BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.

Subject: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 10:35 AM

Something that has just occurred to me.

We do not all use our actual names as our mudcat handles but we may know other people's real names.

When we respond to someone on a thread, should we always reply to them by their handle and respect that they may have a reason for their anonymity? Personally I do not mind if people refer to me as Steve or SPB (my initials) or even Co-operator (my profession/ideology), but it could lead to some confusion when other Steves who hold similar views to me are posting in the same thread.

Apologies if this has come up before in another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 10:42 AM

I am the grand and glorious Mrrzy, the only. It is my actual name.

But I think it polite to call people what they call themselves.

Nicknames are a separate issue.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: meself
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 10:46 AM

When people respond with real names in place of user-names, it reminds that I'm not and never was one of the cool kids. Then I have the urge to retreat to my bedroom with my guitar.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 11:07 AM

Donuel was briefly my legal name before it was changed upon adoption.
Internet security is something we should all practice. For example, I do not trust Twitter or Facebook but there are reasons to not trust mudcat either.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 11:12 AM

Users here chose what to call themselves here for a reason. Many women use non-gendered monikers to avoid online abuse. If we know a member's first name and are comfortable using it and know they won't mind, no problem. That said, we've had occasions recently when members have doxxed or outed other members they have a verbal dispute with, using full names or revealing way more than necessary, and those posts have been deleted. Sometimes a PM sent to say "don't do that again."

Internet trolls are a reality of the online world and if someone chooses not to use their real name or reveal personal details, then that should be respected. If over time elements of a personal nature are dropped in the course of conversations, it isn't helpful if one person (I have someone in mind here) hoovers up all of that information from around the site and drops it fully-formed into a discussion. It either makes that person rather trollish, or gives more ammo to someone who is trawling the web for info.

My final remark is for the editors who want to curate every post on any thread in which they participate or might be part of the subject. You also know who you are. "Personal attack" is a general term that doesn't usually apply in conversations where people have a reason to disagree. Behaving better on the site will generally reduce the number of times others will want to take a shot at you.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 11:28 AM

A footnote: disagreeing is a fine thing as long as it comes from a place of curiosity and respect.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 11:55 AM

SRS, you were, in part a reason why I asked the question as I was about to reply to you in another thread, and I and probably many others do know your first name, and in a private conversation would not hesitate to use it, though I may have let it slip a couple of times over the last few years. If so, I apologise for not checking with you first.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Helen
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 12:42 PM

I think there may be a complication if a Mudcatter is also on the Mudcat Facebook page using her/his real name.

I second Donuel's comment: "disagreeing is a fine thing as long as it comes from a place of curiosity and respect".

Disagreeing, or having an alternative viewpoint, or bringing unique life experiences into a conversation to broaden the discussion, without fear of negative, personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 12:50 PM

I can be a controversial type of chap and I've posted many thousands of times here and on other sites, without fail under my real name. On the other hand, I avoid all social media like the plague. I've never run into hot water because of my shunning of anonymity. I understand the arguments for wishing to be anonymous, especially with regard to women. However, my experience had always been that the right to anonymity has been abused all too often, even here. I noted a doxxing that you stamped on very quickly a couple of weeks ago. My gut feeling is that abusers forfeit their moral right to anonymity, regardless of the forum rules, but that isn't an argument for breaking those rules (I did sympathise with the person who did the doxxing, by the way, but as I was sort of involved tangentially...)

In the same spirit as Dick Gaughan's sadly-defunct forum, my view is that anonymity upfront on the forum is respectable enough, but I feel strongly that no-one should be able to post without logging in and without the forum admin knowing their real name and email. I understand the arguments for allowing casual posts about music by non-members. I've seen occasional messages to them from the admin inviting them to sign up/log in. Not a bad way forward?

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 12:55 PM

BTW, Mrrzy is your real name? Remind me to never use it as a Wordle starter word... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 03:29 PM

SPB, my name isn't a mystery, but on the other hand, as at least one other Mudcatter with a long-time moniker learned when he tried to go to his "real name," no one knew who he was when he did it. So he went back to the moniker and just spelled it in a way that was more pronounceable. (Nod to Rapaire/Rapparee). I realized a long time ago that this is the first name most associated with me, and it has a family history. (In ~ 2017-18 when I was being stalked and I changed my moniker for a while - a long story! - there was confusion on the Mudcat site as to who was talking to people.)

This is different than the moving-target kind of name changes that also happen here, where over time the same person has had a half-dozen or more names. Those speak to me of someone uneasy in their own domain. An adjustment is something different, like making it a little easier to type or to have it now reflect some personal change or decision.

We always appreciate it when regular guests use the same guest name with each visit, it avoids confusion.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 04:18 PM

I try to keep to Mudcat monikers but often fail when it comes to people I feel I know reasonably well. It does save some headscratching when following threads!

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 06:02 PM

The best I can do is always remember there is a real complex human being behind whatever expressions that are made. Creating an imagined virtual construct of an unmet stranger is not helpful. The benefit of this kind of doubt is a good thing. Still real clues do come through.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 06:29 PM

When I joined Mudcat over 20 years ago, it was suggested that one could, even should, use a pseudonym, so I chose one which has a particular relevance to me. However, there is at least one other “Tattie Bogle” in Inverness who gets his/her pictures posted on the BBC Weather forecasts as a weather watcher. And another - or maybe the same - Tattie Bogle who posts comments in the online version of The Scotsman newspaper - so this could all get a bit confusing!
There used to be a Scottish online forum called Footstompin, where again, people were encouraged to adopt a pseudonym, but then, from time to time, they’d have a pseudonym disclosure amnesty, and you might find out who people really were.
It came as a surprise to a few here to find out that I was female, having been addressed as Sir on more than one occasion. I really don’t mind people knowing my real identity as I’ve nothing to hide. Nor am I in the habit of posting malicious or hurtful diatribes against fellow members of this forum or others. My golden rule is to only say what I would be happy to say to someone face-to-face and not join the ranks of the keyboard warriors.
Trish Santer (Edinburgh)

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 08:38 PM

Gosh, I've seen you so much on the Session and never made the connection with Tattie Bogle! God, I'm slow...

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Feb 23 - 08:40 PM

Well, my name in Real Life isn't Joe Offer, Vladamir Putin, Rex Gotabod, Maggie (that's nice, for I'm male), Henry Ford, Chester A. Arthur, Boris Johnson, any of those. I don't see any need to say what it is -- those who know it know and if I want you to know I'll tell you. Amos Jessup knew it, and there are others both living and dead. MMario, for instance, for I once stole his knitting and caused him a few moments of panic. Bobert, for whom I sat in on duck call. I see no reason to post under my right name.

                         -- Pope Alexander VI

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 02:10 AM

”Well, my name in Real Life isn't Joe Offer, Vladamir Putin, Rex Gotabod, Maggie (that's nice, for I'm male), Henry Ford, Chester A. Arthur, Boris Johnson, any of those. I don't see any need to say what it is -- those who know it know and if I want you to know I'll tell you.”

Amen to that.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Senoufou
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 03:01 AM

I chose my username from my husband's African tribe the Senufo. But because 'fou' means crazy in French, I adapted my name to Senoufou. The sound 'ou' seems to pop up a lot in my husband's life. He comes originally from Nagfamadougou (!) and his late father was called 'Noufou'. His brother is Abou, and his best friend Mamadou.
I agree that people online should have their 'real' identity protected, as there seem to be so many predators online. Actually, in real life, I have quite a few nicknames as well as my real name!

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: fat B****rd
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 04:48 AM

Eliza , you'll always be one of us to me
Charlie Stenger AKA fB x

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 05:38 AM

”Eliza , you'll always be one of us to me”

And to me too - Amen to that, Charlie! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 05:45 AM

I agree that people online should have their 'real' identity protected, as there seem to be so many predators online.

Beware of a false sense of security. Sometimes, enough snippets of information are posted here and there to build up a picture of the person posting. It wouldn't take Hercule Poirot to track them down.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 07:15 AM

Good point Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Jack Campin
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 07:45 AM

I've been using my real name on international computer forums since 1983. It helps. On the pre-Internet ones (mailing lists, Usenet) I also put my home address and phone number in my signature. You can still find my home address (and a defunct phone number) via my website - anybody running a small home business needs to be publicly locatable.

One situation where I will have no hesitation at all about "outing" someone's real identity is on forums like this where pseudonym changes are retroactive. The result is that references to that pseudonym in ongong discussions become unintelligible. It's an aggressive, manipulative way to distort the discussion by trying to make fools of the people you're discussing with. Dick Miles did it many times here and on TheSession. There is no way to keep track of who said what unless you counter that by using a permanent name they can't lie about. (Twitter got this right - the name you choose to register under is the one you're stuck with forever).

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 09:16 AM

while the remark 'you are one of us' is innocent enough, it also sounds tribal with overtones of similar socioeconomic, nationality, political, skin color and shared likes/hates. It does not seem cosmopolitan.

Code words are big in America. For example 'he's one of themism' is everywhere. Currently "them' is anyone who is woke or against Trump.
FOX NEWS reports who is woke like reports of; Cambridge Dictionary goes woke, Google goes woke, AI programs goes woke, the Army goes woke, My Little Pony goes woke, Captain America goes woke, Minnie Mouse goes woke, M&Ms go woke, Wordle is going woke, Video Games go woke, Disney goes woke, Woke agendas, Woke prosecutors, Woke Pentagon, woke religion, woke apocalypse, and even the muppets are going woke (they already did 25 years ago.) All of these are a Republican theme to scare people of the other who is not in our tribe. I honestly don't see the advantage of staying asleep. The thing is, woke is never defined on Fox News. Perhaps it has something to do with history which is getting more censored and controlled everyday.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 09:37 AM

Jews, Blacks and Catholics are one of us.
I would hope Jack Campin is one of us, unless he wouldn't have it.
"Are there any non-humans here?"
quote: Monty Python - Life of Brian

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 11:36 AM

Steve Shaw, indeed not!

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 12:14 PM

steve shaw dave the gnome,and anyone else including stilly river sage please note adress me, as the sandman, unless i sign the post otherwise, that is why i have a moniker, moderators should know better

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 12:28 PM

jack campin.
your post is a classic bit of trolling and flaming, whatever happened on the session is not relevant here., and to bring in an accusation which is not what this thread is about. this thread is about"Something that has just occurred to me.

We do not all use our actual names as our mudcat handles but we may know other people's real names. quote

When we respond to someone on a thread, should we always reply to them by their handle and respect that they may have a reason for their anonymity? Personally I do not mind if people refer to me as Steve or SPB (my initials) or even Co-operator (my profession/ideology), but it could lead to some confusion when other Steves who hold similar views to me are posting in the same thread."
   it is not about what happened on another forum, neither is it about signing in as a guest it is about using a members handle, example stilly river sage or the personal name of stilly river sage

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 12:34 PM

Stilly river sage is not the only one who has been stalked on this forum.
i have been consistently stalked by one person, who according to a moderator has a particular computer which is used for attacking me, which is why i became a guest for a while

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 12:56 PM

JackCampin mudcat rulesBe aware that our forum is Free.

Anonymity and Guest Posting are permitted.

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

While anonymous Guest postings are permitted at Mudcat, you will garner much more good will by using a consistent "handle".

Be aware of what personal information you decide to share within the forum. It is public, you are making statements in public here. Unlike Facebook, we don't even pretend to offer privacy.

We care about your safety but we are not in the business of protecting you. Your kind and civil behavior is your best protection.

For the time being, the membership transaction is human, manual, personal...

One of the great things about udcat over the years has been our ability to meet other mudcatters around the world in person and visit their homes and such. For this to be safe for everyone, we gotta kinda put you through the wringer a bit. So...

To join this here site, you gotta talk to us. A very nice email should be sufficient. Contact Joe Offer, [e-mail]

We're real and not hard to find. We'd like to feel the same about you.

So we are not offered protection from stalkers.
MEMBER
JackCampin is allowed to flame and troll and make accusations concerning another forum over a decade ago which has no relevance to the original post , what the hell is going on here, are there no rules about trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 12:56 PM

I rest my case.

But the poster above has had 3 posts from one guest in the last six months that he objected to, I (and several other active Mudcatters) had dozens, plus fake accounts set up in our names at other online venues. Big difference. And I am ignoring his (non unexpected) request to delete the above remarks about this for the reason I made the remark in the first place. Making yourself a moving target by frequently changing your name (and those guest names - oy! way too many!) offers up such a negative result that it makes any conversations that run over an extended period of time downright confusing. Might as well just go away, or use your own name and behave nicely so people stop saying nasty things.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 12:58 PM

We all know who you are Dick and even when you post as a guest with inconsistent monikers the posts are still obviously yours. Becoming a guest to avoid a stalker is nonsensical.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 01:43 PM

bullshit, I have a right to anonymity as we are not offered protection. Jack Campin is allowed to post a flaming and trolling post about another forum over a decade ago, that is totally irrelevant, and bears no relationship to the original post the post is here"Something that has just occurred to me.

We do not all use our actual names as our mudcat handles but we may know other people's real names. quote

When we respond to someone on a thread, should we always reply to them by their handle and respect that they may have a reason for their anonymity? Personally I do not mind if people refer to me as Steve or SPB (my initials) or even Co-operator (my profession/ideology), but it could lead to some confusion when other Steves who hold similar views to me are posting in the same thread."

everything was quiet I have been using my moniker and then Campin posts a trolling thread, talk about stirring the shit , his post is an excuse to have a go at me mentioning another forum from over a decade ago,
the post of cooperator[ i know him very well but out of respect do not use his name].

"Something that has just occurred to me.

We do not all use our actual names as our mudcat handles but we may know other people's real names. quote

When we respond to someone on a thread, should we always reply to them by their handle and respect that they may have a reason for their anonymity? Personally I do not mind if people refer to me as Steve or SPB (my initials) or even Co-operator (my profession/ideology), but it could lead to some confusion when other Steves who hold similar views to me are posting in the same thread."
there is no other Sandman on this forum, refer to me as Sandman.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 02:04 PM

But the poster above has had 3 posts from one guest in the last six months that he objected to, I (and several other active Mudcatters) had dozens, plus fake accounts set up in our names at other online venues quote stilly river sage,
this is not some sort of competition, if i have been stalked it is not about you being stalked more times, we are all all entitled under those circumstances to be adressed by our moniker, particularly as you state in your rulesyou cannot offer protection
I was a target before i chose to post as a guest, that was why i did so, that is why i want to be adressed by my moniker as other people on this forum and on this thread appear to want to be.
your problem, is that you do not enforce rules fairly, you allow on this thread, one person to make a personal attack and use my name not my moniker about something he alleges happened over ten years ago,

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Helen
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 02:41 PM

The Sandman, I apologise if I have used your real name in replying to any of your posts. I suspect I may have done so, once or twice in the last few years, but only if someone else had addressed you by your real name in that thread.

I try to address people by the name used on their posts, but I know I have also addressed you Stilly River Sage with your real name a few times but again, only if someone else had addressed you by your real name in that thread. I apologise for that, too.

I agree with The Sandman that it is inappropriate to throw an accusation in to this discussion which was in a different forum.

The quote from the Mudcat FAQ is relevant. "You are free to be anything you want EXCEPT unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty."

I recall that "back in the day" discussions on Mudcat used to be kind, polite, and even when people disagreed with the statements of others there was an acceptance that we are all different with different viewpoints and that is what made it interesting and fun. People didn't try to hijack or block discussions by using personal attacks.

There was gentle humour too, poking fun at people without being nasty. Remember Catspaw? Sometimes ROTFL comments from him.

Ah, the good old days! If only that atmosphere could be recreated.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 02:49 PM

You mean like Dick never uses people real names, Helen?

Subject: RE: Reasons to go to a folk club
From: The Sandman - PM
Date: 27 May 17 - 06:18 AM

judging by the tone of the poster, Dave the Gnome,aka Dave Polshaw.

Let he who is without sin...

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Helen
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 03:02 PM

Let s/he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I don't know the context of that discussion. I never read it then and I'm not about to read it now. I do know that there has been past history between various Mudcatters over the years and it can come down to he said, she said in the crossfire too.

We are all guilty of misdemeanors. I've been at Mudcat for about 27 years. I know I have made mistakes in that time, but I try to live by the stated Mudcat creed and I usually apologise if I have overstepped the mark.

I do tend to defend people under attack, however, and I have a strong belief in working against bullying. I'm a strong unionist, with a long career history as a union delegate, and purely coincidentally I currently happen to be wearing my "Union Pride, Together We Stand" t-shirt. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 03:12 PM

Context is irrelevant in this case. I am talking about blatant hypocrisy. It has happened before and since too. Not a mistake or a misdemeanor but delibetate aggression. You seem very selective in your campaign against bullying, Helen and it is noticeable.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: MudGuard
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 03:24 PM

Apart from revealing more than the nickname owner wants to reveal,
it might also be confusing to other people,
if a nickname has posted something,
and the answer addresses some realname
- not everybody knows of the connection ...

Andreas a/k/a MudGuard

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 03:26 PM

Indeed Mudguard. Nice to see you BTW. Still cycling?

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 03:34 PM

"I agree with The Sandman that it is inappropriate to throw an accusation in to this discussion which was in a different forum."

Well yes, but, unfortunately, Dick has plenty of history when it comes to taking his fights from one forum over to another. Ah, the good old days, eh, Dick, what with you trying to carry your fights with Michael G over from forum to forum... Remember?

Still, I do agree, Helen.

As for calling Dick Dick, I'm afraid that that particular genie has been out of the lamp for a very long time.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 07:19 PM

Yes, I have referred to you on occasions in the past by your name.
I apologise.
Dave the gnome and Steve Shaw , i am asking to be refered to by my moniker
Whatever happened over a decade ago on another forum is not relevant to this discussion.
Jack Campin, was picking a fight, and trolling and flaming by bringing up something that allegedly happened on a different forum,over ten years ago, particularly as i had not contributed to this discussion at that point.
what i do remember is that several people were expelled from that forum at that time, and that one of them had said that he wished that someone would chop my fingers off, a terrible thing to say to a musician, and example of the bullying that was allowed to happen there.
Steve Shaw , you decided to continue upping the ante against me by mentioning that forum again, another example of trolling. I do not regard anything to do with michael g, as good old days.
I think he   bullied people and certainly wishing that my fingers were chopped of, is not my idea of good old days
Steve Shaw do i make myself clear.
Sometime ago, joe offer asked me to delete a post in which i mentioned in passing that someone on this forum, i knew had been a head master,i had not realised it was problematic,but out of respect for that person i deleted that post.
so please show me the same respect when i say i wish to be adressed by my moniker
I am now going to log out and just use the music forum until i feel like returning, that is my prerogative, do you understand that?

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 07:47 PM

I won't try to stop you, Mr Revisionist. Get well eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 08:29 PM

To quote The Lord High Executioner - I've got a little list. (Drives this English major nuts, because it would be better written as "I have a little list" but whatever)

I rarely remember real names versus monikers, but as a matter of courtesy I try to keep track, so when I notice someone signing their name in a post where their moniker is logged in I make a note. That means I can use their name if I send a PM, if I remember to consult my list.

It was low-hanging fruit when I made reference to someone I knew would rise to the bait, but it did serve to illustrate the point. We don't operate in a vacuum, and there are overlapping fora to consider. We do remove a lot of stuff that if people don't see it they don't know it was here. There have been many snide posts that didn't contribute to a thread that Sandman has participated in that have been removed before he saw them. The trouble is, he invites that kind of remark. It is my contention that all of the name changes tend to make him a target, on top of the argumentative nature. If Dick wasn't a damned fine musician we wouldn't tolerate it.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Helen
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 09:44 PM

It's also a case of low hanging fruit when Steve Shaw can't control his impulses and then jumps in.

This is not a pub. The comments made here are in writing, they are part of the ongoing record of this online forum. It's not like when a bunch of blokes think it is great fun to get loud and have a heated discussion and/or disagreement at a pub and then the hot air just dissipates into the atmosphere. It is here on record.

And apart from that, you blokes might enjoy a stoush or pseudo-stoush, but it is not pleasant for the rest of us, especially when we also become a target which seems to happen much too often these days.

It might be a useful training and awareness tool for some people to go back to Mudcat discussions from maybe 10 years ago and see what discussions used to be like. There was respect and a sense of community almost all of the time. It was very rare for spiteful personal attacks to occur.

IMHO

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 10:27 PM

Ten years ago we were in the throes of defending ourselves from the old Mudcat troll. Not a pretty time for many people. Maybe go back 20 years to take that look. Just ignore Shambles and jOhn from Hull (or however he typed his name.)

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Helen
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 10:33 PM

Thanks. I forgot about that and wouldn't have remembered when it was exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 10:53 PM

It might be a useful training and awareness tool for some people to go back to Mudcat discussions from maybe 10 years ago and see what discussions used to be like. There was respect and a sense of community almost all of the time. It was very rare for spiteful personal attacks to occur.

I am afraid you are looking at Mudcat history through rose tinted spectacles, Helen.

I am not going to name names or even the thread title, for fear of opening up old wounds, but I have just looked at a thread from January 2013 which was discussing religion and sexual abuse. It wad notable that a number of contributors on that thread are no longer able to post in the the BS section because of their subsequent unacceptable behaviour. One of these joined the argument a couple of days in with the comment:
    Sorry to interrupt yet another 'hatefest'.

The thread was closed after less than two weeks.

I found this thread without a great deal of searching and feel confident that I could easily find similar examples from around the same time if I wanted to.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 28 Feb 23 - 11:12 PM

Maybe go back 20 years to take that look

From July 2003, in a thread discussing the song 'Dixie':
       "...I was just waiting for the usual venom from the usual suspects about the south.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: (Another) matter of etiquette.
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Mar 23 - 12:53 AM

Stilly river sage maintains that she and others suffered greater stalking problems. than myself,volume perhaps, 3 years ago I suffered a TIA I can do without Jack Campin attacks
it is not the fault of the victim if they are stalked, People who stalk have behaviour problems.
Likewise, Bullies have behaviour problems
People that bring up occurrences from another forum from 15 years ago,yes .15 years ago, have an agenda, that agenda is to cause trouble to flame and troll to bully and to intimidate another member.
This has been a classic example of an attempt by Jack Campin to flame a discussion. the original post and subject was relatively harmless
QUOTE


We do not all use our actual names as our mudcat handles but we may know other people's real names.


When we respond to someone on a thread, should we always reply to them by their handle and respect that they may have a reason for their anonymity? Personally I do not mind if people refer to me as Steve or SPB (my initials) or even Co-operator (my profession/ideology), but it could lead to some confusion when other Steves who hold similar views to me are posting in the same thread.

SO THE SUBJECT WAS MUDCAT HANDLES OR REAL NAMES, it was not about anything else.

So spiteful attacks occurred ten years ago, that is not the fault of the person being attacked., clearly there was no protection ten years ago and according to mudcat rules from today still no protection.
All the more reason for people to be adressed by their moniker