Idiot Guest Shouters

This morning at about 10:00am GMT a Guest_9315 shouted some insults at one of the other members (eloy1964) and I had to step in and ask them to go away. At the time of writing he/she/it hasn't come back.

My point is that I feel it would be better if the Shoutbox function were taken away from people who hadn't logged in fully. I seem to remember that the old site shoutbox wasn't available if you weren't logged in. Maybe this should be reinstated.

I'd be interested to know what others feel about this.

Here's what happened (obviously the earliest shouts are at the bottom of the page ):

# KeithieW : Had you heard of him before? That's one reason that the Request Free day is so good. It encourages people to listen to new artists and moves us away from RQing things like "Supper's Ready" time and time again.

# eloy1964 : Thankx Keithie. David conley is the first artist to sound so like Geddy Lee. Amaizing.

# KeithieW : Ignore that idiot eloy. He/she/it will be barred from the site shortly. I'm sorry you had to experience this idiot.

# eloy1964 : I don't think God will want to eat this noob anyway!!

# KeithieW : Guest 9315. Please go away. We have a method of tracking who you are and barring you from the site.

# [GUEST]guest_9315 : Altough you listen to good music, Eloy, you are a noob, God hates noobs and eats them for breakfast. And you know what time it is in heaven? Breakfast time! RUUUUUUUUUN ELOY RUUUN

# KeithieW : No your computer is fine.

# eloy1964 : Ah thankx. I thought the problem might be my computer!

# KeithieW : Hi eloy...Wednesdays are Request Free days. It helps introduce people to new music. SAM picks tracks from the library at Random. Requests will be back on tomorrow.

# eloy1964 : Does anyone know why the requests are switched off?

[RogorMortis]

I do think that the shoutbox now must be for members only as it has become the main chat and communication center at AM. We have recently now had two cases of abuse and it's bound to happen again and we can't have a policeman present at all time. We have reached a point where as a decision has to be made. We also need to point out a code of conduct, as there has been problems with members syaing things that wern't appropiate and there's proof that at least one member has been chased off and has never come back.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by RogorMortis

I do think that the shoutbox now must be for members only as it has become the main chat and communication center at AM. We have recently now had two cases of abuse and it's bound to happen again and we can't have a policeman present at all time. We have reached a point where as a decision has to be made. We also need to point out a code of conduct, as there has been problems with members syaing things that wern't appropiate and there's proof that at least one member has been chased off and has never come back.

There have been MORE than two. I was quite annoyed when a guest posted the URLs to the 128K streams. OK, they're not really top secret and certainly not difficult to deduce or find, but it was wrong to post them IMO.

[Rick and Roll]

I have not been receiving notifications of new shouts in my mailbox, and when I log in, I did not see this thread.

That being said, I have seen many examples of this also. But I have also seen examples of this from Rick Wakeman.

What I asked for this morning were questions related to why and how. I did not know this was a unilateral decision, with no discussion. That's how it was presented to me.

This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

If you would like my opinions about this, that's fine, we can discuss it here.

If not, all I ask is that I be informed of the policy as it changes. I've not been included in being informed of recent changes.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

I have not been receiving notifications of new shouts in my mailbox, and when I log in, I did not see this thread.

I don't believe that NEW threads ever sent out global notification. You need to post an initial message to a thread and then the software considers you subscribed to the thread. You then receive notification of future posting to that thread.

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

That being said, I have seen many examples of this also. But I have also seen examples of this from Rick Wakeman.

What I asked for this morning were questions related to why and how. I did not know this was a unilateral decision, with no discussion. That's how it was presented to me.

Unilateral?

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

If you would like my opinions about this, that's fine, we can discuss it here.

If not, all I ask is that I be informed of the policy as it changes. I've not been included in being informed of recent changes.

What do you feel you should have been notified about that you were not?

Personally, I think I should move this thread to where the general AM audience can read and respond to it. This problem affect more than just patrons.

[Rick and Roll]

Originally Posted by VAXman

I don't believe that NEW threads ever sent out global notification. You need to post an initial message to a thread and then the software considers you subscribed to the thread. You then receive notification of future posting to that thread.


Unilateral?


What do you feel you should have been notified about that you were not?

Personally, I think I should move this thread to where the general AM audience can read and respond to it. This problem affect more than just patrons.

You are right, I should have said that I didn't see this when I searched under new posts (and I was logged in).

Also, I agree about the moving of the thread.

You've blocked my emails and I have a bad address for dot lee. Davin and Jim are the only contacts I have, so server issues and password changes were not relayed to me. I get them eventually.

In our black box discussion, you said "You'll have to start logging in". Not, can you log in or why do you not log in (which Davin asked me once a long time ago). That sounds like a decision was made. The thread here has only been active for a few hours, and I didn't see it. When I questioned why and tried to have a discussion, you didn't seem to want to discuss it.

Mossy does not sign in because she needs to leave on a dime. I have the same issue.

Also, if others see her name as logged in, they will pester her with shouts. Is there a way to require log in but not show the name as logged in? I would log in if that was the case.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

In our black box discussion, you said "You'll have to start logging in". Not, can you log in or why do you not log in (which Davin asked me once a long time ago). That sounds like a decision was made. The thread here has only been active for a few hours, and I didn't see it. When I questioned why and tried to have a discussion, you didn't seem to want to discuss it.

You were in the shout when it was being discussed. Julieval, RM, KW, Ted and others were there too in the discussion. And, FWIW, I too had not seen this thread at the time. We were in shout discussing what KW posted here.

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

Mossy does not sign in because she needs to leave on a dime. I have the same issue.

So leave. I don't see that being logged in on the web site should preclude you from leaving your desk or anywhere else. I do all the time.

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

Also, if others see her name as logged in, they will pester her with shouts. Is there a way to require log in but not show the name as logged in? I would log in if that was the case.

Other "moonies" have voiced concerns about "stealth" mode prying. I'm going to have to side with them on that issue.

I really don't see the big deal. The old web site required it.

[Rick and Roll]

Originally Posted by VAXman

So leave. I don't see that being logged in on the web site should preclude you from leaving your desk or anywhere else. I do all the time.

Everything is ok w/ me. if we have to log in that is fine. but you've got more..Quantum Jo just shouted by not logging in a typing his name.

You can leave because you are self-employed. I almost got caught one time at work and it was a serious situation. Mossy is in a very tough one with her job. She cannot just leave. So for that one, when we log in we must make sure we have time an can do so.

I'll wait for the decsion...done now.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

Everything is ok w/ me. if we have to log in that is fine. but you've got more..Quantum Jo just shouted by not logging in a typing his name.

You can leave because you are self-employed. I almost got caught one time at work and it was a serious situation. Mossy is in a very tough one with her job. She cannot just leave. So for that one, when we log in we must make sure we have time an can do so.

I'll wait for the decsion...done now.

I still fail to see how logging in precludes you from leaving. Log out.

[Rick and Roll]

Originally Posted by VAXman

I still fail to see how logging in precludes you from leaving. Log out.

Didn't say that. I just meant that in the past I was in a place where my computer was visible to others. So I would alt tab back and forth or minimize the screen when someone came by. There's no time to log out. By that time you're caught. Ask Mossy about that sometime please.

I'm no longer at a place I need to worry about that. but many others are.

I need to be doing other things now, so I'll let anyone that has that issue or any other comments speak their mind.

I said I was ok with logging in...we all adapt. if that's the best way to control the problem (and I agree offensive shouts are a problem), let's do it.

[lotus]

Originally Posted by KeithieW

My point is that I feel it would be better if the Shoutbox function were taken away from people who hadn't logged in fully. I seem to remember that the old site shoutbox wasn't available if you weren't logged in. Maybe this should be reinstated.

KW, I agree 100%!!!

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

Didn't say that. I just meant that in the past I was in a place where my computer was visible to others. So I would alt tab back and forth or minimize the screen when someone came by. There's no time to log out. By that time you're caught. Ask Mossy about that sometime please.

You can't minimize a browser window on WEENDOZE when you're logged in? That's the first I've heard that one. If that that case, that is really perverse. Most logins are just a cookie; I'm surprized that Billzebub would preclude window minimization with cookies in the browser.

I don't know what alt tab does.

You CAN minimise a window. Also if the boss is approaching and you have to, just click the big red "X" and the window closes. When you reload the site the cookies will remember you're logged in and you won't have to enter your id and password again.

Let's get back to whether or not this is a good idea or not, eh?

So far I think, Myself, Mortis and lotus think that it is.

We need a few more opinions on this I feel.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Originally Posted by KeithieW

You CAN minimise a window. Also if the boss is approaching and you have to, just click the big red "X" and the window closes. When you reload the site the cookies will remember you're logged in and you won't have to enter your id and password again.

Pink hearts, yellow moons, orange stars, and green clovers. blue diamonds purple horseshoes and big red "X"s!

Originally Posted by KeithieW

Let's get back to whether or not this is a good idea or not, eh?

That's a great idea. However, I would like to know the reasoning behind the pros and cons; not just, "I like it" or "I don't like it". So far, I have yet to understand the reasoning behing the sole dissenting opinion.

[Hawksun]

I agree, shoutboxing should only be enabled for logged-in people.

I usually support internet anonymity, but causing trouble using it = No.

[lotus]

Originally Posted by VAXman

Pink hearts, yellow moons, orange stars, and green clovers. blue diamonds purple horseshoes and big red "X"s!


That's a great idea. However, I would like to know the reasoning behind the pros and cons; not just, "I like it" or "I don't like it". So far, I have yet to understand the reasoning behing the sole dissenting opinion.

ok, Vax, I would like to know who is shouting or faffing. Same as I am showing here with my nick, I want all others to have an identity, so if somebody shouts stupidities, I can identify him and ignore him next time, as I am doing. Also in this way we can ban idiots easier from the moon, as ip and nick have a relation (I think)

[roger]

I don't shout much, but I think that shouters should be registered users and logged in. you can't write in the forums unless you are registered and logged in, no? why should the shoutbox be any different?

[Rick and Roll]

Originally Posted by VAXman

So far, I have yet to understand the reasoning behing the sole dissenting opinion.

Who is that? Not me. I've said that I support logging in. Looks like it's 100% so far.

[Bmithra]

If random people are coming in and insulting members then I agree that the shoutbox should require login. That is rediculous. If someone wants to say something they should be brave enough to use a nick. That way, we can all point fingers at them and make them feel shame for the idiocy they commited.

[mossy]

Rick, I had to think about it for a minute and my issue (and yours formerly I think ) is that it takes time to log in. I know...pathetic. So, typically I hear the bosses keys jingling and then he's upon me, mid log-in, no time to "X" out. You tried to teach me alt tab and I couldn't get the hang. So I'm madly trying to log in/out, hit the dam "x", and finally just hold a paper up to the screen to block it, and pretend to be reading same

So, guest log ins work for me because of speed involved, but this is just my own little personal situation, and I understand the issue that KW is putting forward regarding requiring log ins for black.

The other thing is I don't think my presence in black attracts any more interest than anyone else being there....at least that's been my experience. More me hoping someone will say something in the piffling two mins or something that I have in black. Again..pathetic time management skills I'm afraid.

The other downside with logging in as me and not as guest, and this is a universal thing for everybody, is that my name remains on the list for AGES after I've logged out. This makes me feel badly because it looks as if you're there but you're ignoring. If the logged in name could disappear when the person logs out or "x's" out, I think this would be an improvement. Not a techie though, so don't know if this is feasible.

But these are little things in the larger scheme of things, really. We used to have guests in white and it was sometimes fun, sometimes annoying (especially to lotus. Actually lotus being annoyed was fun too). This has now transferred to black. I think because the Moon has grown so much since the inception of the new site, it would be nice to know who you're chatting to in black. More of a community feeling. Too many anonymous guests sort of reeks of the anonymity of the internet and precludes accountability.

So, for that reason, I am in favour of logging in to black. I will have to deal with my own crap at work. But thank you Rick for thinking of me. And glad you no longer have to deal with it.