune/info on same.

The forum is what comes up. Many, many people will not do the "secret handshake" thing to get information.

Members here tend to want to make the forum the thing--small picture paradigm re: Mudcat.

But the DT resource is the thing that brings outsiders here--the big picture paradigm re: Mudcat.

Those who wish to ban guests are looking to play popularity games in their own private clubhouse, be it in the music or BS section.

But private clubhouses can be created anywhere online, and anti-guest members could play their high school "ban so-and-so" games to their heart's content.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST,OTOH
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:22 PM

Humble Opinion, I wasn't being nasty, it was a genuine question. I am interested in Carol's opinions and not just on this subject.

I am wondering if she feels the moderation here is the real problem.

I would agree. Favorites get played here all the time, as Peace already pointed out.

Contrary to popular belief here, no one can be permanently locked out of this forum tech wise. There are too many back door tech ways to get around blocked IPs these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:26 PM

I think the real problem is selective enforcement of the rules. We are told that personal attacks are not allowed, but in practice some people are allowed to make personal attacks (both members as well as guests, especially if they are being made against people who have been designated as legitimate targets). We are also told that people are only allowed to post under one user name, and some people are outed if they post under more than one user name, and some appear to have their posting blocked. But in practice, some people are able to post repeatedly under multiple usernames without being outed, and without having their posts blocked.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:35 PM

kudos to you Carol,
however with a substantial number of personal blocks on my posts already why do any posts which are not illegal be blocked?

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:40 PM

Times are bad and getting worse. People are pissed and not in good humour. Kevetching about Guests are but a symptom of the times.

I plan to financial support this site no matter what the mood of the crowd may be.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST,In Your Humble Opinion
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:45 PM

I you feel so stongly about this issue (a none issue if ever I saw one), pony up some cash and help support Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:46 PM

Ummmm, unless I either missed somethin' or am thick skinned I really haven't seen too much in the way of abusive posters since the Martin Gibson days... Now he set the bar and no one that I've read has come close to his attacks...

Okay, Fantz, made a run at MG but even she didn't come anywhere close to to him...

And, yeah, what the Tweezer said... I think the cops are doing a purdy good job considering how much stuff goes on here... I also miss some of the folks who used to visit "FieldHollars" but at least we don't have green gorillas jumpin' out of the pudder chasing us around the house anymore... That was scariest night of my life...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:49 PM

Bobert/aka Martin of course you would feel that way ;>{

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 12:54 PM

I used to send money to the Mudcat (and I put stuff in the auction), but I stopped when I saw how the rules were being enforced. I don't see any reason to send money while the policies are being enforced selectively. Especially since I am a target of a lot of the selective enforcement.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:00 PM

We are still coming off a fascist binge of calling certain people unpatriotic. It is only natural for some things to still be out of whack. But throwing the medium out without contribution will not strengthen your assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:01 PM

whew ... with the price of petro these days ... I really can't afford to give charitable $bucks$ for mudact .... not much to spare after giving to the real life charities in my community.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:02 PM

If guests come in here, spit and snarl and then bugger off, why not just ban guests altogher.

That's not the only way things happen. Consider the following scenario:

1)    A debate starts but becomes polarised and controversial;

2)    A guest makes a perfectly reasonable point;

3)    A member, who should know better, spits and snarls;

4)    Other members jump in to condemn the guest as a troll;

5)    A general call goes out for guests to be banned.


It's not always the guest's fault.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:08 PM

Oops! Didn't mean to be an anonymous guest. Just forgot to log in.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST,Blathering and Slobbering
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:12 PM

no we don't and no it's not.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:17 PM

"...lose some people who are annonymous because they are civil servants, elected officials, celebrities, reporters, District Attorneys, Judges and others who must depend on annonimity." But one can call oneself anything one likes. Just join up. Why NOT join up? It costs nothing to be a member of Mudcat so why not just join?

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:22 PM

good point. Paranoia I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST,OTOH
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:22 PM

You didn't read all the posts, did you Miss Lemnon?

The answer is: because then people with a legitimate question about folk music won't use this site.

Is that your intention? To lock out people who try and come to Mudcat to use the Digital Tradition & forum support for it?

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: Big Mick
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:23 PM

The problem isn't GUESTS, per se. It is the people who use the anonymity to simply take shots at folks, stir up problems, and be downright mean. Then the passionate folks that inhabit folk forums (I count myself among these) take umbrage and start responding in kind. For a very long time we tried to be selective in how we deleted, just sticking to the troublemakers. The problem with that is that our mod's were acting on their own perceptions, and that wasn't always consistent. So we made the decision that we would lay out some very simple guidelines. One of those is that one must post with a consistent ID. We will still let the unattributed GUEST post stand when it is clear it is just a person cruising in to get some information, but we will ask them to adopt an ID in the future. We are not perfect on this yet, but we are getting better.

Personal attacks are simply not allowed. I can tell you from being here since very near the beginning that we are all susceptible to this. It would not be hard to find attack posts from me that I am not proud of. The fluid nature of what Max envisions here certainly allows that, but in the near past we have made the decision that we simply are not going to allow that. But members need to understand that there is a difference between a personal attack, and an attack on one's position. Administration of this isn't an exact science, but we are getting better.

Bottom line, friends, is that we are attempting to maintain the essential nature of Mudcat, and yet deal with the fact that it is not the little village it was all those years ago when many of us came here. Not an easy task, and those of us in charge of trying to keep it going appreciate that you all care about it too.

All the best,

Mick
another Forum Moderator

Subject: RE: BS: Why not just BAN Guests?
From: GUEST,OTOH
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:33 PM

The problem isn't anonymity, either.

As Amos said, the problem is bad behavior by jerks, and Mudcat moderators have, at times, been every bit as guilty of that as "Martin Gibson" (and I don't profess to know what Mudcat member's alter ego that was).

The Mudcat moderators, in their attempts to be consistent, have at times exacerbated problems in the forum when targeting individuals they all personally dislike, by provoking and antagonizing them, publicly shaming and humiliating them, etc.

The classic example of this was the way Shambles and Jon were treated. Carol is another person the moderators targeted and bullied.

I agree with Donuel. The pendulum will likely swing away from Joe Offer's Homeland Security Big Stick approach eventually. Maybe.