Posting as merely 'GUEST'

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: John Routledge
Date: 09 Aug 01 - 09:07 PM

Jon - Depends on who the GUESTS are. A philosophical statement if ever ther was one!! John

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 09 Aug 01 - 09:10 PM

(by moderation above, I mean don't go too excessive on BS - how excessive is too excessive is anyone's guess of course!)

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Aug 01 - 10:58 PM

well, I for one, have done about all I can, and plan to edge quietly out of this debate...My views are known, and I can't force anyone to do anything....I have 'tried' to avoid simplistic insults, while making it clear that I consider totally anonymous 'guests' to be awkward to deal with.

Now, let's see if I can just pay attention to my own admonitions and shut up about it....

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Aug 01 - 08:45 AM

Jon,

I see no evidence of trolling or wind ups from the guest users in this thread. I do, however, see us (yes, us--not me--we have what appears to be at least three anonymous guest users in this thread, possibly more) contributing to a thread asking anonymous guest users why they choose to post anonymously.

Because one/some of the guest users makes certain Mudcat members feel uncomfortable with their insights and contributions, doesn't make them trolls (certainly not by the common Usenet standard, available at any of the on-line jargon dictionary sites, or general practice of trolls in Usenet groups).

But your claim here that at least one guest user here is a troll, I see in your message just the sort of sadly predictable over-reaction that starts the whole vicious cycle. Because both reasonable, polite guest users and members are now beginning to support the anonymous and identified guest users, we see things once again on the brink of descending into flaming guest users. Justification? Well, you think one of them is troll.

This thread was started by a guest user, who asked other guest users why some would choose to post anonymously. The guest users have been very civil, IMO. Even members have come into this thread to say the flaming of guests was inappropriate in this thread.

Mudcat has a serious problem with a few *member* trolls though, who routinely try and incite other members (as some have noted, there is a regular group of members who can nearly always be counted on to join in and gang up on guest users they don't know, don't like, or just plain disagree with) to leap on the lemming wagon, and start flaming away.

Max allows the guest user to choose how they wish to post. He has stated he is not willing to change the log-in at this time. It seems to me, there is a core group of members who are really pissed off at Max about this, but are taking it out on the guest users because they haven't been able to make Max give them what they want to wit: not allowing guest users to post in Mudcat anonymously. I believe what some members actually expect here is for Mudcat to operate like a private mailing list.

It doesn't, and Max has said it won't. This disgruntled lot seems to have attempted to usurp Max's authority here, and defacto rule the roost by playing gate keeper in ways which Max may or may not support.

But the point is, as long as the forum allows it, members who treat guests badly are clearly alienating some newcomers and occassional users. That isn't very conducive to the discussion of folk music here, especially when there are many other excellent forums for discussion of folk and blues music where one needn't put up with jerks like some of the self-appointed Mudcat cops here.

.05 worth, and the meter is still on. ;-)

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: GUEST,JMR
Date: 10 Aug 01 - 09:26 AM

I agree with GUEST.

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Aug 01 - 12:14 PM

This anonymous guest has refrained from participating in this discussion, because the originator of this thread posed an innocent question and then stated that his/her question had basically been answered. However, like other good threads, the topic raised often inspires poignant and intelligent conversation on related themes.

Still, it seemed as though the thread had devolved into yet another attempt by one side to convince the other of the validity of their arguments, and past attempts at this have proven to be futile. There is no reason to think that this attempt or future attempts will meet with any better success. Both sides, from their respective viewpoints, make convincing and logical presentations for their positions.

It is also useless, IMO, to speculate why some members have such adamant misgivings toward guests who post anonymously. Understanding the underlying reasons does not change the fact that these members, regardless of the content of the post, will always have difficulty with those who choose to post anonymously, for various reasons which they have stated repeatedly. They are, of course, perfectly entitled to their opinions, and ultimately, are justified (at least in their own eyes - but often with good reason supplied by anonymous flamers and trolls). It is not to them that the civilized and inocuous content of anonymous posts is directed. Clearly, the message contained in unsigned words is not for everyone, nor should it be.

Disregarding the messages whose intent is to incite incivility or disparage another person, anonymous posts are for anyone whose primary interest is in the message being conveyed within the words. They are for anyone who doesn't mind that one anonymous post may be incendiary, another insightful, or that the author of both posts may be one and the same. They are for the discriminating reader who can ignore what he or she finds offensive, and focus on what he or she finds interesting. They are for those who are less interested in forming friendships or establishing a milieu of mutual support, but more interested in the exchange of thoughts, ideas and information. They are for those who don't care who says it, but do care about what's being said.

Not being able to speak for anyone other than this anonymous poster, it matters less what one thinks of me personally, or whether my behavior is deemed acceptable by the membered regulars, or even whether I am accepted by the established members or relegated to the class of flamers and trolls. The only thing that matters to me is what you think about the words being said here.

Anonymous guests in this thread, have in some instances articulated very eloquently my own inchoate reasons regarding anonymous posts. Many thanks to them for saying what I have been struggling to say for some time.

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Aug 01 - 12:52 PM

Can all of the anon. GUESTS of this thread understand they have no valid argument as there is no proof that there is more than one of them? That's part of why it keeps going round in circles.

Imagine a room full of people who are absolutely identitcal, refuse to share any kind of names name with people who have chosen to use nicknames or their real names. The GUESTS then demand respect from all? Doesn't fly. Until a GUEST can be distinguised from another, even by using a simple numeral, it will be assumed, and rightly so, that it is the same GUEST, over and over.

Imagine the Anon. GUESTS of the Mudcat trying to cope with the regulars if everyone suddenly posted as GUEST only? Who would they whine about then?

kat

This is not the same as someone who posts as GUEST with a handle, as Celtic Soul did.

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Aug 01 - 01:47 PM

Each and every anonymous guest knows if there is more than just themselves participating in any given thread, so we do have that "advantage" (if some wish to perceive it that way) over everyone else.

There is also no "proof" as you say kat, that anonymous guests also aren't members posting anonymously. I've seen numerous instances of members wanting to "prove" how easy it is to "steal" a member's identity (and how awful we should feel about that), steal the identity of a guest user they don't like/disagree with, only to fess up to doing it in a follow-up message. I've also seen a number of other posters use the handles I've signed in with previously post as guests. I know it isn't me, but of course, no one else does. I suspect the person doing it is either a member who wants me to bite the troll bait, or a troll who has perused the archive, and figures that by using a previously used handle of someone who has been involved in controversial discussions (whom the members clearly enjoy flaming) can get the fire roaring that much more quickly by posting some simple provocation.

The response by certain members is entirely predictable.

I haven't seen any guests "demanding respect" in this thread. I have seen numerous guests, some members who are former guests, and some members say that there are some pretty hostile and rude members of Mudcat who are doing the discussion of music in this forum a disservice, however.

I don't care what anyone thinks of me. Not because I'm an insensitive lout, but because I'm here for discussion, not friendship and community, just like the above guest.

I love the idea of everyone having to post anonymously! That way egos and personalities wouldn't dominate, and we could have meaningful exchanges based upon what was actually being said about music instead of commenting on one another's personalities and personal foibles.

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: Brían
Date: 10 Aug 01 - 02:03 PM

???????????

Brían.

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Aug 01 - 02:54 PM

Each and every anonymous guest knows if there is more than just themselves participating in any given thread, this is so illogical it is laughable.

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Aug 01 - 02:57 PM

Brian,

I don't consistently post anonymously. Sometimes I post with a handle. I've seen other guest users type a handle I've previously used in the From line. Of course, Max and I would be the only ones who know for sure when it is being done.

Based upon my personal experience with this, I suspect some member users are sometimes impersonating guest users.

Only Max knows for sure.

Myself, I could care less if someone wants to try to impersonate me by "stealing" a label/name. This is the Internet, and seeing people impersonate someone in a discussion forum or newsgroup is hardly the worst of what is usually done with identity theft. I'd certainly rather be impersonated by some twit, than have hackers messing with me any day.

It helps to have a healthy perspective in this regard, and to keep uttering this mantra "Its only a amessage in an Internet group, not a textbook on brain surgery to be published within 24 hours."

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Aug 01 - 03:06 PM

Trys again...

I know what I post and what I don't post. You don't. If there is one other anonymous guest posting to the same thread as me, I know it. So does the other anonymous guest. And Max. None of the rest of you knows for sure, but we do.

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: GUEST,merely 'GUEST'
Date: 10 Aug 01 - 06:45 PM

I love Mudcat. Where else would someone like me get a thread about himself stretching out to over 160 postings? I am so humbled. Most people simply ignore me, but not the Mudcatters. Especially the inner clique, who are the nicest people I have ever met on the Net. I think everyone on Mudcat is wonderful, kind, and considerate, and I am most grateful for being given my 15 minutes of fame, so to speak.

merely 'GUEST'

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 10 Aug 01 - 08:24 PM

"GUEST" wrote; "It matters not how many times members *say* they treat guests well. What matters is how guests actually feel they are treated here.

A number of guests and current members who are former guests, say they don't feel they are treated equally, or well.

Actions speak louder than too much protestations doth".

Can I just tell you that the *only* time I was made to feel the least bit uncomfortable here was when I first joined, and it was from an anonymous "GUEST" who posts much in the same style you do?

I have no way of knowing if it *was* you or not, as you have no handle, nor did they. All I can tell you is I joined and was entreated to some pretty impolite behavior, and not by any of the regulars.

I am still getting my "Cat" feet here, and have appreciated the regulars patience with me. However, if anything has tainted my experience at all (and it has not to any appreciable degree, as I will not let it), it would be the aforementioned.

So my question would be: Does it matter how I feel I have been treated? Or is your statement (as quoted above) only reserved for those without a name or membership?

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: sophocleese
Date: 10 Aug 01 - 10:35 PM

We appear to have difficulty dealing with two distinct methods of communicating in the same forum. There are those who like to know who they are speaking with and can be very, almost paranoically, uncomfortable with words without attached humans. They are more interested in the people speaking and in the way their ideas evolve. Then there are those who are far more interested in the words and the ideas on their own than they are in the people who wrote them and they become defensive when asked for some kind of credentials, because the seeking for identity often overshadows, or downright ignores, the intelligence or thoughtfulness of an anonymous posting. At the extremes of both of these views are the people who cannot understand the logic of the other side and then either fade away or become very, very rude and abusive.

When somebody suggests that they have not been treated with reasonable courtesy it makes sense, if you're interested, in finding out how or why. If you're not interested in doing that much then you can keep your keyboard closed. Abuse does not lead to any understanding. Affirmations of "Well I was treated all right therefore you must be mistaken in thinking that you weren't." are pretty much useless.

It seems to me that the simplest thing that everyone can do is realize that not all anonymous guests appear with evil intent. Like an inkblot test anonymous postings often bring out what other members think is intended, which is sometimes pretty foul, but isn't really the intent of the ink. If you are uncomfortable replying to someone who doesn't post a name then don't reply.

Its kind of funny because there has been another thread running about phone numbers, listed or unlisted, and the various ways in which the phone companies can and cannot help or hinder. Some people need to know who is calling before they pick up the phone and some people don't need to know. But what's the use if you get the technology to let you screen out unwanted callers but cannot resist picking up the phone every time it rings anyway?

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 11 Aug 01 - 12:39 AM

I still have one question on this topic, and then I think I will leave its ashes alone.

I am *still* completely anonymous. I have not attached a name I use anywhere else, and I have no e-mail attached either. I really am curious to hear how this makes me "vulnerable" on the internet. I would be very impressed if anyone could find anything at all about me other than what I have posted here.

I do believe that the fundamental conflict here is a battle that cannot be won, however.

I apologize to the Mudcat for opening this can of worms.

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Aug 01 - 10:06 AM

Sophocleese said:

"Some people need to know who is calling before they pick up the phone and some people don't need to know. But what's the use if you get the technology to let you screen out unwanted callers but cannot resist picking up the phone every time it rings anyway?"

Ah, this is it exactly sophocleese! Thank you for wonderful analogy. Also for the great insight into the "two types of people" who choose to post here as members and guest users. I'm an ideas person, not a relationship person. I'm no recluse, but I have a small circle of intimate friends I socialize with, and I try to keep the circle of acquaintances I interact with personally to a modest level. Being an artist, I need to set aside tremendous amounts of time for myself to get my work done.

I've had an unlisted phone number for over 10 years--before the "technology of privacy invasion" hit full steam. I realize I am now a distinct minority within the US population who even cares about protecting my privacy, especially among the younger set. I no longer post on the Internet using my real life identity. Not because I'm trying to "hide secrets" but because it keeps the number of posts to my email box down to a reasonable level I can manage on a daily basis. Before I made this change, I got a lot of unsolicited emails from wonderful, well meaning folks who wanted simply to chat because of this or that thing they had read that I'd written. It became a huge drain on my time, and I found I wasn't enjoying my time on-line anymore. I love the anonymity of the internet to exchange ideas.

But because I have plenty of good supportive relationships in my life, and I have a busy, full life to boot, I don't come on-line looking for community. I come here to side-step a lot of the emotional undertow of such relationships, and save my emotional energy for the people close to me in real life.

As to the phone thing, I don't have caller id. I often turn off the ringer on my phone. I never answer it when I'm "at work" (which is out of my home). One of the cardinal rules of at-home workers who have learned to use their time effectively is to use technology (ie voice messaging/answering machine) to answer the phone, while you get your work done.

The only real problem I have with Mudcat now is that the forum discussions about music (my reason for coming here) has been overtaken by the "community" that Mudcat has become. So my days here are numbered too (soon back to school year schedules). I'll spend my limited on-line time in forums where music is being seriously discussed, not here.

That's the way it goes on-line. It is cyclical. But when groups get hijacked from their original purpose, it's usually a sign of impending death, not a low point in the cycle. If no one with substantive knowledge about music frequents the forum, Mudcat will have outlived it's usefulness to the music community.

This summer, it looks as though that may just be where we've ended up. But hey--there are still a number of good music forums out there. For every group that bites the dust, another will rise in it's place.

Ciao!

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: GUEST,Toledo
Date: 11 Aug 01 - 10:28 AM

Oops! Sorry, meant to fill in from line with handle on the 10:06 a.m. message.

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Aug 01 - 10:50 AM

Celtic Soul,

See the above post re: keyword searching matching email accounts, IPs, log-in passwords, and content.

Of course you are anonymous to Mudcat in the sense that I don't know who you are. But then, I don't have any interest in knowing who you are, and what you do on-line.

Increasingly, employers are following their employees on-line tracks. Former spouses/disgruntled lovers are using the technology for stalking. Hackers with criminal intent (usually financial exploitation of people's on-line identities) engage in identity theft. People who are engaged in political activist work (especially those on the left, whom the FBI, CIA and other law enforcement information gathering agencies like immigration, welfare, etc) are often monitored for both on and off line activity. And then there are those people who just prefer anonymity for privacy reasons, ie the same reason they choose to have unlisted phone numbers,etc.

Those are the privacy issues. A person who chooses to protect themselves for any of the above perfectly valid reasons, with the technology available to them, simply won't post in Mudcat or anywhere else with a consistent identity (ie email account, passwords, identity labels like many use in Mudcat to log-on, etc).

Again, hope this helps you understand the concerns some people share regarding right to privacy on-line a bit better.

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: sophocleese
Date: 13 Aug 01 - 10:56 PM

Just thought that some of the ideas in this thread hadn't been seen by some who are back at square one again.

I'm glad Guest of August 11 at 10:06 that I managed to say something the rang true for someone, somewhere.

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 12:27 AM

I read through most of these postings and now I have a headache. If I take a potshot at somebody, they can return fire since my post is identifiable, which is as it should be. Guest traddle is at least identifiable in this thread, so I could aim a reply back if I felt like it. Too many guests are shape-changers, they set up a topic and then flame-complain if you ask for facts.

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 07:13 AM

Sophocleese,

Considering the type of persons in question, I think your expectation that they will ever get beyond square one may not be very realistic. Just keep on keepin' on.

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: sophocleese
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 09:16 AM

I'm not sure "Too many guests are shape-changers" some are and some aren't. Many members are rude buggers at times too. They give me a headache.

Subject: RE: Posting as merely 'GUEST'
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Aug 01 - 10:55 AM

Shape changers, changelings, and fairies all have a special role to play in keeping us all on our toes, eh?

But this thread is getting too long to load...let's morph it into...

Guest Fairies Welcome Here