BS: GUEST?

Subject: BS: GUEST?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 09:31 PM

I just had a buddy (?) of mine go apeshit on me because I took an anon guest (the very same person) to task for posting as "Guest" with no handle. I have been here for a while. I know "Guests" are supposed to post with a consistent handle for the reasons clearly defined by the mods.

Case in point... I took this "Guest" to task in a way on this issue and was assailed in other than this forum for asking herein that guests post with A FUCKIN NAME so I would know who to address. The rules have been clear to me for years. NO "guest posting" allowed without a consistent name.

So? What's the scoop? I shit on an anon guest for disregarding the rules that I understood to have been in place for years herein and they get pissed off and rant on me? Why bother? Nodody knows who they are, right? Why would they be pissed off?

I can tell you two reasons why I am pissed off. But my rant is done except to ask, in a manner, anon guests who do not use a consistent handle are not supposed to post, right, mods??? Or not?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 09:40 PM

That's always been my understanding.

It's pretty hard to carry on a reasonable discussion when one Guest is posting with no kind of handle, then if you have the temerity to disagree with them, five more guests come on and take you to task for being an idiot.

And you know damned well all these guests are ONE PERSON.

I would like to see a really hardnosed policy controlling this kind of nonsense!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 09:43 PM

People aren't required to use a name.

If they do, it should be consistent--"sock puppets" (and I think there's a newer term) are discouraged.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 10:04 PM

Dear gnu and Don

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 10:09 PM

Troll!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 10:20 PM

While it may take more explanation than anonymouses are able to absorb, my favorite notion is that I CAN BLAME ANYTHING POSTED BY ANY ANONYMOUS GUEST on the last one I see.

If they can't play the game they're stuck with the blame.

(But I usually just ignore them.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 10:21 PM

Put in a name or go away!

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 10:39 PM

If you don't like the rules here (that allow anonymous posting) SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO START YOUR OWN WEBSITE, WITH YOUR OWN RULES.

If the only problem we have with anonymous posting is that you don't like it, the problem is NOT anonymity. The problem is YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 10:49 PM

Whoa.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Jan 14 - 11:54 PM

Max changed the rules a couple of years ago - see here (click). I can't say I agree, and I think I have a right to disagree with that policy or to complain about contentious threads, without being told that if I don't like it, I should leave. I have a right to an opinion. Max, as Mudcat's owner, has a right to make policy.

I think that anonymous posting can create unease and animosity, even when there is no reason for unease and animosity. If we know who we're talking with, we can make allowances and work things out. If we're dealing with GUEST (blank), who is is that we're supposed to make peace with, and why should we trust this person? Trust is important in keeping the peace, and how can we trust anonymous people?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST,Might be Musket
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 02:25 AM

You know, people logged in and using a nick name can say the most awful things and shield themselves with anonymity all the same.

Also, many find that when their cookie crumbles, it pops up as guest possibly without their knowledge. I can't have cookies and work access on my phone or iPad so although I have an account, I usually post as a guest.

What's the issue ?   I have seen more outrageous hate posted by logged in members than I have ever seen by "guest"

Anyway, when some people insist upon perching on pedestals, it's only right that you throw wet sponges at them in order to knock them off.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: MartinRyan
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 03:35 AM

For me, the problem with anonymous guests is not the bullshit opinion (easily spotted and ignored) but the sensible/factual/confusingly plausible (hard to evaluate or put in context). It trivialises what has in the past been a useful and respected forum. A pity.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: My guru always said
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 03:39 AM

I don't usually get involved with discussions like these, but I honestly thought that what the OP was saying in his first post was correct in that Guests should use a consistent Guest handle in threads. I'm sure this was discussed at length a couple of years ago, but I see now from the clicky in Joe's post that Max is OK with guest posting. That info had passed me by, and perhaps gnu hadn't seen it either?

I do agree with JiK though, I try to ignore them.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Will Fly
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 04:31 AM

I agree with Joe on all points.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 05:06 AM

Well! It would appear that what has been stated over and over again by some mods is not what other mods understand. Also, when Max said "Anonymity and Guest Posting are permitted.", he didn't say anything about whether or not a consistent handle was required.

In any case, I have been contacted personally by more than one person and told off. One of them said we would never speak again. I wish I had known/assumed/guessed that I was wrong in MY interpretation of what has been stated clearly many times by mods in this forum.

Maybe if we were all "GUEST", we would all understand the "rules".

My apologies. Carry on. Smoke em if ya got em.

On a personal note, GUEST... I was devastated when I found out it was you and that you were deeply offended. I hope we can someday shake hands in spite of my misunderstanding because you are one of my guest friends.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Megan L
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 05:16 AM

Gnu why the hell should you apologise for following what many of us thought was the policy on anon guest posting. If some moderators want to go around screaming at people perhaps they should remember a word from the same root moderation. When I was a child my mother told me I cannot be responsible for anyone else's behaviour but I don't need to come down to their level.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: maeve
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 06:11 AM

The difficulty for me arises when the rules are changed without it being made clear that they HAVE changed. I stumbled across the change in Guest name requirements in some thread or another- Mudcat's moderators having made such a fuss about it in years past it would seem a public notice on the home page might have been helpful.

I post with a pseudonym and take responsibility for my postings. Anyone who needs to know my name does.

Can we now calm down and speak kindly please?

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 06:37 AM

I always ignore anonymous GUESTS, except when it's laptopgnu (somehow I always know it's him!).

And I always use my name, well, except when I do a gnu and don't spot that my cookie has gone awol. And it's my real name.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 06:57 AM

Having been smacked hard by mods, named regulars and anonymice alike, I abstain from offering an opinion on this. Suffice to say, I find the forum as a whole less welcoming and less safe than when I first joined.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 07:14 AM

A fundamental rule of human communication is: before starting to rant or abuse, make sure you understand what happened. Then criticize if necessary. Ranting is rarely useful, abuse never.

Choosing a nickname like "James Bond" facilitates communication without compromising anonymity. We can therefore assume that most who leave the field blank simply forgot (- happened to me a couple of times). Preventing it by technology would only have advantages, so I assume that Max finds himself unable to do it or finds it too much of an effort. (Actually I would welcome the possibility to protect my nickname with a password, rather than a cookie.)

Like the other posters above, I think that this problem is not the gravest one Mudcat faces.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 07:19 AM

The board is designed to accept guest posts. As far as anybody coming here for the first time is concerned that is how it is meant to work!

If there is a "rule" against it then its a trivial piece of coding to make the field mandatory.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 09:25 AM

Do you know the worst thing of all?.... Members who log in as "Guests" usually with several different handles and abuse other members.
Happens to me all the time, and it is rank cowardice.
Most of us who have been here for some time can recognise the writing style of other members fairly easily, but it becomes impossible to hold a serious discussion under these circumstances.

I am fairly certain that there is a serious attempt going on, to have this section of the forum shut down, by a group of UK ers, who take exception to "people of faith", all who question the universal "rights" agenda, or the more destructive facets of "liberalism"
This small group is supported by a few US ers who seem to be completely taken in by the phoney war between "Pubs" and Dems" and who imagine themselves to be "left wing".

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 09:48 AM

Then there are those who are obsessed with labels.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Jeri
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 10:27 AM

There are some who look for any excuse to look down on and/or fight with people, whether it's because of religion, politics, or identity.

Ake, I don't think the BS section will be closed down, because it's easy enough to not read it. It's not very easy to get into a discussion with single-minded, oblivious morons though, so it already IS virtually closed to people who want something less obsessive.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 10:36 AM

I was just out shovelling snow and remembered what a GUEST told me some months ago.

I feel like shit.

Sorry.

Gary

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 10:44 AM

Jeezus.....when things get this nasty over at Duffy's Bar, I do myself a favor and stay home for the night. I mean, hey, I like a good fight as much as anyone, but there are limits, see? Keep it to fists, teeth, and bustin' chairs over people's heads, and I'm okay with it. I'll even put up with brass knuckles, specially after I've had a few drinks. But when they start bringin' in live ammo, knives, and flamethrowers....well...that's takin' things a bit far. If I was gettin' paid for the aggravation...that would be okay...but on my free time? Not my idea of fun. No sir. I'm thinkin' that might be why a buncha people here been spendin' so much time on Facebook lately instead.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 11:03 AM

Hi Chongo!! great to see you back!! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 11:19 AM

What Joe said.
What MartinRyan said.
What Maeve said.
What VT said. (Love the "anonymice")

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST,maybe i am a guest (aka ed t)
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 12:20 PM

If you invite a "guest" into "your house", you likely don't expect them to crap on your floor or on you or other guests. If they do, it is unlikely that they would be welcome to enter as "a guest" again.

Not sure if that relates to anything in this thread - I just felt like posting something :)

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 12:31 PM

Yep.. as Joe & Martin Ryan...etc. said.

I KNOW Max finally agreed to 'allow' anonymous GUEST posting after several years of trying to prohibit/control it. It really couldn't BE controlled easily. That doesn't make making confusing posts polite or a good idea. One is still anonymous, even if they are 'Rumplestiltskin'.

Not being a coder/programmer, I have no idea how 'trivial' it would be to require a name... and even if it was done, someone could easily TYPE GUEST, and mock the system.

Musket has plenty to say, but almost always remembers... and I always know what 'personality' I'm talking to.

No easy answer... but it will always be an issue, even if no one discusses it.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Elmore
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 01:21 PM

I agree with Gnu. Jesus, I hope this doesn't last as long as the Christian Persecution thread.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 01:22 PM

This rule might work....

"Anonymity and Guest Posting are permitted."

if this one was enforced

"You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative, snooty,"

But who would enforce it? The person who said this?

"SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO START YOUR OWN WEBSITE, WITH YOUR OWN RULES.

If the only problem we have with anonymous posting is that you don't like it, the problem is NOT anonymity. The problem is YOU. "

But Jeri has good cause to be frustrated. The rules and enforcement here have always seemed arbitrary an inconsistent.

Joe's post is right on the money is right except for one thing.

" I think I have a right to disagree with that policy or to complain about contentious threads"

Maybe Joe has this right, but it has been made clear many many times that an ordinary member of this forum has no rights. We are all subject to Max's desires for this forum. It is pretty clear to me that the forum rules and the way they are enforced encourage the rancor that people here are railing against. It also become clear to me that complaining about such things only makes things worse.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 01:43 PM

I can't see why anyone would object to being a guest with a 'handle'. It still doesn't identify one in any way. I could actually be the Norfolk Strangler, but prefer 'Eliza' because I quite like the name and it's short to write. If people want to be rude and nasty, they will, whether they're anonymous or have a constant name. (By the way, I'm not actually the Norfolk Strangler...)

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 01:51 PM

It is a continuing source of wonder the inconsequential minutae that people can get exercised about and spend inordinate amounts of time on.

Get a life, gang.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 01:58 PM

I'm less pissed off by anonymous guests than I am by moderators who enter threads and post in a rude, aggressive manner. Compulsory training in 'Leadership By Example', led by Joe (who is a shining example of Leading By Example) should be a condition of elevation to Moderatorship.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 01:58 PM

Get a life yourself!! The very idea!!

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 02:01 PM

As for what Jeri said, I am pretty sure I know at least one of the reasons and, no, only I (and Jeri?) and the GUEST I offended in the OP without taking into account this GUEST know. I have lost a friend that I like, respect and admire. I fucked up on the respect part because I didn't think about GUEST's needs. A big mouth deserves a slap at least once in a while. Maybe Jeri could send me a bunch in advance to take on a regular basis so I don't screw up as often.

Once again, I am truly sorry for my careless post and I wish all the way to hell and back I had never started this thread. If any mods want to crash and burn it, I have matches.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 02:06 PM

There is a differece between posting under the same name, yours or otherwise, and posting under guest alone. I suspect the mods always know who you are, if you are registered (or, through your IP. At a minimum, posting under guest alone does a disservive to other posters in the discussion. IMO, it does nothing to promote good, reasoned, and respectful discussion - and can contribute to discourse, especially where enforcement is minimal. It is complex for the mudcat "posting community" establish "community values" for respectful posting under such a situation (imo). I suspect it could be just another reason for declining participation.

So, one can't look into the rule makers head
for understanding, personally, I can't see the reason nor logic behind the change in the rules. Possibly it is because of some type of "free range", libertarian philosophy? Or, it could be merely to reduce the pressure of intervention-enforcement? Possibly the person (s) in decision making roles could share the reasoning? But, that would be their call.

"When you rely on a gentleman's agreement, the liklihood is that someone will not be a gentleman" Anon quote (possibly, also an anon guest).

"Every time you rely on a gentleman's agreement, someone will not be a gentleman". Anon

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 03:06 PM

Look. The fact is that I was pissed off at *a* GUEST and I went bananas on ALL GUESTs and I should not have.

Everything has been said here and in many other threads, amny times.

I request that this thread be closed. My apologies to the mods for being an unthinking eejit yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 04:03 PM

I am puzzled why you seek to limit other related perspectives, once your personal issues are dealt with to your satisfaction, gnu? Once a thread is opened, imo, it is no longer the exclusivevproperty of the op poster, it seems somewhat odd that you seem to feel it is up to you to deem it no longer of interest to others? Why not let it die a normal death, as others, when posting interest ends.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 05:25 PM

Ed... fill yer boots. That was MY opinion, with an explanation. Not MY call. Matter of fact, since you want it open, I hope it stays open. But, I still have the right to my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: GUEST?
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 14 - 05:32 PM

Eliza... The Hull Strangler? *grin*

As far as I know, you have always used the same handle and always remember... same with Ed T.

One reason for allowing anon. posting is that occasionally someone needs to ask a question about something private or embarrassing. (and of course, a chimp can't be expected to do anything that is NOT embarrassing)

It's just sad that some abuse the situation... for whatever reason. Jeri IS right that they can be ignored.. or at least not answered. (I do it by sitting on my hands.... I type with my nose)