BS: How should we treat Guests?

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,jonesey
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 01:30 PM

Guest 12:08...No, I'm not suggesting 'my' behavior as a 'guide' to anyone. It is simply my approach to posting on this web-site. The question was asked in an open forum and I responded. And yes, it's my feeling that one should be respectful of one's host. As a guest are you afforded the same rights as the residents? I don't think so and nor should you be. The members support and maintain this website and are entitled to a certain amount of deference simply because of that. Others' opinions may differ about this including the members themselves. When questions are posted it would seem there's an objective truth for which any that respond are searching. And who's to say all gatherings have to be happy? "To my way of thinking..." is expressing an opinion based on exclusivity not necessessarily objective processing. Who's to say your way is the right way? Seems a little snobbish, with all respect.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Watson
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 01:22 PM

GUEST,
for "personal message" read "private conversation".
I don't really see how that equates to abuse in the catholic church.
I don't see anything wrong with people who use the forum - whether they are guests or members - trying to make it a better place to be. I come hear to learn more about the music I love, I read postings from members and guests with equal interest, but just as I distance myself from someone abusive in a pub, I can ignore postings in the forum.
I don't always like what I read in members' contributions, but it seems more likely in my observation that obnoxious comments will come from anonymous guests.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 01:20 PM

I've been on a number of good mailing lists without moderators Clinton. The membership on those lists have been self-policing, and it has worked very well.

Other people's mileage has varied in this regard though, I'm sure.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 01:17 PM

"In most internet discussion forums, or at least those with high enough posting standards to be tolerable, attempts to control the behavior of other posters is pretty much frowned upon."

Bollox! Every internet forum worth its salt has mods who step up to the plate and delete spam, garbage, and trolls... Mudcat shouldn't be any different...

Make membership mandatory, and log IPs, like any other decent Message board...

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 01:11 PM

Catspaw, to you and many members, Mudcat is a community.

To me, and to others (likely both members and guests) this is an internet forum for discussion.

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.

In most internet discussion forums, or at least those with high enough posting standards to be tolerable, attempts to control the behavior of other posters is pretty much frowned upon. As is flaming people for their opinions, unless they are racist, homophobic, sexist, religiously or ethnically bigoted, that sort of thing.

Mudcat seems to revel in the fact that members aren't held accountable publicly in the forum, when they behave badly, or when they make racist, homophobic, sexist, etc statements.

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.

One set of rules for members, another for the guests. One set of rules for the Catholic clergy, another set of rules for the laity. And when the clergy breaks the rules, don't tell the laity, we'll handle it privately behind closed doors. And then let them loose on the unsuspecting laity to commit the same sins again and again.

That is the dynamic on Mudcat as I see it.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,#2
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 12:51 PM

Amen, Slickerbill. I agree with you both, the cookie thing is a pain in the ass.

I'd also humbly suggest that those same members who don't contribute much to the music or BS discussions, seem to contribute most to the Mudcat member sports of guest bashing, flaming guests, trolling to start flame wars, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 12:48 PM

Was there any doubt as to where this thread was going? It was a good idea Rich and I can understand your question, but this topic is doomed from the gitgo.

One thing....If a member has a problem with a member it can be and often is hashed out if not totally resolved through PM's. Both parties can have a say without it becoming a forum issue/argument/discussion. Within the past few weeks I have been on both ends of that type of thing as well as just general BSing thru PM's on things we had decided to keep off the forum.

One of these was with a member who had taken acception to something I had posted. I respect this person a lot and when I read the PM I saw how affected they were by something that I had not even thought about posting. They were quite right and the whole thing was discussed without adding in a bunch of comments by others who were not involved. It was simply an opinion of one member versus mine......and I agreed they were right.

Another had me "on the offensive" over a subject which I thought was worn out and that was successfully resolved. I had a third where a member angrily PMed me with an opinion and I PMed back with mine and what I felt to be good advice. Guess what....they agreed! And things have gone much better for both of us since.

As it is here, much as I would like to debate the topics which "Guest @ 12:08" said in response to Bill, what's the use? I don't know Guest @ 12:08 so why should I bother? Bill D. I have known for 4 years and respect and we do not always agree.....But because I care about Bill as a person, because this IS a community of living, breathing, people, then I would have some reason to make my views clear to him and his to me.

We have plenty of anonymous Guests who are just fine and some begin attaching names to their posts after awhile. Some of the named Guests are guests because of work or choice.....and many of them, like "Guest Russ" are the same as members because Russ posts consistently that way and we have gotten to know Russ pretty well. There's nothing wrong with being a guest.

The PM thing is a small thing perhaps, but it does work and it's one good reason to be a member.

Spaw (and you know better than to give me any crap about that being anonymous;16,000 posts and my life history on these threads)

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,Slickerbill
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 12:46 PM

I'm having the same trouble as Bill above. I have tried to register, I've done the check, etc., but it's a pain in the ass to reset my cookie and often it doesn't work anyway. I've been coming to the site for awhile now and very much appreciate the discussion and the level of expertise here. Am I to be treated like crap because of the cookie problems I'm experiencing? Judge me by my contribution, not by the word "GUEST". Quite frankly there are a number of registered folks here that , in my opinion don't seem to contribute much at all to discourse on music, or much else for that matter, so this bitching about guests is getting a little tiresome in my opinion. SB

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 12:45 PM

We should be nice to the nice ones, and just ignore the bad ones.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,Same Guest as 12:08 above
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 12:18 PM

Guest Amy, I couldn't have said it better myself. We wouldn't walk up to someone in public who was behaving rudely, and demand to see identification. That is a great analogy.

Guest Jonesey, it seems to me you are contradicting yourself. First you say:

"As a guest I try to maintain the same rules of conduct I would if in someone's home. Be polite, even if you disagree and always keep in mind this is someone elses house. Be respectful in any discussion."

OK--the way I read this is as a guide to how a guest behaves, and that you feel a guest should remain polite, no matter how they are treated.

Then, you say this:

"The members should treat guests with the respect or contempt they deserve."

Here, I equate "members" with host/hostess. You seem to suggest that it is acceptable for the host/hostess to treat their guests with contempt, if they believe the guest deserves it.

This looks like a very negative double standard to have. Host/hostess can get away with treating their guests contemptuously, but guests have no right to do the same?

Hardly the recipe for happy gatherings, IMO.

I'll stick with Guest Amy's analogy. It seems to fit the circumstances better, and is much better reasoned, to my way of thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 12:08 PM

BillD issues forth with:

"....a very few folk have decided that their runinations should stand on content alone, and refuse to have ANY identity...even one which cannot be traced or identified by color, gender or planet of origin. I submit that if we all tried that, these threads would be total chaos!"

BillD, it isn't chaotic for everyone. Honestly, it isn't. Not having a label to slap on a message as "identifier" doesn't bother some of us at all.

Then BillD goes on to say:

"Human beings simply do not relate well to thoughts in isolation, even when those thoughts are relatively calm, polite and on topic. (and they often are NOT)...."

Again, I disagree with this statement. I rarely look at the byline of something before I read it, whether in a newspaper, or on a website. When I do, it is usually out of a positive desire to find more of the same, not to hang in effigy the person who has written an opinion I disagree with, find abhorrent, etc.

BillD then claims:

"It is an affectation that is fairly new with the internet/WWW that people can do this---anonymous "letters to the editor" of a newspaper are simply ignored."

Yes, it is true that most newspapers nowadays won't print an unsigned letter. However, that is done to protect the guilty, not the innocent. The history of anonymous writing is as old as writing itself. Last time I checked, no one had yet taken responsibility for the ten commandments, either.

Then BillD waffles a bit, and says:

"In a society where civil rights are curtailed, people HAVE resorted to leaflets and posters to state views that would get them arrested...but I doubt a parallel can be drawn here....*wry smile*."

I wouldn't be so smug about censorship and threats to those voicing unpopular views here if I were you, BillD...*wry smile*.

Then BillD goes on to say:

"I have not seen yet a clear, well-reasoned, satisfactory explanation as to why this small segment of the population feels that they should be allowed to play by different rules..."

You are assuming we are all playing by the same set of rules. We aren't. For instance, I have strong anarchist sympathies. Is it your intention to keep people out of the forum because they don't share your sensibilities, values and beliefs?

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.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Willa
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 12:04 PM

As potential members who may simply not yet have learned the rules but who may (in most cases) be willing to learn them.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,Ivan
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 12:04 PM

Treat the guests fairly. I registered then somehow got lost. Now I come in as a guest and don't see any reason to be mistreated. There are fools who we can all ignore. It would diminish the site if you were to shut out people whose cookie expires or whatever. I enjoy reading postings from fellow folkies and reap the benefits of links to sites giving me lyrics or other bits of musical trivia. Don't shut us out.

(Sounds painful having your cookie expire.)

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,Amy
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:59 AM

Rereading my post above it sounded meaner than I meant it.

All I'm saying is, making people put a name to their rudeness won't necessarily stop the rudeness. If someone is rude to you on the street, what do you do? Stop them and demand to see identification? Most people just shrug it off and move along, I would think.

I say if it makes someone feel better to vent anonymously, then let them. Better to let it out anonymously than to bottle it up inside. I wish it wouldn't hurt people in the process, but as my mom always told me life is hard and some people are mean. You have to live your life the best you can and not let others get to you.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,jonesey
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:51 AM

As a guest I try to maintain the same rules of conduct I would if in someone's home. Be polite, even if you disagree and always keep in mind this is someone elses house. Be respectful in any discussion. The members should treat guests with the respect or contempt they deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,#2
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:46 AM

Yes, but what you fail to take into account Jim Dixon, is who is to judge when someone has been unfairly attacked, especially when the discussions are heated, like so many on Mudcat are? Are you going to censor a member who is unfairly attacking an anonymous guest, or just the anonymous guest who is arguing with that member, and expressing a controversial or unpopular point of view?

There is already an awful lot of censorship done in the this forum in the name of "defending members from personal attacks". How many guest messages get censored, compared to member messages? Who is making the decision as to what constitutes legitimate criticism, and what constitutes an unfair attack? And what are their qualifications for making that decision? What are the parameters they use for making those decisions? Do they even have parameters, or do they just do it on a whim? How impartial are the site maintainers being about censorship here, truly?

I believe people here are looking to the leadership--ie Max, who happens to be extremely thin-skinned, paranoid, and pretty much unable to tolerate criticism of himself or Mudcat, whether legitimate or spurious. Not surprisingly, that has attracted other people who are like that to join as members. Which is a guarantee that there will routinely be over-reactions by members and site maintainers alike, towards attacks which aren't attacks, and exist only in the minds of those paranoid, thin-skinned beholders.

The general view of and behavior towards the anonymous guest is really warped here, compared to other sites in cyberspace. As Guest Amy has pointed out, it is easy to use fake identities when signing up at Mudcat, just like it is anywhere on the internet. One can post to chat forums which require user name and password by making up that information on the spot every time one posts, and do the same for the email account. All the "required" blanks these log-ins require can be faked. ISPs and IPs are pretty irrelevant too. You need court orders to get information about the identity of users, and no site maintainer is going to go through all that bullshit because someone called one of their members an asshole, or stole someone else's pseudonym.

There are REAL problems in the world, and anonymous posting at internet chat sites like Mudcat, ain't one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: mooman
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:45 AM

I always try to treat all guests with respect as I would in my own home or in a session and try also never to get drawn into troll wars and the like. If a guest is rude to me, then in the words of the old Zen Master "Your opinion of me is no concern of mine", i.e. I just ignore the insults.

I agree with Joe about not posting e-mail addresses. In fact, in reading his message I realise I've just agreed with him completely!

Best regards to all

mooman

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:44 AM

The code of courtesy generally held by folks around the world seems to indicate that guests should be honored and treated with every respect -- local customs vary, of course -- usually up to the point where they do not return the honor and respect.

The Cat is mostly made up of people wishing to exchange ideas and communicate openly, and is usually a safe place for them to do so. The very few who violate that standard of conduct by making it unsafe to communicate, with ad hominem attacks and derogation, snide generalizations that destroy communication rather than support it, and other devices born of fear and anger, generally place themselves outside the pale of group protection or codes of conduct by their own actions.

When that happens they either tend to get ignored or they get unfortunately called out in a firefight. Dropping communication works better.

But I have never seen either remedy applied to a Guest in this forum who was honestly trying to express a point of view in exchange with others. It may have happened on rare occasions but it certainly is not a practice here.

A

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:36 AM

guests who can't 'register', but who identify themselves and sign their posts in a regular way, I have NO problem with.

Guests who require TOTAL anonymity and won't even pick numbers so that we may distinguish between them, bother me a lot!

WHY post as " GUEST,Different guest than above " when you could just be "Rumplestiltskin" or "turnip"?

....a very few folk have decided that their runinations should stand on content alone, and refuse to have ANY identity...even one which cannot be traced or identified by color, gender or planet of origin. I submit that if we all tried that, these threads would be total chaos! Human beings simply do not relate well to thoughts in isolation, even when those thoughts are relatively calm, polite and on topic. (and they often are NOT)....

It is an affectation that is fairly new with the internet/WWW that people can do this---anonymous "letters to the editor" of a newspaper are simply ignored. In a society where civil rights are curtailed, people HAVE resorted to leaflets and posters to state views that would get them arrested...but I doubt a parallel can be drawn here....*wry smile*.

I have not seen yet a clear, well-reasoned, satisfactory explanation as to why this small segment of the population feels that they should be allowed to play by different rules.....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.

ah, well...as usual, I have said my piece just to have it on record, and have no hopes that I convinced anyone of anything...but you CAN look up there and see who I am...

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:25 AM

I agree with Joe Offer, but there is one additional thing we can do to help alleviate the problem. When we notice that someone has been unfairly attacked in the forum, we can PRIVATELY send messages of support to the person who was attacked. These messages of support reduce the tension and make people—both the sender and the receiver—feel less compelled to respond publicly. This has already happened to some extent.

Of course non-members can't send or receive such messages, but that's just too bad. It's one of the benefits of membership.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:08 AM

I'm with Joe. If the guest has offered something thoughtful for which I wish to comment on, I will. If not. I won't. Just like I do with all threads. I mean, being a member doesn't automatically make one intellegent or interesting no more than being a GUEST makes one moronic and borish.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:06 AM

and I should say I have posted as an anonymous guest ONCE, to protect the privacy of another individual I mentioned, whom I thought might not care to be identified with me or my opinions. It can serve a useful function to maintain things as they are, and as always, ignore the trolls, keep your tempers, have patience with those less knowledgeable than you & those that haven't gotten hip to mudcat protocol or sensitivities.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 11:05 AM

I agree with Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 10:57 AM

I have registered, but I get no recognition from the software, have been unable to bid on auction items, because it does not know who I am. I am not going to 'reset my cookie' every time I log on, nor am I going to make up a 'cute' name to "disguise" my identity. We know who most of you are anyway, & don't understand the need or desire for anonymity, unless you are going to be rude to people unnecessarily. If you have something to say in a public forum, you ought to be able to own up to it, unless by doing so you will jeopardize your family, or your job, or your life in some way. No state secrets divulged here so far, and maybe a bit less so, but still free to speak our minds. Come and get me if you want me!

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Watson
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 10:57 AM

I think Joe's got it right - just ignore the obnoxious gits, just the same as you would if you encountered them anywhere else. I don't think they will ever go away, but we don't have to listen to what they say.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,Amy
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 10:46 AM

Which email address would you like? I have ten that I can think of. One for school, one for work, one for my ISP, a few others I got automatically for joining certain sites...

Might as well just require everone to register. That's what most sites do, and they don't have any problems with rude people. Right? Of course right.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: GUEST,Different guest than above
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 10:39 AM

RichM, it is difficult to have a discussion about why you want to reveal the identity of anonymous guest posters, if you don't explain what those posters are doing.

You say:

"...the negative actions of a few, have tainted the definition of "guest"..."

Would you please give us some specific examples of the negative actions you are concerned with which caused you to change your mind? It would be helpful to the discussion, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: How should we treat Guests?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 10:35 AM

Well, I don't think anybody should post their e-mail address in an open forum. It exposes people to Spam and other nastiness. We try to allow people to have anonymity if they want it. It's too bad that a number of people have chose to abuse that anonymity.
How should we treat guests? Well, it they are civil, treat them civilly. If they are assholes, act as if they don't exist. As always, the best way to combat flamers is to act as if they were invisible.
-Joe Offer-

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

Keep this up and you'll have no bleedin guests...just the snobs and smartasses who want justice done..but always to someone else. Practically everyone on this forum "anonymous" to a certain extent..why single out guests. I could recite a list of names that come regularly to this sight who are often, rude, inflammatory or just plain obnoxious...do you reveal that e mail as well ?

Subject: How should we treat Guests?
From: RichM
Date: 09 Apr 02 - 10:24 AM

How should we treat Guests?

I've been a regular participant on this forum for several years. There's no need here,for me to extoll this forum for its many positive aspects.
I've seen many guestwars, and for the most part have stayed away from them. Occasionally, I have commented when I felt comments were cruel and unnecessary. Many times we have discussed how trolls and other mischievous disturbers should be treated, or controlled.

Guests, as a group, have often been smeared by the activities of the anonymous trolls, and I have defended guests as a group. I believed, and still believe, that 'guests' to an internet forum should be treated as I would treat a guest in my home.

I have come to agree, though that there should be a change in the way Mudcat accepts guest postings.

Up to now, I have felt that guests should be allowed the free run of Mudcat. However, the negative actions of a few, have tainted the definition of "guest"

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

What do you think?

Rich McCarthy