BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 06:32 PM

Well McGrath, judging by yours and brucie's paranoid pixies activities in the thread, I'd say the only thing missing from it are yours and brucie's wits.

Hello Fred. You are still sorta new around here, so let me introduce you to the forum dynamic of which I so often fondly speak. Now, I know it's an awful lot for you wade through all at once. But if you can finish this admittedly rather difficult assignment, I think things will become a bit clearer to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 06:20 PM

So do you find that thread an enjoyable "level playing field" or not, "GUEST Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:35 PM"?

My feeling is that, while maybe it makes an interesting change, it somehow lacks something. I don't think it would be much fun if they were all like that, not even for nameless GUESTS.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 05:56 PM

Nice try, Shambles, but no cigar. No, anonymous posting is not encouraged, but it is tolerated as long as people don't get nasty.

Use of the term "JoeClone" is another matter. The term "JoeClone" is no more anonymous than, say, "Shambles." We ask the JoeClones to post editorial explanations under the name "JoeClone" to separate their editorial actions from their posting as individuals. They are not supposed to make any sort of policy statement - those come from Max, Joe, and Jeff, under their own names. The use of the term "JoeClone" stops people from attempting to interfere with our process of supervision. I think we have a right to choose to supervise our editorial assistants directly, rather than subjecting them to interference and attacks from people outside our chain of supervision. If you have a complaint about the action of a JoeClone, you have to contact Max, Jeff, or Joe about it. That's what we want you to do.

You will note that the "JoeClone" message Shambles linked to (click) is a perfect example of what a Clone should do. It's impartial, helpful information - much like editorial comments signed "Ed" in a magazine. That's our intent.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: Sam L
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 05:51 PM

I really don't mind anonymous guests at all, except for one who likes my posts sometimes, who I'd like to get to know better by following theirs. If I can't tell what a short anonymous comment refers to I decide what I want them to mean, and remorselessly don't care much beyond that.
I notice guests often talking about "influential" members, insiders, kings, feudal lords, about as often as I notice them calling these members "paranoid." A guest above sounds just like Treehouse in this regard. Treehouse seemed to feel that members who knew each other and got along well were pretty sinister, like a mafia or something. Talk about paranoid. I don't personally know a single person here, on a site maintained by someone else I don't know. So I'm happy to be tolerated at all, membership or none.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 05:07 PM

"all we need is love..."














and a winning lottery ticket.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 05:06 PM

Thank you GUEST. I love you, too. You are badly in need of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 05:03 PM

I love Brucie, all of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 05:01 PM

God, how very clever of you, McGrath. I just can't wait for the rest of your multiple personalities to join in.

Why, I don't believe I've ever been to another spot in the universe where quite so many older adults were so completely at-onement with their personal identity fixations.

At least, not since brucie and his multiple personalities left on vacation.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 04:28 PM

No, definitely not.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 04:23 PM

But this link might work better

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 04:13 PM

Nameless thread

A level playing field for "GUEST Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:35 PM" Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 03:47 PM

This fixation is becoming like the bird that flew in ever-dininishing circles and eventually disappeared.

This discussion was going on, pretty much exactly as it is right now, more than four years ago when I first joined. And it had been going on like that for quite a while before I joined. The only difference, as far as I can see, is the cast of characters, although some have not changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 03:24 PM

For a new kid, you are starting to catch on brucie. Sort of.

But don't fault Shambles. He is just pointing out the double standards and hypocrisy that surround the issue of anon posting in this forum.

Max feeds the paranoia of people like McGrath and Nerd. I think he does it because he is easily entertained by making others feel uncomfortable. Personally, I think anybody who is obviously as manipulative as Max, is a jerk.

But hey, that's just cheerful, l'il ole 2:52 me.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 03:16 PM

Nerd I didn't think it necessary to state the obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 03:14 PM

So, Shambles, does one of the four questions poated have more validity because of the name attached? And other than the first, how do you prove the rest are written by me?

This fixation is becoming like the bird that flew in ever-dininishing circles and eventually disappeared.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 03:11 PM

Are threads about anonymous posting to be continued?

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 03:10 PM

Are threads about anonymous posting to be continued?

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 03:09 PM

Are threads about anonymous posting to be continued?

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 03:09 PM

Are threads about anonymous posting to be continued?

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:59 PM

McGrath is right. Generally when reading a thread I like to read the whole thing, rather than getting to a post I want to respond to and then responding before I've read the rest of the thread. If you do that, and see 3 or four things you want to respond to, then you get to the end, and then what? Go back up through a hundred posts to find the right datre and time stamps? Ridiculous! But if you remember, "Oh, McGrath and Brucie and LH had some good points I can add to" it's much easier to find the posts again.

Also, GUEST, 12 Sep 04 - 02:39 PM, it isn't true that nobody has the RIGHT to. Max has the right to make this a members-only forum if he wants to. This forum isn't an empty area filled with our speech. It's more like a private club owned by Max, and it wouldn't exist without his software. Since he built it and owns it, he sets the rules. If he says only members can enter, so be it.

That said, I don't think Max should do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: GUEST,2:35
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:52 PM

I did, and found it incredibly refreshing McGrath. Enjoyed it immensely. For the first time ever since I've been here, we had a level playing field.

And if we could eliminate "How true" and "Me too" posts completely because people are too lazy to look at the date/time stamp instead of the from line, all the better, IMO.

As the Mudcat forum works now, trying to find ANY post further up a thread is a pain in the ass, not just anon posts.

Face it McGrath, you and a small handful of other influential members have an irrational fear about anon posters/posting on the internet. Why, I have no idea. And it is, of course, your right to be paranoid. But to run an entire chat forum based upon that irrational fear, and take it to the extremes it has been taken in this forum is just bloody sick and twisted.

You are also just being lazy. One can look at the date/time stamp just as easily as one can look at the from line. You're just an old dog refusing to learn new tricks, and trying to shame and blame all the young pups outrunning and outplaying you here.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:43 PM

Did you try using the Mudcat during the time when all the names were done, GUEST Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:35 PM ?

It just wouldn't work. It'd be so clumsy and unwieldy. Even a post as simple as "How true" becomes completely ambiguous if there is no indication as to whether it is meant ironically or literally.   Finding a post further up the thread, in order to respond to it, would become completely impractical.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:42 PM

Neither encouraged nor discouraged. Like the person above said.

What is to be encouraged is a good attitude...

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:39 PM

It should be neither encouraged or discouraged. Nobody has the right to. And guest 12/04/04 2.35pm is spot on.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:35 PM

You are wrong, McGrath. Everyone posting with the guest label doesn't render collective communication impossible, as long as we have the date/time stamp on each post. Which means you have to respond to what is being said, instead of your personal perceptions of a person.

Which means you wouldn't be able to be as lazy about communicating as you are now. The whole real/fake name thing on Mudcat is an illusion created by the little man behind the curtain claiming to be the great and powerful Oz. That's what was proved with the glitch.

You, and the handful of others around here with the profound discomfort of people posting anon, constantly use the name label as a lazy form of shorthand for not having to respond to what a person says, rather than who they claim to be.

C'est la guerre.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:28 PM

As Mudguard noted in the thread to which you linked, Mudcat Help does not automatically insert member names. As far as I know, this is nothing new.

Subject: RE: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:23 PM

A few weeks ago there was a glitch on the Mudcat which for a time meant that every post was marked as being from an unnamed GUEST. It was quite amusing, but instantly demonstrated that without names or the equivalent we would cease to be able to communicate collectively.

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Kant)

Subject: BS: Is anonymous posting to be encouraged?
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Sep 04 - 02:13 PM

Perhaps you could provide an answer? As the main point of membership, was that we could contact each other via PMs and folk are encouraged to join - do you think that now encouraging and supporting the posting as a guest or as 'Joe Clone' [or even JC) to protect your membership identity is really necessary or is setting the very best example?

The following link has an example.
http://help.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=2686&messages=6

After all these years of complaining about it - is posting anonymously now acceptable and something to be encouraged?