BS: How should we treat Guests?

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: harpmaker
Date: 10 Apr 02 - 07:54 PM

'Time on hand' comes to mind, and 'too much of it' Let's face it, 'Guest's' are only human, same as members!-- Oh precious one. "YOUR SO VIEN, YOU PROBALY THINK THIS SONG IS ABOUT YOU" Now't wrong wi' guest's!! In my book anyhow.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: RichM
Date: 10 Apr 02 - 04:39 PM

For the word 'cluque, substitute 'community'; it means more than simply 'anyone interested'. Community means being aware of the generally accepted principles of behaviour in that community. If you are a guest in my house, I expect that you will treat *me* and other guests with respect.

Maybe I should restate my original question: Can we have a filter system similar to email programs?

Richard McCarthy

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 10 Apr 02 - 04:14 PM

On this "community" versus "resource" and general website issue..

I would have thought that in the context of folk music in particular "Community" should mean "accessible to anyone interested", including guests, not "inward looking members-only clique". Some threads may be narrower than others in that they only apply to the folk music scene in a particular country (or even more localised than that). And guests may sometimes have good reasons for not identifying themselves, which as far as I can see Mudcat generally understands. But snide and abusive comments from anonymous "guests" who show no knowledge of, or interest in, any aspect of folk music are just gatecrashing. Which of course anyone can do on any open website, if their lives are sad enough.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Apr 02 - 03:51 PM

Traditional dead march by Beethoven, no less.

I knew this thread would drift into music sooner or later.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 02 - 02:35 PM

Oh - and I should apologise to 12:08 for taking your name in vain - It was just picked at random. I'm sure you are not guilty of any of the heinous crimes listed. Sorry:-(

And apologies to Max, Joe et al of course - I would never ever log out to use a guest tag on purpose for malicious purposes and anyone guilty of doing so should be kicked out and shot at dawn. To the sound of a traditional death march of course...;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 02 - 09:33 AM

It wasn't guest of 12:08 at all, of course, but the gnaughty gnome :-o Nothing personal 12:08 - just pointing out that it does indeed take some bottle to leave yourself open to attacks like that! (Not that anyone in the mudcat would REALLY do that!) Now, as a member, two of the main benefits I find are the ability to PM and the security of being safe from bogus postings. Someone could, of course, use "GUEST:Dave the gnome" but if such a posting were defamatory is not likely to be taken seriously. At least not by people who know me, which brings me back to an earlier point...

So, guests, please continue to visit. Members, please respect everyones views and above all, everyone, remember that life's short enough anyway:-)

Cheers

Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 02 - 09:18 AM

I am guest of 12:08 April 9.

My hobbies are playing the banjo and sniffing bicycle seats on warm days.

I have a spotty bum, green teeth and I sleep with Camels.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 02 - 09:12 AM

Ah well. It fills up an otherwise boring lunch break...

One major logic flaw I spotted was the arguement that guests get publicly admonished while members have their botties spanked in private. Huh? How on earth can guests be punished in private when there is no mechanism for that to happen? Surely if a guest feels upset by being publicly humiliated all they need to do is join. Or am I missing something?

Having said that I have now know that guests do have a lot more courage that I had previously realised, as I shall show shortly.

To get back to the original question in the thread - how should we treat guests? My answer would be to treat all people withh respect. If that civility is abused ask yourself the question, "does it matter?". I, for one, could not give two hoots if someone I don't even know and does not know me voices an opinion I disagree with. It is not that their opinions are any better or worse. It is just that I don't really care. It does not matter.

Likewise if my opinion is dismissed by a guest it does not lessen its value. It is still my opinion. I believe it is still valid.

Ah well. teabreak over.

back on yer heads...;-)

Cheers

Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Apr 02 - 12:14 AM

As a guest of a guest.

I am very happy with this place becoming membership only.

Its inbred death from mutual admoration adulation will render a sweet smelling incense to the air of cyber-space. Its alread pretty putrid.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 10 Apr 02 - 12:12 AM

Yes - but I ENJOYED reading all the stuff - I just question those who do this for the reasons I listed above. That's all.

But then again, maybe you didn't have time to read all 82 words in my post.

I come to the Mudcat to learn and enjoy myself - I don't allow Trolls to ever upset me - for 4 years now, I have heard them and have called them on their statements sometimes, but they have never "upset" me. Consequently, I've never considered that any action needs to occur to "curtail" their actions. The managers at Mudcat have better things to do than that.

Pax yall

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 10 Apr 02 - 12:01 AM

"good lord, can't you think of anything better to do?"

Heh. Who sat there and read the WHOLE DAMNED THREAD, then posted to it at 09-Apr-02 - 11:57 PM?

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Blackcatter
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:57 PM

Yall are nuts: members, guests, trolls. If you are deriving enjoyment from this exercise - more power to you, but if not and you are engaging in this conversation to really change things or to possibly irritate other people - good lord, can't you think of anything better to do?

I do have to thank you, though - nearly all the above posts have given me a few seconds of humor. Maybe this is the formation of an new genre of humor...

Pax yall

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: RichM
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:53 PM

Truthtroller asks why I have not made further responses. Truthfully, my initial posting stated my question, and my proposed solution:

"I propose--for purposes of discussion here-- that guest postings should automatically reveal their email addresses. Anonymity would only be available for registered users. "

And then I asked a question:

"What do you think? " (to which you have all responded-thank you)

And then I signed my real name:

"Rich McCarthy "

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: khandu
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:43 PM

I accept guest into my home often. I treat them with the respect that I would give anyone, unless they prove unworthy of that respect. In that case, they are removed from my home. Anyone who refuses to give me his name will never enter into my home. He gets no respect, no favors. He gets the door closed in his face.

At the Mudcat Cafe, I respond to guests often. I try to find lyrics, etc., that they may seek...if they sign a name. If they are "nameless" guest, I totally ignore them. Nothing they have to say interests me, therefore I do not even read any posts written by the nameless one(s).

Upon opening a thread created by a nameless guest, I immediately close the thread.

I am khandu, my e-mail address, my photo and my given name are posted in Mudcat Personals. I have, in the past, posted under other names, perhaps even as a nameless guest. As I became more accustomed to the Mudcat Cafe and realized that it was a community in which I desired to be a part, I dropped such practices.

The Cafe is a great place to visit, a wealth of information can be found here. Equally as wonderful is the wealth of personalities that is here. I love this place. I intend to continue to drop in often.

To any nameless guests I say this, There is no need to be nameless. Even typing one letter in the "name box" identifies you and separates you from other nameless guests, and cuts down confusion when other nameless guests post on the same thread.

If you (nameless ones) want to respond to what I have said, feel free. But I will not see the response. I will continue to ignore your posts.

To all other Guests, welcome. Any help I can give, I will do so cheerfully.

khandu (Ken Whitfield)

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: DonD
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 10:31 PM

I started to use the DigiTrad, then to read some threads about music and learned a lot, then to read some Bs threads, and when I decided to add my two cants, I signed up. It was painless, and I figured that I'd know if someone was answering me and not someone else. If I go to a meeting and don't like the people there or the way it's run, I don't go back. If I want to change it for the better as I see it, I join up and get involved as a participant, If someone crashes a party at my place and doesn't like me or my friends and just scarfs up the food and drink, either he chooses mot to come again,or is made to understand that he's not welcome. If GUEST, GUEST, or GUEST don't like it hee, why do they keep cpming back to complain? Aren't there a zillion other sites they might feel more comfortable? Do they just like to bitch? And to pretend that there's some musical connection on Mudcat, --- "And if you don't like me, well leave me alone!"

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 09:32 PM

(humble appreciation for your clarity of thought Sophocleese...once again you've struck a blow for rationality by hitting the nail on the head)

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 09:21 PM

Michael.......No, I have no more information then you have. What I meant by that was that there are an awful lot of anonymous postings that are simply anonymous....no intent to troll or flame, just opinions or questions and all phrased in such a way that it really isn't a problem. And yeah, I agree with Bill D. and Wincing Devil too. Some of these "Guests" act as Bill's very apt description don't they? I just hate to lump them all together. Some simply don't use a name while others are unwilling...and there is a difference.

This thread alone shows the subtlety of drawing people in by using language that tends to anger rather than explain.....a popular "Guest Troll/Flamer" tactic. Then the Guest explains it really isn't a flame, but it's our fault for reading it that way and not agreeing with him/her. The whole thing is a true "No-Win Crock-O-Crap" and not worth the effort as there is no resolution. As soon as one gripe gets even close to being handled, the subject changes and when we address the new topic, they then go back to the old. "Show me an example," they say......and if we showed them 25, none would meet the NEW criteria for their acceptance. Bullshit.

Sorry if I gave you any other impression Michael.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: sophocleese
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 09:11 PM

And around and around and around we go. Yes I agree with those guests who suggest that that some Mudcatters are irrationally concerned with identity over content, something that is particularly distressing to see in the context of Folk Music which tends, slightly, to be less image-based and more content-based. However arguing with such fallacies rarely works as those who sincerely believe in them believe in them sincerely and without reason. Yes some members are rude. Sorcha in particular seems to delight in writing to a threads simply to say that she finds it boring. Wow! Does she walk up to strangers in a cafe and say "Fuck you're boring!"? If not why do it here? I've said it once and I'll say it again, guest versus member is a non-issue, rudeness is the problem from both members and guests.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 08:33 PM

Question to Spaw - I'm curious how you determined that "we have plenty of anonymous guests who are just fine". For me, there's no way to tell whether there is just one person posting as "GUEST", or three dozen. And how do you know that some of them eventually attach names to their posts? Those could be completely new guests.

Or is this a case of the Mudcat Inner Circle having access to information about the site that the rest of us don't have? Just curious.

Regards,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Col K
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 08:01 PM

WEwould never have guessed where this thread can end

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 07:42 PM

I agree with Joe Offer's original statement. This has now turned into a Troll thread, which certainly wasn't RichM's intention, thanks to GUEST, or maybe GUEST, or possibly GUEST.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 07:21 PM

Theme song for our invisible friends

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 06:55 PM

guest 12:08 replied to me that it "has anarchist sympathies"...that tell me a lot. There are sound philosophical principles for having people play by the same rules when they are reciving the same benefits ...and if they will NOT follow those rules, why call them "guest"? *(see below)

it also says.."Then sadly, but somewhat predictably, BillD, like many Mudcatters, falls back into this sad state of mind, and says:

"I suspect that some simply do it because they can, and actually enjoy the consternation it causes....like those who make anonymous phone calls just to upset people."

A pretty irrational leap to judgment being made there, BillD."

pooh!...I said "suspect...some"...and watching all the trolls, it is far from irrational! Lacking proof does not make it an irrational suspicion.

.............................................. *one thing more...there a lot of weight put by some on the idea how we treat "Guests"...I really wish there were a different word used, as "Guest" is a loaded term. All we are really talking about here is folks who are unwilling to use a name
....(leaving out those who occasionally just forget).

I have NEVER had a "guest" in my house who walked in wearing a mask, refused to be identified, communicated with signs and notes, and thru it all, availed himself of my library and telephone while regularly complaining, in his notes, about his treatment!

Wincing Devil makes my point very well...and with fewer words...

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: SharonA
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 06:10 PM

p\P.S. to the GUEST of 09-Apr-02 - 05:13 PM: If, as you say, you "respond to what is actually being written, not to the way that people choose to log in to use the forum", then why are you even making a point of classifying people into groups such as GUESTS-who-are-flamed-by-members and Members-who-are-not-being-seen-as-publicly-admonished? Why not say that they are People-who-are-being-flamed-by-other-people and People-who-are-not-being-seen-as-publicly-admonished?

I contend that you do indeed respond to the way people choose to log in to use the forum, and that your posts to this thread ARE such a response!! If you really hadn't paid any attention to what appears in the "From" line of each post, you wouldn't have entered this conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: SharonA
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 05:56 PM

Guest of 09-Apr-02 - 05:13 PM: I know that your remarks appeared in one post. What I was saying was that I referenced the wrong post, then failed to find the latter part of your remarks when I returned to that incorrect reference. Hope that's clearer!

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Wincing Devil
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 05:53 PM

I object to Anonymous Trolls who just delight in causing trouble. There is nothing wrong with "stirring the pot", but to do so and not stand behind your words is, IMNSHO, cowardly. The US Declaration of Independence is signed with names, not "Philadelphia Benjy" nor "JA from Braintree" and certainly not GUEST. I use "Wincing Devil" because I think it's cute, an anagram of "Vince Wilding". I'll stand behind what I say. Most of us will gladly identify ourselves when the need arises.

Signed:
Vincent Charles Francis Wilding
Email: Vince (at) VinceWilding (dot) com or ARGH (at) WincingDevil (dot) com

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,Truthtroller
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 05:47 PM

Have you ever sat in a cafe and listened to a conversation next to you thinking 'why don't these people get a life?' That's what I think. Of all the posts you could be contributing to you pick this one. Shame on you RichM for dragging up this same old lame story again.!!! And I notice RichM that you've made not one comment other than the original posting..... who's the troll?????

T.T.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 05:13 PM

I think I'm too tired to keep this up. I'm starting to make mistakes, and less and less sense.

First--thanks guest 4:42, but I think you are most certainly the more eloquent, and certainly the more patient of the two of us!

SharonA--the quote I gave in my 4:38 message was all in the same post--the one you yourself quoted in your 4:18 post. And no, I'm not the least bit confused referring to posts by date and time, because I respond to what is actually being written, not to the way that people choose to log in to use the forum.

MMario, I will be perfectly happy to dine on crow if someone can come with a number of such individual members being publicy chastised by the site maintainers for bad behavior. I'm pretty certain someone can prove me wrong with one or two instances.

If, as you say, it proves to be true that members are admonished by the site maintainers, then my next question is about your last sentence: "I can say I have never seen more than one per member". Do you mean then, that public admonishment seemed to be an effective deterrent?

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: MMario
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 04:59 PM

Guest - I know *I* have been - and I believe several others - at least I have seen posts that *I* certainly felt were them being pubicly admonished. I am too brain burnt currently to search for them. Hopefully someone will bring up some examples for you.

I can say I have never seen more then one per member

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: SharonA
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 04:56 PM

To GUEST of 09-Apr-02 - 04:38 PM: Sorry that I said you were the GUEST of 09-Apr-02 - 01:11 PM when, in fact, you were the GUEST of 09-Apr-02 - 02:47 PM. That confusion may be the reason I missed seeing the follow-up to the statement I quoted. Someone else here mentioned that it is confusing to try to make reference to things that various GUESTs have said in a thread, and this is one fine example.

BTW, you said, "Which choice a person makes should never be made an issue in the forum." I don't entirely agree, because when someone makes the choice not to register as a member (and thereby submit personal information such as an e-mail address or other contact address) for the specific purpose of flaming, baiting, trolling, shaming and humiliating other people without being accountable for their actions, it then becomes an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 04:42 PM

GUEST 12:08 ... your post is by far the most succint and coherent redress of member BillD's concerns submitted to this forum.

The problem is, "East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet."

This GUEST tried, less eloquently, to make some of the same points as you, but my keystrokes fell on blind eyes, as his did on mine.

Viva la difference, and let me raise a glass to you both.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 04:38 PM

Sharon A,

Here is the complete quote:

"One group shouldn't be allowed to get away with bullying the other in a perfect world. But this being the internet, it is inevitable that it would happen, especially when one group has benefits and access, and the other group only access.

However, considering that choosing which one has is a free choice made by individuals, it just shouldn't be an issue."

I apologize if I didn't make it clear enough for you to understand. My second sentence above should be read to mean that choosing to be a member or a guest is a free choice made by individuals, just as you point out.

However, the point I also made was that which choice a person makes should never be made an issue in the forum. That is exactly what leads to the "bait and flame" game over the non-issue of how someone chooses to log-in to use the forum.

MMario--as I said, if someone can prove me wrong by providing numerous instances where the site maintainers--and I include Joe Offer, Pene, Joe Clones, et al on that list. I have never seen one of them publicly single out a specific member and publicly admonish them for bad behavior in the forum.

I have however, seen plenty of flaming of specific anon guests by those people, which is one of the reasons why I view this place as so unbalanced.

Andy why I I used such a stark analogy of the current Catholic clergy scandals to illustrate my point. Some people really seem to need such stark analogies to get the point being made.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: SharonA
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 04:38 PM

The GUEST of 09-Apr-02 - 03:24 PM says, "I'm a firm believer in using the fear of public shaming to get people to behave reasonably. I have never seen a more effective social mechanism to get people to behave decently." Well, that explains a lot about the attempts at public shaming done by GUESTs, but I'm afraid your theory is flawed. Indecent behavior never breeds decency; some of those who are basically decent people to begin with may be "shamed" into acting in accordance with their nature, but others will simply become angry and stubborn in their refusal to change because they see the "shamer" as behaving in a worse manner than they have. And people who are basically indecent can't be "shamed" because they see nothing to be ashamed of.

"There is even honor among thieves, as they say, and thieves, like every other human being, doesn't want to be publicly shamed and humiliated." Again, a flawed theory. Thieves and other criminals thrive on notoriety; what "shames" and "humiliates" them is being caught in the act or arrested and tried for their crimes. As long as they're getting away with wrongdoing, they will not only continue to do wrong but will be proud of it.

"Max has made it a policy on Mudcat to allow guests to be publicly humiliated and shamed with impunity." He's also allowed GUESTs to humiliate and shame members, in virtually all cases without deleting the GUESTs' posts, and in fact the site maintainers' policy of not responding to flamers and trolls is directed at members.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: SharonA
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 04:18 PM

The GUEST of 09-Apr-02 - 01:11 PM says: "One group shouldn't be allowed to get away with bullying the other in a perfect world. But this being the internet, it is inevitable that it would happen, especially when one group has [member] benefits and access, and the other group only access."

That's by the GUEST's choice. Besides, being a GUEST has its own benefits, including anonymity and lack of accountability. I certainly wouldn't call it a "benefit" to be subject to admonishment via Personal Messages, as members are.

Ther GUEST of 09-Apr-02 - 03:55 PM says that "the site maintainers don't come into threads and single out a specific poster for public admonishment." That may be true, but when a member is admonished via Personal Message and the member's post is removed from the Forum – either by the member's request or the administrator's – the result of that admonishment is public. Don't know if anyone's noticed it going by, but it's happened to me twice so far!

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: MMario
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 04:10 PM

So now we have gone from "Will never see it, ever" to "one example does not a policy make" - next I suppose you will say that Joe, Bert, Pene or any of the Joe-clones don't count - only Max?

Max *does* have a stated preference to deal with problems out of the forum. This is simple for members - much more hassle for non-members.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 04:08 PM

Well, a naked GUEST playing with himself is not a pretty sight either I would venture, Midchuck.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 03:55 PM

I am talking about being publicly admonished by the site maintainers, not by other users. That gets done all the time.

The site maintainers don't come into threads and single out a specific poster for public admonishment. I've never seen it happen. If someone can point out any number of instances (because just one example does not a policy make--it just makes it an exception to the rule) to prove me wrong, I'm sure they will.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,Midchuck downstairs
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 03:54 PM

What could be worse than a naked guest arguing with his member?

P.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 03:48 PM

Once again, something that has been said many times - There has never been any objections about people posting as GUESTS who make the minimal effort involved in putting a pseudonym (such as #2 for example) after the GUEST.

GUEST,#2 - I'll explain why I find naked GUEST posts inconvenient (and thanks for having the sense to stick a number on your posts). Sometimes I read through a thread and want to reply at the end, and refer to some post made way up the thread.

If it's been made by a person who's put in a name or a number, it's an easy enough matter to find them in the index at the beginning and track down the post to have another look at it before writing.

But if it's just one among a fair number of naked GUESTS in a long thread, it's not convenient at all, either for me writing my post or for anyone reading it who might want to check that I haven't got things wrong. And that inconvenience has been intentionally caused by the naked GUEST.

And when a naked GUEST starts referring back in any thread about anything to something they have said before, but without giving a link or a clear indication of which post they might have written and be talking about, it just gets ridiculous.

Back to the question in the thread heading. Best thing is to assume that any naked GUEST is the same person as all the other naked GUESTS, and ignore them. Good advice I occasionally ignore, which is a mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,Amy
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 03:44 PM

I have seen a member publicly admonished, actually. I don't read every single thread, but I can think of at least one instance. Always best not to use always/never. Just broke my own rule, didn't I?

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 03:42 PM

"you won't see them being personally admonished in the forum"

Ya right...

Don't say anything behind my back, you ain't got the stones to say to my face... that's how cowards work...

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 03:38 PM

I should have said, you won't see them being personally admonished in the forum. Members get admonished through private messages, according to Max, because he thinks it works better that way.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: MMario
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 03:32 PM

You won't ever see members being personally admonished by their behavior, ever.

since When?

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 03:24 PM

I agree I could have chosen a less inflammatory analogy. However, I chose this because it is a stark illustration of what can happen when we secret away the dirty laundry, in order to save face publicly.

I'm a firm believer in using the fear of public shaming to get people to behave reasonably. I have never seen a more effective social mechanism to get people to behave decently. There is even honor among thieves, as they say, and thieves, like every other human being, doesn't want to be publicly shamed and humiliated.

Max has made it a policy on Mudcat to allow guests to be publicly humiliated and shamed with impunity. He has another policy for members, which is to use the private messages to police members who behave badly. You won't ever see members being personally admonished by their behavior, ever.

As I said, I could have used a less inflammatory analogy, but it likely wouldn't have hit the nail near as accurately. In this case, I chose accuracy. I'm sorry that saddens you, but even your sadness wouldn't cause me to change the analogy or apologize for the timely use of it in this instance.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,Amy
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 03:01 PM

GUEST 1:11 -

Sweeping all that bad behavior under the rug of the private messages available to members seems no different to me than what the Catholic hierarchy is doing about abusive behavior by their own. Not in terms of the crimes being equatable, of course. But the dynamic is the same.

You could've chosen a different analogy. It just seems inflammatory to me. I understand what you're trying to say but I wish you'd chosen a different way to say it. This just makes me sad.

My unsolicited opinion, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 02:47 PM

Is it any surprise that members feel that it is guests who are the problem, and guests feel that it is the members who are the problem?

I think that is a silly position for anyone to take, actually. Where does that sort of blame game get anyone?

And (groan) please spare us from the "data on that"! <:-0

I'm that guest who said this forum is perceived differently by different users. Some people come here for community, some come here for information and the chance to discuss things, and nothing more.

One group shouldn't be allowed to get away with bullying the other in a perfect world. But this being the internet, it is inevitable that it would happen, especially when one group has benefits and access, and the other group only access.

However, considering that choosing which one has is a free choice made by individuals, it just shouldn't be an issue.

There are member/trolls/jerks and guest/trolls/jerks. But as Guest Amy has sensibly pointed out, changing the log-in won't eliminate rudeness. Nothing can totally eliminate rudeness, but collectively a group of people can keep it to a minimum.

However, as long as members continue to get a bug up their but over the guests, that collective group policing to keep rudeness to a minumum just isn't going to happen. Because those members who insist upon continuing to bitch about guests, whether anon, pseudo, or w/a name, you are going to have a much higher level of rudeness than if the members would just accept guests as they are, however they come, and quit their bitching about them.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 02:28 PM

One guest above posted "The rub is, those who feel that Mudat is a community believe they ought to be able to dictate the behavior of those to whom this is an internet discussion forum like many others. " Nonsense - I feel very strongly that it IS a community, and I feel no urge to " dictate" - I just wish people would remember their manners. Miss Manners has several publications about how guests should act, and how host(esse)s should act; I recommend them all. The thing here is nobody is the host, unless you want to count the person who starts the thread as hosting THAT thread. There is no host for the entire Mudcat community.

If you don't like a thread, or don't like why it was posted, why say so? Why not just click Back and go on to another post? That is dictating, and I (personally) find it's the guests who are more likely to try to dictate... it seems that the Why was this thread started, or Why should we care comments come more often from Guests, but of course that is an empirical question. Perhaps if we had some data on that?

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,#2
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 02:14 PM

Actually McGrath, I don't ever find it inconvenient to either post "Guest 9 Apr 1:20" or to read it. It is no more difficult than having to scroll back up to see who posted a message I wish to refer to back to, return to the "reply to" window, and keep typing.

That argument is a non-starter for me too.

But I do notice McGrath, that you more than most seem to have a problem with anonymous posters. I see you making irrelevant comments about it in threads with anonymous guests all the time. It seems to me that when the anonymous poster says something you disagree with, but don't want to argue with on the facts, you resort to using the lame "I don't have to take anonymous guests seriously" defense.

Silly, really. Just respond to the content, not the writer. It really is that simple.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 01:52 PM

At this point there are 32 posts to this thread, including this one. Fifteen of those are from GUESTS, and 11 of those are GUEST + a pseudonym; no problem at all with that. And I've yet to come across anyone being hostile to people who do that. (Well, not for posting as GUEST + pseudonym anyway.)

However four of them are just GUEST, without any kind of handle, not even a number, and the problem there is that there is no way of knowing whether this is the same one posting four times, or four different ones or whatever. When you want to make some comment on what someone has said, it is bloody inconvenient having to say for example "As GUEST 09-Apr-02 - 01:20 PM said..." And it's inconvenient for the people reading it as well.

Deliberately causing inconvenience to other people for no good reason is a very unfriendly thing to do. And it also messes up the process of communication, and that is unfriendly too. Unfriendliness provokes unfriendliness in response.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 01:31 PM

God forbid we should let a month pass without rehashing this topic!

~S~