Anti-unregistered-user-ness

[Anon.]

I do think it's a bit unfair how, if anyone posts under an unregistered name, everyone else automatically assumes that they *must* either be talking shite or carrying on some personal hate campaign against an individual registered user. I personally can't really see why people choose not to register, but, after all, it is their choice (otherwise unregistered posting would be disabled) and surely people ought to respect that.

I know an awful lot of unregistereds are irritating berks who are out to annoy, but surely one ought to give someone the benefit of the doubt before shouting him down for being "our favourite troll back again" or "too cowardly to put a name to their opinions" or what-have-you.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound as preachy as this post has ended up, but really, I do think it's a bit off.

[Humphrey]

Call me cynical, but I reckon the reason you are sticking up for unregistered users is because one of them told me and Cellar Bar to study your posts because they are masterpieces of concise writing.

[hr]http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Anon.]

Ooh, did they? Where?

[Manic23]

Look mate (its pretty obvious this thread is being aimed at myself) I don't have a problem whatsoever with an unregistered user posting a comment, but when it is one (or two, or fifty-who can tell) who repeatedly post solely to antagonise the likes of myself, thats when my patience wears thin.

If you don't agree with something I say, fine. Criticise me all you want, but just don't be a dick about it by

a)Simply posting shite on a thread because I started it (e.g. the thread about the old bloke tossing hamsters from his flat)
b)not using an unregistered user name regularly(e.g. Rupert is a regular unregistered user, as is someone called novium)
c)Just disagreeing with what I say for the sake of i(i.e. yeah murdering babies is wrong, but its manic23 who's posting it, so I'll disagree for the sake of it)

[Humphrey]

[s]Anon. wrote on 19:21, 15th Aug 2004:
Ooh, did they? Where?


On the Prime Minister poll thread some unregistered user wrote

To be actually interesting involves being concise (see some of anon's more interesting posts and practically none of your two's), all you've managed to do is bore everyone else so much no one else can be arsed posting.

There you go, you have a fan.

[hr]
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[benedict]

i with Anon. on this this.

[James]

Whether rightly or wrongly, I (and probably others) find the Unregistered User facility a useful way of saying things without having everyone else know it's me. I maintain that there are valid reasons for doing this: for example, the more personal message threads, such as those on the "Advice" board. Points of view do not need an speaker's identity to make them valid.

I have never used it maliciously to abuse or attack, but all the same there has been the odd message in the past that I have wanted to post, but to which I have not wanted my identity attached.

Of course, anyone can use an Unregistered name, so if I were to post as a given name, nothing stops someone else posting with the same Unregistered name. That's a thing you don't get when you stick to your Registered name.

[Cain]

i'm with james on this.

the unreg user facility is useful for posting things where i don't want people to know that it's me. i don't havea problem with having arguments with people. i don't havea problem with people knowing my point of view. i would prefer, rather, that i have the option of posting unregistered on an advice thread ebcause i would rahter people didn't know the ins and outs of the less ppleasant aspects of my life.

now, i hear that the unregistered facility for users on a st andrews network has been revoked. this is not a good idea.

the unreg facility is good, but is only as good as the way that people use it. if they use it to snipe at people and hide behind the unreg system, it will remain unpopular. people who post unreg should realise that this is an option that is not allowed on most forums, and should appreciate the opportunity. you can only have it if you use it wisely.

[Humphrey]

I’m surprised that none of these irritating unregistered users have made any sarcastic comments on this thread yet, it can only be a matter of time.

[hr]http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Manic23]

[s]Humphrey wrote on 21:41, 15th Aug 2004:
I’m surprised that none of these irritating unregistered users have made any sarcastic comments on this thread yet, it can only be a matter of time.

[hr]http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/


The Mods probably haven't got round to putting them on yet, but don't worry, I can almost guarentee they'll be here in abundance by this time tomorrow

[Humphrey]

Might as well do a pre-emptive fuck off then

[hr]http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[benedict]

surely it's the moderators' responsibility to make sure that no malicious posts get through. i think in some cases if you get unregistered users targeting you then it may just be the case that you deserve it to an extent.

there seem to be some registered users who bait such replies, this thread being a good example, so to complain is rather a bit weak, the way i see it.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I don't think that anyone - myself included - are on principle against unregistered users.

It's just that from time to time certain people - and I think the cliche of a small minority is true - and it's those spineless whelps that (I believe) people are dimissing when they refer to unregistered users.

[Mr Comedy]

I agree!
I think that there is a need for unregistered users, as they provide a large part of the amusement.
And what is the point in this as a board of general discussion is we don't have them?
I would rather have the odd random (and some of them are odd).

[Anon.]

[s]Manic23 wrote on 19:24, 15th Aug 2004:
Look mate (its pretty obvious this thread is being aimed at myself)...

As a matter of fact, I was prompted by someone, who wrote on the HHPC thread:

You, sir/madam, are a fool and a coward. "Unregistered user." Pish. If you have something legitimate to say, say it and own up to it... etc etc

I thought that was a bit out of order.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

That's pretty stupid - because he said "Unregistered user." not "Unregistered users." and was clearing refering to someone who had been less than gracious. I hardly think he was making a slur against all unregistered users. Really, I'd have expected better from you Anon.

[Anon.]

But he was saying that comments made by unregistered users in general can't be regarded as "legitimate".

[General Porkov]

For my 2 Yen's worth, I'll have to say that for all the 'unregsitered users', who in certain people's opinion, apparently snipe/ talk crap/ whatever, they are in the minority.
I don't have any bias for or against them, they're not the only ones who do the bad things mentioned above. There are probably some registered users who do the same things (snipe/ troll/ talk crap/ zombie/ whatever).
So, what are they [registered users], then? Shouldn't they be got at as well?

Just to be balanced, whether or not the person is a registered user or not doesn't affect the quality of their posts

Doom Lord General Porko Porkov
Grand Dumby General of Doom!

[Guest]

Perhaps it would be wise if people would stop assuming all unregistered users are the same person? That greatly underestimates the number of people who use this site!

And as a bonus, maybe then I wouldn't have weird rants directed at me who are apparently for someone else and just confuse everybody and upset the wrong people?

Just a thought!

[Guest]

[s]Cain wrote on 21:17, 15th Aug 2004:
should realise that this is an option that is not allowed on most forums, and should appreciate the opportunity. you can only have it if you use it wisely.


Most of the forums I visit or have used in the past do allow unregistered posts. Once a forum has allowed them it is difficult to go back to unallowing them once you have seen the benefits. In fact this site is already stricter than most on that front with having the posts so delayed, sometimes up to 3 days before posts go up!

I do not think it is a good idea to disallow it on the network as I feel that this puts many at a disadvantage. If some people have the option then everyone should have the option. (Along with the fact that I dislike the recent trend on this site of trying to "pressgang" people into joining or if you are already registered to focre you out of the option or being able to be anonymous for more personal posts.

None of this effects me but I do know that there are more than a few people who use this site for nothing more than the advice thread and as such have absolutely no inclination or desire to sign up for that reason.

All in all, unregistered or registered, everything would run much more smoothly if people could just swallow their pride and ignore posts completely that are not to their liking. Surely that is not asking too much?