Idiot Guest Shouters

[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.

[rick_wakeman]

Originally Posted by Rick and Roll

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.



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.

Jim is a nice guy with everybody and that's quite a gift since tastes and mental health differ a lot from one to another. Not trying to form any group within a group by saying that.

I wasn't the one to insult Eloy, but i personnally think that some smart registered shouters are much more pissing off than just one shouting alone like this and fainting a second class hero.