BS: GUESTS

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: mousethief
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 01:21 AM

That's a good thing to keep in mind, Guest Fed Up.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST,Fed up
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 01:13 AM

And don't forget Deep Throat, who brought down a corrupt US presidency.

For every "evil" masked identity people cite, there are plenty of very positive examples to counter the argument with--disagreeing to disagree is always a better route than flaming those who disagree with your view.

All

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 12:08 AM

Understood, Rich.... and I think in fact there are SOME similarities. Creating hidden and destructive effects without responsibility is ever the ambition of the terrified.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Rich(bodhránai gan ciall)
Date: 15 Jul 01 - 12:03 AM

OK, as soon as I submitted that, I regretted it. Please don't take that as an endorsement af the KKK. Furthermore, it's in poor taste on my part to compare some annoying punk here with the terror people have been subjected to due to the ignorance of others.

I'm sorry.

Rich

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Rich(bodhránai gan ciall)
Date: 14 Jul 01 - 11:51 PM

I've posted my feelings on this the last time this came around (or the time before or the time before that...)

Multiple Personality

For those who use their anonymity here in order to attack without fear of rebuke, there is an organization in the 3D world that might interest you. They're predominately found in the southern US but can be found throughout the States. They, too, value their anonymity while attacking others, and in fact they value it so highly that they wear white hoods and sheets to preserve it.

Rich

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jul 01 - 02:45 PM

I'd have to say I concur with Amos and Spaw.

To put it in the politest of terms...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 01 - 01:48 PM

*giggling too hard to type anything more*

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Angie
Date: 14 Jul 01 - 03:42 AM

Yes but Amos, how do you really feel?

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 Jul 01 - 10:00 PM

Well put Amos..........You may speak for me anytime! Unless of course you'd prefer to jerk each other off!

LMAO!!! Former member now in the "Land of the Paranoidial Doomed"......if you run into "All" be sure to say "Hi" from all of us!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jul 01 - 08:39 PM

ts unrestricted breeding rights that cause this sort of thing, y'know

Dear former member:

Sounds like you made a wise call, sorry though I am to hear it. "Breeding rights" is a fantasy concocted by those not quite in touch with the real dynamics of existence. I expect you might have a business plan for counting people's breaths and taxing them on their CO2 emissions in your file system somewhere. Draw up some interesting plans for verifying the correct philosophy as a pre-requisite to reproduction, why doncha!! Oh, and let's see a matrix of permitted vocabularies to be allocated to defined classes of people based, say, on their DNA profile or IQ test!! And as for those who eat poorly, why, we have ways of making you optimise.

There is a name for this kind of subhuman fucking horse-patooty. It is called fascism. It is authoritarian, anti-social, viperous and venomous vapouring, an overflow from the sewage-burdened mind of the Meathead Elite Clique. I spit.

Warmest regards,

Amos

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Angie
Date: 12 Jul 01 - 07:34 PM

Spot on Dave

You're right Sean, it's "nice to be nice"

On the subject of 'so and so has a ...', I never saw the origin of this argument but I get the gist. With a title like that I'm surprised and quite disappointed that anyone at all even bothered to visit it. Even though *ashamedly*, I did too!

Mal

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST,former member, seldom here
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 09:36 AM

its all crap anyway
you should ban GUEST posting completely
thereby ending the debate and allowing you to jerk each other off without interference

its unrestricted breeding rights that cause this sort of thing, y'know

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: SDShad
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 09:28 AM

Alex: yes, icebergs.

But sexy icebergs.

Hey, check out the tip on that one....

Shad

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: UB Ed
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 09:15 AM

Well, its not a matter of moderated versus unmoderated forums. And civility should be observed whether you are identified or not. IMHO, its a matter of whether you were brought up well. I'm certain Miss Manners would advise that it is never polite to mention the size of someones posterior as casual conversation.

Guests are fine and members are fine. What is not fine is mean-spirited posts from either. Sure you can lose your temper; generally after such an episode an apology is involved. But if you have an interest in civility, you follow the rules (ie, didn't your folks teach you any manners? Oh, I thought they were saying bananers and didn't want any).

If a guest or member is rude, please respond politely (or not at all). We don't need any more rules.

"You take the high road
And I'll take the high road
And we'll get to Mudcat together"

Ed

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 08:57 AM

Dear "ALL".

I am aware that there are moderated forums out there. I never suggested that the Mudcat be moderated, and am left puzzled as to why you would have drawn that from what I posted, considering that it contained:

"I feel that censorship is not the way to go, but I am also feeling trepidatious at the fact that nasty folk can remain so anonymous".

Moreso, what I am suggesting is that the ability to remain anonymous allows cowards to say and do anything they wish, to include posting something as childish and unworthy of this environment as "So and so has a big fat arse". It is amazing how civil people become once you take away their ability to hide. Conversely, it is amazing the depths to which some will sink when they know they can keep their identity (and hence, their reputation) out of it.

In a nutshell, I am suggesting that in my perfect world, folk would be able to say anything they wish and not be banished for having made unpopular or controversial commentary, but that they would have to put their *own* reputations on the line for having done so.

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 06:06 AM

Dave, as far as I'm aware, Max does log the IP address of every post so he has a means of finding out who has posted what if he feels there is a need.

The way I see it, the beauty of the Guest system is that it allows a "passer by" to create or contribute to a thread. The fact of the matter is that we do get many useful posts from Guests and I fear that much of this would be lost if they had to register with the site in any way.

I'm afraid I don't hold with the rest of the Guest arguement. Quite frankly if a person likes this site and wants to contribute on a regular basis, I believe they should join.

Perhaps there are issues concerning identity that need addressing but the information held in the membership database is not availible to everyone. There is a user option to make certain information availible to other members (which I don't know how to use) but that is a user choice. Other than that, the information is only avialable to Max and people trusted by Max to use that information in order to provide help here and it is not used for any other purpose.

Ultimately though, those who have been here a while and choose not to register, intentionally or otherwise are making one clear statement: "I do not trust Max". I can't help but wonder what these people are doing visiting his site.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: SeanM
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 05:28 AM

DtG;

As you can probably tell from varying reactions (mine as well as others), this is a problem that's been occuring for a while. It's been a regular cycle, in fact, kinda like the times that they recommend not swimming at local beaches because a winter storm busted a sewer line.

Your solution has been advanced before, along with similar ideas (members only, IP posting in any 'guest' message, etc.), but they've all been pretty much ruled out.

As much as I detest the way this particular 'GUEST' keeps re-abusing the loophole, I also unfortunately am in the position of wanting to defend the system that allows said annoyance to keep recurring.

The logic is (more or less) that a casual 'seeker of information' will very likely stop at the first signs of either having to provide personal information, or whenever something requires them to make a choice about something personal. For most people, this isn't an issue - they either don't really care about their 'personal data', or trust the website (as most of the members here do) not to misuse the pittance of information collected.

However, for those who DON'T trust the website (or don't wish to be identified for whatever legitimate reasons), putting a 'step' in as suggested would drive them off - and that would be a shame, as one thing the 'cat is good at is providing needed information about the music (and an astounding array of other topics).

It'd be a shame to lose those requests - I don't know about the rest of the 'catters, but some days those requests are about all that brings me back (lately is a fine example). The ability to share what I've learned with someone else, and hopefully to impart some of my enthusiasm in the process.

Of course, in addition to the above, there's also the matter of the programming involved, the added workload to keep the databases up and running and current, etc. etc. etc.

Who knows, though? One day, our pestilential "GUEST" may finally push one wrong button too many and bring this about. Another incident (I think it was a different 'GUEST', but there's no real way of knowing for certain) brought about the creation of the 'GUEST' label to begin with, due to a diseased individual thinking it was GREAT fun to sign other members' names to various trollery.

I'd be flip and say something like "Can't we all just get along?", but we're humans, and occasionally you get a damaged mind in with the normal folks.

M

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 04:46 AM

A 'guest' is usualy someone who is invited. Someone who attends your party uninvited is a gatecrasher and usualy unwelcome.

Could we not have a mechanism where people do at least have to let the forum owners know who they are? The email address with confirmation seems to be the best idea. The email address and real identity could still be kept sectret from the public and I do understand the reasons some people would like to keep their identity away from the prying eyes of all and sundry.

So, anyone can read the forum but to post they would need to join and confirm their identity somehow. The email address would still be hidden. Their handle could be one of their own choosing or 'Guest'. In the event of nasty, personal and vindictive posts their guest priviledge is revoked.

We would need to ensure such guests do sign in with a password - but that is two way protection and ensures no-one posts as someone else as well. I cannot see anyone objecting to that unless they want to make such postings. Or am I being over simplistic?

Cheers

Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Noreen
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 04:24 AM

Thatis truly wonderful, Amos.

Thank you.

♥ Noreen

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 03:53 AM

icebergs?

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: wysiwyg
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 03:40 AM

Move that over to the FAQ, somebuddy, it's pricelss. I think I will quote it, and often.

Did he leave out sexy?

We are a sexy lot.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Sourdough
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 02:33 AM

Amos:

Hear! Hear!

Soudough

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:54 AM

Dear Guests:

Welcome to the Mudcat. Here there be chatter, song, laughter, love, bumps, bruises, comfort and compassion, temper and distemper, the guileless and the beguiling, the armed and disarming. Here you can wander through every form of weather the human heart can generate, but I think most of it of the benevolent sort.

But, just to be fair, you will find here too those who Wille Bee Vyctimes, whose treasure store is made of barbs and slings. You will find souls herein for whom every accusation is a sad confession. For others, every confession is a thinly-disguised accusation. But above all, because this is a place for lovers of music, you will find here the spectrum of life doing what it alone can do at all -- living.

We are a sassy, uppity, thoughtful, shy, brazen huffery-puffery, calm and retiring lot, and have of us have the blood of gators and the other half were raised by wild icebergs.

But, by gum, we are so alive it hurts!!! And we love it that way. And we hope that you are the sort who will as well. Welcome one and all.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Charlie Baum
Date: 11 Jul 01 - 12:38 AM

The topic of this thread sets me in mind of the classic Anna Russell routine. She presents a society lady giving the introduction at a musicale:

Ladies and gentlemen and others.... [giggle]
Oh that's silly, of course.
I know we're all perfect ladies and gentlemen, but what I mean is...
that some of us have brought GUESTS.

--Charlie Baum

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST,Eclipse
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 07:10 PM

Please don't get rid of your guest function. Some of us use it with respect. Thanks. Eclipse

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Noreen
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 06:41 PM

And as has no doubt been said before to you, Russ, there is no problem with someone participating as you do, with a consistent name and a co-operative attitude. I see no earthly reason why the door should be "slammed in your face".

Noreen

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 06:14 PM

Mal G-No need to apologise to me mate, I like Pink Floyd as well. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 05:23 PM

Joe Offer,

Thanks for the honesty.

I really like Mudcat. I will continue to visit, lurk, read, and make the occasional post in spite of the flaming that GUESTs periodically get here.

As I have said in a number of other threads of this sort, I have a number of what I consider to be excellent reasons for posting as GUEST. Near the top of the list is privacy which precludes my sharing the others.

This is a great forum and I will continue to participate as a GUEST until the door is slammed in my face.

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 10:01 AM

The flexibility and freedoms allowed by the existence of the open "Guest" handle are part of the workings of this unusual community; and although it can be an avenue for abuse by some, I think we can survive that okay with the constant use of intelligent discrimination as to when someone is trolling or worse, and when not.

It is very clear to me that any charges of cliquiness on the Mudcat are projections. Anyone with wit and a lot of time on his hands could climb in here and become an old-timer in a matter of weeks just by posting enough intelligent, informed, or humorous stuff (or all three!) in the right places.

Any playground has its whiners, its wannabe bullies, its critics who do not do, and its shy onlookers who are full of wondrous observations but are too nervous to speak, as well as the loudmouths. I think I learned that in fourth grade, Mrs Brererton, if memory serves! :>)>p>A

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GeorgeH
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 06:37 AM

Let's get one thing straight . .

I judge every post here on its own merits. If a GUEST posts which I condsider to be reasonably (which has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with what's been said) then the fact that it's from a GUEST remains pretty well invisible to me . . .

If there's a message that strike me as unreasonable and it's from a named user whom I recognise then I'm very likely to stop and think "Could it be that I'm reading this differently to how it's intended?"

My guess is that most other members operate in a rather similar way . .

Also - thanks for the reminder, Joe will try harder in future. And thanks for treating us as grown-ups and leaving us to sort out, amongst ourselves, what's acceptable in this wonderful club, rather than setting out rules. Sorry if we disappoint at times . .

G.

Cheers!

George

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 06:21 AM

Now there we had three posts in a row, all GUEST. The third one had "All" at the bottom, the first two didn't. Were they all by the saame person? Were two of them by one person and the thir from another? Or were all three from different people. Is one of these the same person the one who's been running round making a nuisance of themselves with remarks about peoples arses?

I don't really care - but it does illustrate why unadorned GUESTing is so irritating. (And the reason why it's customary to sign our names at the top instead of at the bottomm on the internet is because it's more convenient for the reader. That should be good enough.)

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Angie
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 06:00 AM

Firstly, an apology. Sorry. Secondly, there is some confusion over names that I feel necessary to explain now. I am Mal G. My good lady wife is Angie. We have been posting under each others names on occasion. This is totally my problem/mistake. I think I've sorted it though. Again, sorry. John in Hull, 'twas I that asked the Publius Enigma, to Angie. She was on the pc at the time and simply posed a simple question. Had she or we been aware of the deep seated resentment to follow, then yes maybe a quick change over to Pink Floyd.com (or whatever)would have been a wiser move. It was an innocent faux pas of Madcattery netiquette, perhaps. I apologise to your good self , Bill D and others whose toes seem to have been bestamped. No offence or malice intended. Sorry. Matt_R, especially, did however reply with a most helpful and it must be said, generous post, thanks again. If I have dragged you down by association Matt, then I'm sorry. Ebbie, ta. Only the first one was intentional. D'oh! Love and peace to you all even those fuelled with loathing and anarchy, for surely these need it most, Mal. "keep talking"

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: SeanM
Date: 10 Jul 01 - 02:29 AM

Dear repetitious and neverending GUEST;

No, I don't have your IP. No, I don't want it.

I base my observations on watching the very similar cycle that has been occurring regularly over the last year or two, that you are currently running through again using the same phraseology, the same tactics, and the same tired insults. Thankfully, you're at least picking new targets, as I'm quite sure that Kat, 'spaw and the other members are tired of your crap by now.

M

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 11:22 PM

Angie, Typo: 'e' x 2. LOL

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 10:02 PM

Sean M,

Not wishing to inflame, but am curios.

Are you privvy to poster's IP's? And, who at this site is privy to poster's IPs, has authority to censor (deleting is censoring, IMO)?

Am wondering how it is so many are certain of who is posting when, to which threads, etc under GUEST.

Tried that "click on name" thing for GUEST, and it took a LONG time to load, hundreds, thousands? each month.

Now really am too tired! G'night again!

All

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: SeanM
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 09:44 PM

*sigh*

You go Joe. My apologies for biting on this persistent troll's garbage.

People... (and in this I mean rational humans)

Look at the past history of the 'cat.

Every few months, the same sad, pathetic individual shows up... starts carping about how there's an "inner clique", and depending on the phase of the moon (or whatever) bitches about how either there's no music or that we treat guests poorly.

Normally, the 'guest' joins up under another name during this, so that they can feed the flames on the rare occasion that noone else will, by having a many sided discussion that really only features themselves.

Eventually, through either repentance (highly unlikely, given the recidivism) or boredom, GUEST posts tail off. The 'alter ego' member identities usually tail off as well, followed by a short surge of ugliness from those identities.

Then, the GUEST swears that he's sorry and promises he's going away and staying gone.

Then a few months later, it all starts again. Same GUEST, different names, same bullshit.

In the real world, this kind of behavior would likely land a restraining order. In the 'net world, it merely repeats over and over and over and over again.

*sigh*

M

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 08:46 PM

And now, pretty jarred by message of site admin.

Meant only as a suggestion.

If site owner (Max? Joe Offer?) isn't willing to tolerate anonymous guest postings, shouldn't you tell newcomers that in faq?

I dunno, this deleting of controversial posts and coming down on guests seems much too heavy handed for me. I guess I am in the wrong forum.

All

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 08:41 PM

Gulp.

And then she forgets to add "All" at the bottom of her post.

Too much for me, obviously. Forgive please, the above one is mine.

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 08:28 PM

McGrath of Harlow,

I'm mostly into American folk and trad from Celtic countries.

Number of good private mail lists for that sort of music, no "you arse, dumbass, etc. type flaming posting, and high levels of tolerance of use of *articulate* provocative language, opinions, etc. There are forums now for Irish, Scots and Cape Breton music, tho I don't have addresses to hand (that posting from multiple computers thing).

Not a he.

Having given some thought accusation/taunt "why don't you put a name in From line"?

And my answer provoking even more people "because I do"

I gave it some more thought. Most honest answer: I don't know. No one ever made an issue of it before.

Second answer, upon ruminating further: I'm no spring chicken. Been signing my name at the bottom of the page of letters, etc for decades.

Old habits are hard to break?

Level of cynicism, mistrust, contempt for "strangers" who post anon. could be the reason why you attract just those types of folks to this forum.

Maybe self-reflection about posting behavior, instead of instant condemnations of others on the quick trigger reply buttons, is in order for some.

But have had much more than I usually tolerate :) here as far as this sort of thing goes. Too many catter crusaders are now confusing me with all others, attacks against my posts showing up in non-related threads, etc. I don't go along with that sort of thing.

Hope my postings have given some insight. Good idea to put some thread like this in teh perma thread file. But my guess is, the people who need to read most, won't

Enough now, g'night and fare thee all well.

Subject: Don't Respond to Spam or Flames
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 08:22 PM

The policy is that we DO delete Spam, and we DO delete messages that are threatening. Pene and I are the only volunteers who are allowed to delete messages for other than technical reasons. Max and his employees also will occasionally delete an offensive message. However, we usually feel obligated to refrain from deleting the responses posted by Mudcatters who respond to Spam and flaming. Once a Mudcatter has responded to Spam or flaming, it becomes difficult to justify deleting the original message.
You will notice that there have been several useless threads this week, started by unnamed guests. These threads have generated all sorts of useless responses from our "regulars." I'm sorely disappointed that many of those who have responded are people that I call friends.
As long as people respond to flames, the flames will continue. I ask you all to follow the established regimen and not respond to Spam or flames.

Guest, let me assure you that you are not welcome here. You are taking advantage of our hospitality, and you do us a disservice by failing to identify yourself. We like to welcome occasional visitors who come to seek information, so we do not require membership. If you participate in discussions here, you do not fit into the "occasional visitor" category. Your leering anonymity is perceived as threatening by many people, and rightly so. If you would like to participate in discussions here, pick a name for yourself and use it consistently. You don't have to register and you don't have to give your real name, but courtesy demands that you identify yourself by a name that you use consistently.
This particular guest is not welcome here. I ask everyone to refrain from responding to unnamed guests. It is the only effective way to control them.
Thank you.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 08:14 PM

I agree with you grab and you are pretty much describing the current situation which I think, overall works pretty well and makes for interesting discussion that I believe would be pretty near impossible in a moderated/heavily censored forum.

There is one point I would like to make though: There are a small number of people, like myself who have been granted the ability to edit/delete messages in this forum but who's role is to try to fix the tech stuff, delete duplicates, and try to assist in the general maintainence, maybe harvest lyrics (I don't - not knowlegable enough - I'd only get in the way!) of the forum who play no part in censorship.

Personally I quite like it that way - I'm spared the hard descisions!

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 08:13 PM

This is for some of the more bitter "GUESTS"

The only reason I got a permanent handle was that I could bid in auctions and otherwise offer support. I have few weeks of contributions here where I changed guest handles every post.

I disagreed with someone in a discussion one time, someone called me a coward and I identified myself. Please allow me to point out that I would also have identified myself had he asked nicely. Even if you do have a handle here, your real identity is still basically unknown. The only advantage having a name here confers is that others can get to know YOU. If you don't want that, that is your choice. But don't complain about clicques when you aren't prepared to fully participate.

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 08:10 PM

Sorry Liz, I did not realize Guest had insulted you if I did I would not have been nice to him in my above message.
Guest-If you insulted Liz, then as far as I am concerned you can get lost.
Ps,Liz Im not bothered what size your arse is Im more intersted in what people say than what they look like.

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Grab
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 07:56 PM

I don't agree with removing rights for guests; they should be granted the same rights as everyone else. What you're not guaranteed (and what everyone else isn't guaranteed either) is rights to have ppl take you seriously, or rights to have everyone agree with you, or rights to non-retaliation when posting an offensive remark.

What I do agree with is limited (VERY limited!) censorship. Remove posts if (a) they're so blatantly offensive that they're intolerable, or (b) they're spam. Remove threads if they were started solely (a) to insult someone, or (b) to spam. Judgement of the above to be granted to a few individuals who have proved themselves by their actions to be intelligent and broadminded.

So, limits on this. Probably the "insult LtS" should have been ditched, since that was its sole purpose. Anyone who posts 2 pages of rant on a thread saying how someone is the reincarnation of Hitler and should be shot in the street - delete that. Up to that point, discussions or flamewars about politics, NI, gun law, veggies vs carnivores, etc, etc are just fine.

Not that I've got rights to any say in this - after all, it's Max's site, and regardless of what our nicknames say, we're _all_ guests here... ;-)

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 07:41 PM

Liz, when I went to bed last night (or early morning - I think I went to bed about 5am our time or midnight Mudcat time) the only post I had noticed was the one I referred to above timed at 9:38pm on 8th July Mudcat time.

I didn't see any other posts on this subject until the next day (after I surfaced again). I notice that the "name removed" thread started was on 9th July at 5:25am Mudcat time. I assume the other comments in the other threads were also posted around that time.

I still feel pretty sure all we are seeing here is a "Guest" annoyed at his/her first comment dissapearing who, in protest, has made sure that everyone would get to read it - Pretty childish and best forgotten about IMO.

Oh and BTW, I must have seen your arse at Llanstock along with many other Mudcat arses. Maybe I'm weird but I came away with memories of a great time and a nice bunch of people rather than arses.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: TishA
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 07:31 PM

Music anyone?

Chip A.

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 07:15 PM

Guest, as one of those insulted by you (although as I do have a fat arse, it is only telling the truth) I feel I have a right to confront you.

I don't care if you post as a guest or not. I don't care if I know you, or not. What I do care about is that you have posted the same insult to more than 6 threads in 5 minutes AS WELL as starting up a whole new thread. Why did you feel this was necessary? Wasn't a new thread enough?

Now you appear to be saying that I'm an attention grabber. That's true. I do like to put my 5p's worth in, and be heard. But if no one is listening to me, I don't keep shouting across the board. I also know when not to post, like Noreen, I pause sometimes and then delete what I was going to say. Sometimes I hit the wrong button and it goes out. I would hope I'm not vicious, but you seem to think I am. Give me an example and I will endeavour to explain/apologise. It may just be that what others see as wit and intelligence, you are seeing as sarcasm and a threat. Notice I do not stoop to personal insults, and the slight misunderstanding with one poster was explained.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 07:01 PM

saying "Look at me, look at me - I'm invisible" seems a bit daft to me.

Hear, hear, McG. That and "look at me I'm everywhere" are equally designed to defeat plain ordinary communication from one known person to anohter -- because you can't know an invisible source, and you can't know a source pretending to be a group. Both are insidious alterations of truth with no place in decent communicationb, IMNSHO.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 06:54 PM

I've always found this place remarkably good-natured, considering. If All knows about better folk forums, I haven't come across them.

"Look at me" is maybe fair enough when you're doing something entertaining or interesting, or at least attempting to. But standing up and saying "Look at me, look at me - I'm invisible" seems a bit daft to me.

But at least while going on about how important it is for him not to put "All" in the spot at the top reserved for such information, he (it has to be he) does sign off at the end.

I get tired of people who don't do that either. It's nothing to do with anonymity, because everyone is as anonymous as they wish to be here, (and of course handles can be as temporary as anyone wishes, no need whatsoever for them to remember them). The thing is where there's no identification at all it makes it impossible to know whether a subsequent post is a response by the same person, or not. It threatens to turn what should be conversation into graffiti or heckling.

When the content of a post makes it clear that the person involved is doing it intentionally, it just seems very bad manners. Noone has ever explained why they do it either. So it's hardly surprising that people tend to assume it's done with malice, and most of the time I'm sure the assumption is justified.

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 06:38 PM

Guest All- We all like it here, if you dont then find somewhere that you like.(This is not meant as an insult), last week somebody was looking for information about Pink Floyd, they would find what they were looking for easier at a Pink Floyd site.If you stay I think it is a good idea to use a name, if you dont want to use your real nae why not just make one up? John is my real name and as the people I have met through this know, I have to wear a badge at work with my name on it, I have no problem with this at all, in fact it lets people know who I am, "Hello you must be John, nice to meet you," etc.john in hull

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 06:16 PM

There are a number of people who post on Mudcat who identify themselves only as "GUEST" and who have a serious question or contribution. This is fine. Some of them move on; some join and use their name or adopt a handle, or at least add some identifier to the GUEST label. But especially lately, there have been some who are roughly the equivalent of street-corner louts with cans of spray-paint, and all they do is clutter up the forum with exhibitions of their own inadequacies as human beings. They are to be pitied and ignored.

The problem with identifying oneself only as "GUEST" is that nobody knows which species any specific GUEST happens to be. That's not a successful formula if one wishes to be taken seriously.

My computer is going into the shop for a day or two for some maintenance and to have a couple of new goodies installed (a CD-RW drive so I can burn my own CDs -- Whoopie!!), so I'll be gone for a bit. I hope the silly-season has passed by the time I get back.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Angie
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 05:57 PM

I am a new 'cat, my first few postings were under someone else's name, though affectively a guest. My attitudes have not changed from then 'til now. Censorship is a slippery slope ending enevitably is sycophantism and total concord. It would I fear spell the end of interesting conversation. "Everyone has an opinion, however wrong it may be!" There are ways and means of conveying your thoughts, grammar, punctuation and choice of vocabulary. Subtle nuances to make a point, without being overtly aggressive. As for 'them', let them wail and beat their fists on the floor.

"Everyone is entitled to my own opinion."

(spot the typo)

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 05:06 PM

Mr "All"..you do not indicate how long you have been reading these threads, or whether you have posted under a 'name' in the past. But you sure seem to me to mis-represent what it means to be a member and how non-members are viewed and/or treated.

MANY nice folks post regularly without a cookie, perhaps because their only access is at work..etc...and they are treated just fine, because they 1) behave and 2) use a regular ***NAME*** .....but those who pop in with NOTHING but 'guest' as identification and proceed to harrass, flame, or troll for reactions get EXACTLY the derision such actions deserve.

It feels very much to me like the juveniles who spray paint comments and slogans on walls in 'rivals' territory...

Are there 'cliques' here?..*shrug*...there ARE groups of people who have known each other & chatted for up to 5 years....and they have little jokes and stuff that it is impossible to 'explain' every time they are mentioned.....just like in real life.

Lordy, I get weary with this vague, anonymous complaining every few months...ususally by someone who simply does not try very hard to be part of the group and would rather bait & troll and waste time.

(yeah, I bite the bait too sometimes...must be some wierd virus I picked up)

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: SharonA
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 05:03 PM

Aw, c'mon, All, don't go away! Some of us are moderates here!

I agree with those who say that extremely hostile and insulting behavior should not be tolerated, but "not tolerating" can mean simply telling them in no uncertain terms to play nice... without ordering them to leave before they have a chance to prove they CAN play nice!

I disagree with those who want email addresses made public; besides disrespecting people's privacy, I fear that it would only encourage flaming on a more personal level. It distresses me to see that some new people feel "ganged up on" by what they view as a "clique"; I've always been made uncomfortable by the non-inclusive attitude of cliques, but I certainly don't think Mudcat is one, though of course some people are less tolerant than others (typical human-race behavior!).

I think that a decision to leave the Forum because people are debating the pros and cons of various reactions to flamers is a premature one. Personally, I like the reactions I saw on the "name removed" thread (kinda defeats the purpose if I mention the person's handle!): Most posters told the flamer, directly or indirectly, that his/her comments weren't appreciated, and expressed support for the flamee. I think that's a more effective response than ignoring the problem and hoping (perhaps in vain) that it will go away.

I hope that it will be decided to retain the option to post as a GUEST; I did so for about three weeks while I gained the confidence to sign up for membership. During that time, I was welcomed and I never felt disrespected, abused or treated with suspicion, even on those occasions when I expressed what might be considered an "extreme" opinion (maybe because I prefaced my opinion with some phrase to the effect that I didn't want to be a flamer, but just to say what I was thinking on the subject at hand!).

SharonA

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 03:40 PM

Need to remember--this isn't YOUR home, nor is it up to members to set the "rules of order" That gets done by the site owners in teh faq.

Mudcat: a public discussion forum, has different rules for guests, called netiquette. Might want to check your "Miss Manners" folks.

Would I throw out a guest for behaving in a way my guests thought was "inappropriate"?

No way. In my house, a guest is a guest, and treated like royalty. Once they are gone, I have the freedom to decide whether I ask them back or not.

Noreen,

I'm stil here, because it seems the intersts of non-members aren't get much attention vis a vis the membership. Originator of the thread, as well as others, suggests the guest log-in be eliminated, anon. posting no longer be allowed, etc

Still here because I choose to use this forum differently than you. As long as Mudcat DOES have a guest log-in, as long as Mudcat faq doesn't support your (in my view) extreme positions about guest and anon. postings, I figure I've as much right to use the forum the way I choose to, as you do as you choose.

But I will admit this is starting to go downhill fast. Probably enough posting for me this year.

All

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Noreen
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 03:24 PM

Doesn't sound like a community I'd want to join, much less pass through

But... you're still here.....???

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 03:21 PM

All, how would you handle the person who entered your open door while you were hosting a party? My guess is that if the 'guest' was gracious, polite and interested, (and interesting! Don't forget the obligation to be interesting.) he or she would be allowed to remain, perhaps even welcomed.

However, if the 'guest' smoked indoors when no one else did or ground a cigarette into the carpet or was rude or obnoxious or insulting to you or your friends, s/he would soon be hustled out the door.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: nutty
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 03:13 PM

It says that Mudcat "mirrors" the real world, with real people, with real feelings.

In the real world you are expected to behave in a certain way to a GUEST but the guest also has obligations in the way that they behave.

If, as a GUEST in my home, you behaved in a way I found unacceptable, you would be asked to leave because you had been so ill-mannered as to take advantage of my hospitality.

Max is a very generous and benign HOST but that does not mean that his hospitality can be abused.

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 03:00 PM

Let me get this straight:

From Frank:

"So, if coming to the aid of another Catter, speaking up for someone being flamed, standing up to a guest who is attacking one of us seems nasty to you.....so be it. To me, this is what being a community is all about...."

From RichM:

"To me, a guest is someone you accept into your "home" and treat politely.

Here, it seems, a guest is someone whose motives are often viewed with suspicion."

Seems there is a certain attitude towards non-members being taken by some here which seems very extreme for an unmoderated forum.

Seems there is a vocal minority, who believe their rudeness isn't really rude.

Or at least, that they aren't as rude as "those people" (guests).

Or who feel perfectly justified flaming non-members they disagree with (or who have disagreed with their catter friends) who deserve to be treated badly because they aren't "one of us."

Or feel they should be allowed to attack those who choose to post anonymously because they believe "the anon. bloody well deserve it/have it coming"

The point is, the word GUEST is perfectly appropriate, and I'm sure it was chosen by site owners intentionally, so as to encourage respect and good manners.

IMO, everyone should be welcomed and treated well, regardless of their opinions, their way of choosing to contribute (member/non-member; self-identified/anonymous; identifying when signing in/signing off/both/neither ;) etc so long as they are well mannered and respectful of others.

How people are treated here should depend on the way they behave, like anywhere in "real life" or "face to face" discussions take place.

What some seem to be suggesting is that anyone who isn't a member of their Mudcat clique (ie subscribe to the above views) isn't welcome here, and is deserving of contempt, being derided, flamed whatever.

Doesn't sound like a community I'd want to join, much less pass through. I agree, the way you treat your guests in your home, and the way communities treat their newcomers, visitors, outsiders, and strangers, *is* the way a community should be judged, for good or ill.

So what does this say about Mudcat?

All

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST,RichM, currently without cookie
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 02:32 PM

We need a new name for guests.

To me, a guest is someone you accept into your "home" and treat politely.

Here, it seems, a guest is someone whose motives are often viewed with suspicion.

So how about using the term "visitor" ?

Temporarily guesting,

Member Rich McCarthy (RichM)

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GeorgeH
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 02:19 PM

Hey, Mizzy, surely it's not personally information if we don't know the person it relates to?

Joking aside, yes, I can accept the reasons you offer. I don't totally agree with them, but that's another matter!

(I didn't say - and certainly didn't mean to suggest - that guest posts should have the originating email address, but at this point I risk getting too techie . . )

G.

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 02:07 PM

I completely missed the LtS thread, but I'd'a stood up for her too, if I'd seen it.

I am firmly opposed to having my email attached to my posts. I've put my email on bbc, or whatever it is nowadays, so Members who want to can look me up. I would not want it put on every post for just anyone to see (correct me if I'm wrong about resources being members-only, and I'll take my email back off bbc). Also, I posted as Guest for quite a while before joining, apparently right after the Guest thing had been invented. Seemed like a good thing to invent, especially given the reasons being bandied about back then. Of course, someone could post something awful as Guest,Mrrzy, but then I'd get a bunch of Who are you and what did you do with my Mrrzy PMs and it would get straightened out pretty quick... which is why I'm not too worried about if people post as Guest(Member)... the Member in question will get PMs about it (including Hey, what happened to your cookie?), in all probability. And if someone posts as me and I agree with it, I could still post to say it wasn't me...

I'm also against censorship, although I have asked the joe clones (actually I asked Joe) to change a post mentioning me when it revealed personal information I had specifically (and more than once) asked the poster not to reveal. I wouldn't want entire threads deleted, as they are so easy to ignore (even if you see it once, then you know the thread name and can remember not to click on it). And even the most vitriolic threads tend to have nuggets of wisdom... now if only I could learn to swear like whoever it was whose gig got cancelled! Then you'd see some stuff worth censoring (*BG*)!

Also, I have once posted anonymously as Guest (something) to ask a question I didn't want my ID attached to... and would like the ability to do that maintained. There ARE things I'd say sooner if I knew nobody would know who was saying them... especially if it would mean revealing personal information I'd rather not reveal as myself.

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GeorgeH
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 01:41 PM

Bill D . .

Thanks for some sensible remarks re: Personallities . .

Yup, I know I can be "petulant". And, like most folk round here, I often post about things which I care deeply about, which means when I'm not careful I can, easily, lose my temper and go "over the top".

Which is, imo a good reason for posting in my own name, because I think it's only proper for me to be held to account for what I write - and to apologise where I'm persuaded I've trangressed against the general standards of this place.

G.

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 01:28 PM

We have this conversation regularly.

Maybe we could turn it into a permathread?

Russ (GUEST and proud!)

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: wysiwyg
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 01:19 PM

For the record, I had not seen the post Jon quoted nor do I think I would have cared too much if I had. It is true that I went through a very difficult time in the last year or so during which almost anything would have been not only painful to me but injurious to my health, and since then I am not only better but (I hope) wiser about not rising to bait. In fact it's quite a lot harder to bait me now than it used to be.

I would ask that in future, if someone is motivated to delete something that pertains to me, please, consult with me before making a decision that I realize IS yours to make. It is far more likely that I, and anyone I call friend, will just laugh my (considerably larger than LTS's) arse off over it. And I can ALWAYS use a good laugh.

And as always, I would ask my friends, if you see me up on the flame block, see if I think I need anything before you maneuver in to answer it, or otherwise assume what I need.

~Susan

---

Sorry Susan, but Jeff and I usually don't have time for consultation - and we find it's best to kill personal attack messages as soon as we see them so they don't snowball into a flame war. The policy is that we delete personal attack threads and messages, without hesitation.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 01:10 PM

Noreen,

Two threads being cited in this thead: CM/DB and Liz the Squeaky.

Originator of this thread cited the CM/DB thread as reason to censor and/or change guest log-in. john c

Also Les from Hull, IanC cite same thread in early posts. We're all responding to problems/lack of problems we see with those threads. Others too John Freeman referring to other relevant threads ie 500,000 Postings. No difference with me, my observations are different is all.

Don't intend to be insulting, hostile, rancorous at all. Sharing my observations, honestly. That a number of self-identified catters and guests are guilty of bad behavior in this forum, as are a number of anonymous and pseduonym using guests are.

Agree with Bill D/Max about the forum provides the availability (and thanks are regularly due them--thanks!) people here, members and guests, make of it what they will. Also, "unwritten" and "informal" rules of the few, shouldn't be interpreted as taking precedence over the actual written rules of the forum--nothing in the faq about how anonymous posting should be dealt with, where to put a handle, etc.

If so many are upset with my not using the From line, I can stop using the sig too if you'd like. ;)

All

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Pseudolus
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 01:05 PM

I'd like to add a comment as to why I think that a lot Catters prefer that guests have a name. Those of us who have been around a while (it's been about a year for me), have gotten to feel that this place is as close to a community as cyberspace can get, perhaps closer than some actual communities! Many of the "regulars" have met each other and become very close. Tough to do that with someone named Guest. I respect your right choose how you participate. I don't agree but it is in fact your choice to make. But please understand that unfortunately, human nature tends to make us associate you with all of the other "Guests" that have come before you. And some of them are truely not nice people. Some of them only say the things that they do BECAUSE they are being anonymous. Some incredibly profound points have been made by folks whose name was "Guest" but in comparison, they are few.

So, if coming to the aid of another Catter, speaking up for someone being flamed, standing up to a guest who is attacking one of us seems nasty to you.....so be it. To me, this is what being a community is all about....

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 01:03 PM

It isn't an issue of "joining the club" or not.

It is an issue of whether you respect your own authorship enough to sign it, or whether the notion of receiving answers intimidates you to the point where you prefer the risk of annoying people who make better friends than they do antagonists.

Sure it takes some courage to say what you have to say over your own name, I guess. I assume if you really didn't care at all you wouldn't bother writing in! But we really aren't all tyhat dangerous, y'know -- exchanging thoughts is not exactly a high-risk activity! :>)

And superstitions aside we can't reach out and ding each other through the monitor!! LOL.

Why not think through this: what practice or style of communication would make for the best overall exchange on a forum which you value? (At least, value enough to communicate to.) I think you would have to conclude that anonymity is not the most beneficial answer, unless you are really in flight from someone!

A

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: IanC
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 12:59 PM

Today's pretty much a washout on Mudcat. We seem to have mostly got ourselves wound up about Guests and forgotten about all the work we usually get done.

I hope tomorrow will be better.

Waes Hael!
Ian

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 12:43 PM

"That's the way I choose to do it"

..seems to me a LOT of rancor and divisiveness in the world has been defended with this very concept.

You are 'doing it the way you choose', but it is NOT a way you'd dare if you had to confront these people face-to-face....

The internet has given people with hostile, petulant personalities a way to harass and insult and confront with impunity......I guess we just live with it.

Max said a couple of years ago during one of these episodes that he considered that HIS job was to make this forum available...ours was to make of it what we will..(I ought to go find the quote...Max said it much better)

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Noreen
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 12:42 PM

For goodness sake, GUEST All, it is you who keep bringing up the subject of that previous thread (You refer to it in four out of the seven paragraphs above). I was very careful to restrict my comments to matters relevant to this thread and the GUEST nomenclature. Would you do me the honour of re-reading my posts and tell me where I've gone wrong, please?

If you were a member, I would invite you to take this discussion to PMs as you seem to have particular points you want to make about UK catters, which are not appropriate for a public forum. As you are 'not interested in joining the club', I suggest you keep personal remarks to yourself.

Making an effort to get on with people makes the world a sweeter place, than being different for the sake of it does, in my opinion.

Noreen
who has not met a nasty catter yet.

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 12:36 PM

John B

Tracing the identity of posters and exposing them in the forum takes away anonymity. Also is damn lot of babysitting to ask of volunteers? whoever maintains the forum.

Damn thankless task for them too, as many would be up in arms over who it is done too, reasons why etc

Another option: people can accept forum "as is" learn to appreciate the forum even being here and hard work done to keep it together, and live with things the way they are?

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST,JohnB
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 12:28 PM

I invariably post from work during my lunch break, for various reasons I have not set a cookie on my computer at work. I do however always use the JohnB bit when I post. I was not aware of any direct personal attack on anyone until I read this thread. I guess what I am trying to say is why not trace the identity of this person and add that to their posting on the same thread. Please don't cut out the Guest login though. JohnB

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 12:22 PM

Not here to debate Noreen, or get pulled into the CM/DB threads.

Some choose to focus on positive aspects of anonymity, others the negative. Each post is new, each guest deserving of a modicum of respect, whetehr known quanitity or not.

IMO, assuming the negative without looking at content leads to flaming . Flaming those we disagree with leads to nastiness hence CM/DB.

IMO, anonymous guest(s) in that thread weren't flaming anyone. Nor did they appear to be to trolling. Just looked like your everyday, generic differing opinions.

One guest posted in another thread yesterday, noting those who responded to guest by flaming were nearly all self-identified catters from England. Not too hard to verify when you jcompare names from DB/CM thread to UK catters thread, which I did this morning.

Some nasty catters here. They seem to be well liked by the club, but nasty tehy are nontheless. Some catters with big egos, little self esteem, need for attention, just like guests.

Why I don't use the From line and sign at end? That's the way I choose to do it. Not interested in joining the club, so doesn't matter. Others mileage may vary, makes the world a sweeter place.

All

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GeorgeH
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 12:19 PM

Guest, dearie, I'd happily submit to any moderator's adjudication between you and me!

Love and kisses . . . (see my comment on advantages of membership)!

George

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: mousethief
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 12:16 PM

Many forums (fora?) do not allow non-members to post at all. Furthermore they require a valid email (they send a post to the email, which must be responded to in order to activate one's membership).

Would people like to see something like this at Mudcat? (I'm not saying I endorse such an idea; just wondering if that's what we need to do to prevent brutality.)

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Noreen
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 12:02 PM

GUEST All, if you have no objection to identifying yourself consistently, why don't you sign in with All as you remember to sign off with it every time. You say: People's curiousity about the identity of these guest(s) seems to be overtaking their common sense. I don't think it's curiosity as to identity, but the motivation behind anonymity which is causing some members to get annoyed. Since it is easy enough to choose any sort of name to sign in with, or even a random string of numbers as someone else suggested, a 'guest' who refuses to accept the informal rules of this place, for no good reason, is going to put peoples' backs up. (This is because there are several bad reasons for remaining anonymous.)

It is the same with any sort of club or social activity. Anyone who enters a new social situation, is wise to observe and take notice of how others behave and how things are done, rather that wading in and telling members what they don't like about the place and how they should do things differently...

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Noreen
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 11:39 AM

George, you are not to blame at all.

Ignoring is indeed the best and probably the only effective way of dealing with such problems, as Tedham says above (I posted a very similar couple of sentences in relation to a previous spat here). Taking your own advice is another matter, though, isn't it George *grin*, when your fingers are itching to respond. Several times I've written an angry reply, then deleted it instead of submitting. The thought that my angry response will be forever on record, as weel as the original cr*p which inspired it, does give pause for thought.

Noreen

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 11:27 AM

Y'know, there is always a burden on those who can see clearly, thnk rationally, or stand in maturity and balance to deal one way or another with those who are inclined to the psychotic, the befuddled, or the extremely juvenile. In the recent case, I think we are dealing with aggressive, frustrated juvenile conduct, regardless of the physical age of the snide voyeur(s).

I think for the sake of our ideals about openness and free expression, we can afford to come up with mature responses ranging from simple ignoral to more explicit kinds od persuasion, without resorting to controlling impulses like censorship or enforced identity.

I suspect the perp on this case is a juvenile connected to LTS somehow, or a miserably lonely alcoholic -- one or the other. Maybe both? Anyway, this too shall pass, so let's stick to our highest and best standards while we may.

A

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 11:25 AM

Celtic Soul,

In case you aren't aware of it, there is the option of joining one of the many decent moderated folk forums or private mailing lists.

No such thing tho as decent discussion forum without disagreement, controversial subject matter.

One plus of the moderated approach is, when intolerant people who disagree with others by heaping abuse on them, they are warned/removed by the moderator. Responses like those from some identified Mudcatters to anonymous guests in CM/DB thread would be the ones to get the boot n a moderated forum, not the other way 'round.

Moderated forums are more tolerant of differing/divisive opinions than unmoderated. Result: forums with more pleasant atmosphere. Being abusive of others doesn't get rewarded, it gets punished, swiftly. Lots to be said for that route.

I frequent a number of discussion forums for writers. Rarely (if ever) have seen the "Shut up, go away, piss off, I don't agree with you asshole" posting we see coming from a lot self-identified Mudcatters. One favorite folk list of mine, can't even recall ever seeing abusive posters, ever.

As you said, people want the freedom to read/post from anywhere nowadays. I do it all the time I'm networked at home and office, use a laptop for mobility. Lots of us prefer anonymity. Because we just do.

If constraints were to be put on this forum, as some as suggesting, I'd just quit reading.

Don't participate often enought to be bothered with trying to remember more passwords, handles, etc. then I am already forced to use in my daily life

Also have a terrible time remembering names. No daily relationship, no face, not much in the hard drive to remember someone with. Fact of life in unmoderated on-line forums for me.

Some here really are involved with each other personally, some not. No need to change the forum to suit the former, at the expense of the latter, IMO.

All

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Kim C
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 11:24 AM

I belong to one forum that posts your IP address.

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GeorgeH
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 11:20 AM

Am I allowed a view here?

I would not like to see the "Guest" facility removed, although I would like to see some sort of "posting from" identifying tag attached to guest postings, to help sort one guest from another. (Those determined to preserve their anomnity could still do so . . there are still ways of posting anonymously . . )

Suppose a friend had put a lot of work into something which they then published. On publication someone started an anonymous and persistent campaign, claiming that what they had published was untrue, but offering no evidence as to why that was the case . . . What would your advice be?

Probably to ignore the posting as being unworthy of serious consideration . .

So now all I need to do is take my own advice . .

And apologise to those on whose heads I may have brought the unpleasent wrath of Guest . . .

One other point . . . those of us who prefer to participate here fully (under a name of some sort) do have the advantage that we can "kiss and make up" however strongly we've disagreed with or upset each other - that's as it should be. Those who choose not to participate lose far more than they gain . .

Cheers!

George

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Patrish(inactive)
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 11:19 AM

Hi Hazel
I usually ignore anon guests, but I did feel the LtS thread was horrid and felt I had to stick up for Liz
Patrish

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: nutty
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 11:11 AM

As children we were taught:-

Sticks and stones can break your bones
But calling cannot hurt you

I believe the same applies to anonymous posts - they are better ignored

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST,Rana
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 11:10 AM

Can the system be set up so that one has to provide your e-mail address before a guest designation is actually posted. I haven't bothered resetting my cookie after clearing out my cache, so I would either have to reset or keep on typing in my e-mail. This would remove the anonominity (though, as someone pointed out, with effort anyone can probably be traced.

Rana

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Pseudolus
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 11:04 AM

In my own strange way, I must admit that it was the trolling and the flaming threads that really endeared me to mudcat. No, I didn't enjoy the trolling and the flaming, but I was quite impressed with the way that Catters would come to the defense of their own. I myself take the route of ignoring them except when a guest paints such a big bulleye on his/her forehead that it's too good to pass up!!

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Tedham Porterhouse
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 10:53 AM

What I've noticed is that when guests make a post with the intention of flaming and enraging, they usually get a big response from Mudcatters who are pissed off.

When a guest flamer is responded to like that, you are giving them exactly what they want and they will keep flaming.

If there is no response, they will get bored and move on.

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST,Celtic Soul
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 10:46 AM

I think the thing that is most troublesome in this media vs/usenet is that ones e-mail address is not automatically listed. *Anyone* could sign on as a guest, post whatever handle they wished (even one that a subscriber already has), and create whatever mayhem they so decide in the name of another person.

I feel that censorship is not the way to go, but I am also feeling trepidatious at the fact that nasty folk can remain so anonymous.

Polite anonymity, however, is not a bad thing. I am a newcomer here, and I do not post with my real name. I have issues with that information being listed on the internet.

I appreciate the ability to read and post when I am not near my very own cookie at home, but am wondering if maybe that is not a perk I could do without for greater safety. I dunno.

What do you all think?

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 09:59 AM

Noreen, it's quite possible that the "censor" has not read Mudcat since.

BTW, I'm not questioning whoever's judgement it was to remove the post I mentioned. I'm just using this one to ilustrate what can happen when a nasty (but in the grand scale of things bearable) post dissapears.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Noreen
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 09:45 AM

Thank you for that information, Jon. It could well explain this.

But, if that posting was removed, why hasn't the LtS entire thread been removed? If the censorship criteria apply to that posting, they apply even more so to the thread. I sincerely hope this is not the case, but it appears now as if the 'censor' didn't like Susan being abused, but isn't so bothered about Liz's feelings...

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 09:33 AM

No way to deal with trolls in an unmoderated forum, except to ignore 'em.

Requiring guests to put something in teh From: line won't do anythig either. Just have to use different handles,as I've always done.

IMO, the obsession over handles right now seems to be driving the current spate of copycat trolling going on. Looks like there are a current number of mischievous posters, and maybe one or two really vicious ones (liz the squesk).

Suggestions that the guest(s) in CM/DB saga thread should be censored is chilling. People's curiousity about the identity of these guest(s) seems to be overtaking their common sense. At least four or five identities have been attributed to what looks to be like one, possibly two anonymous guests, neither of whom are trolls. They just seem to disagree with the majority of catters, as someone said earlier.

Why the recent difficulty of so many Mudcatters distinguishing between trolls and posters who prefer to post anonymously? Conspiracy theorizing about guest identity is always counter-productive, and can leave egg on a lot of faces.

All (Who reads the forum regularly, posts on the rare occassion, and has never used the same guest identity because I couldn't be bothered with trying to remember what my handle was last time I posted eight months back)

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 09:05 AM

I remain in favour of censorship only in extreme conditions. If I am reading this right, I see this LTS epsiode is actually a backlash from someone's censorship.

Last night, this post was deleted (not by me I hasten to add):

Subject:

RE: BS: 500,000 posts ...and counting
From: GUEST
Date: 08-Jul-01 - 09:38 PM

And we've not even mentioned ~Susan, aka Praise, aka WYSIWIG, aka who even cares.

If there was a prize for barging in on interesting threads, and selfishly hijacking them with crap, ~Susan would win.

Mind you, fat arse Liz the Squeak would run her close

---

I think this is no more than guest's protest at being censored.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 08:59 AM

Liz the Squeak (and all) should not have to put up with viewing such a thread when uing Mudcat. I agree it should be deleted. Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: IanC
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 08:56 AM

Though I agree some posts have been a nuisance recently, I think it's a difficult problem to solve without messing up the forum. I'd suggest someone simply removing the "Liz The Squeak" posts, as they're essentially graffiti. The others are harder to cure.

One tightening-up I would suggest is that, perhaps, we could make any guests type SOMETHING in the From: line. This might alleviate situations where we have 2 or more anonymous "guests" posting indistinguishably.

Not much help, I know...

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: Les from Hull
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 08:49 AM

A very difficult subject, this. Any form of monitoring raises the question of freedom of speech. I like the freedom that Mudcat provides (thanks, Max!) and I wouldn't like to think of it being curtailed. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it is at varience with most of the regular 'catters.

And when people post petty insults, I'm sure that they tell us much more about themselves than they could by telling us their name. More than we are interested in knowing, in fact.

Les

Subject: RE: BS: GUESTS
From: UB Ed
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 08:48 AM

John, all you say is true, but I feel we ought to ignore them as opposed to censoring. At first glance, I concur with Max and the gang deleting the LTS arse thread, but then I could see a vicous cycle of attacks with no good conclusion.

So I say we ignore the cowards, be larger than the insulters and move on.

Ed

Subject: GUESTS
From: john c
Date: 09 Jul 01 - 08:35 AM

OK - so its fine to be able to post on the ´cat from another computer or when your cookie goes sailing off into digital infinity but the current misuse of being able to remain anonymous (and here I´m thinking of the Dave Bulmer/Nic Jones thread and espescially the Liz the Squeak nonsense)is at the least cowardly and at the most downright insulting, both to the subject and to everyone who reads it. Surely there must be another solution Max and his merry gang can come up with.
All the best,
a very indignant John