Jump to content


Photo

Future of the MT


  • Please log in to reply
394 replies to this topic

#101 don mitsos

don mitsos

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 369 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Lieutenant

Posted 22 February 2018 - 10:45 PM

All of you guys are on fire with all these accusations to each other!!!! 

You all say about MT is not keeping up with the site rules. Totally agreed, the site rules state that aliases are forbidden. So what are you waiting for, ban them all....

 

 

Oh wait whom am i going to play with then?


  • Nortrom and dalee like this

#102 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,846 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 22 February 2018 - 11:18 PM

Napoleon,

 

"See my explanation to malcom somewhere up. Personnally i consider that on that particular case you've made against Lonello, I'm unable to be impartial due to a long history in MT together with him with ups and downs and I don't feel I'm able to guarantee that these ups and downs would not influence my vote. Therefore my vote would be a blank vote on that case. If only one other mod has same consciousness issue as i have, then MT will be unable to reach the required 3 votes majority, so the only way for the plaintiff will be to go to the level above which is admins."

 

You asked some examples about favouritism? Why would you not be able to look at the definition of "libel" and then compare that to the things posted by Lonello? You're saying that you consider yourself not capable to give an impartial judgement , despite there being a clear definition of "libel", is that right?

 

You have two factual things

 

1. Lonello's comments

2. Libel definition

 

You can compare those two and come to a verdict, this has nothing to do about whether its from Lonello, me or someone else. The statements made by Lonello are either true or not. Simple as that.

 

 

 

Edit : I wouldn't like (and don't like) to judge cases against a WCO member in a WCO game, but our own rules (WCO) clearly state that we are supposed to do it. Just like the MT policy, which, apparently, you do not like to carry out. I personally have had to judge the game of Aris vs. KARAISKAKIS (published too for transparancy purposes) and an unplayed game between Morx and Nikos and I trust that anyone, not involved in this specific game, reading any of the messages exchanged would feel an 100% impartial decision was made on both cases. I hoped you would be able to do the same.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog post

 


#103 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 23 February 2018 - 12:44 AM

It's good to see the healthy interaction here, but even setting my personal experience with Napoleon aside it's clear to me he's trying to do good things and some of you just won't have any of it.  Lighten up for crying out loud.  There's nothing sinister going on here.  We're all just trying to have fun.

 

KMC: you make some good arguments for transparency (I wasn't able to like your posts as I've apparently reached my daily quota), but I don't see it as being that important one way or another.  If someone objects to a particular decision they can ask for clarification.  These are volunteers taking time to sort through disputes.  It's just extra work to formulate posts explaining reasonings.  These aren't death penalty cases. :) 

 

Morx: you really need to lighten up.  And I didn't cede the analogy point the other day.  My store description is much stronger than the one you gave....in fact, it's dead accurate.  Stratego.com isn't a club with a covenant between stakeholders and elected officers accountable to membership.  You have no financial interest here at all.  This is a private website with employees providing services.  The MT is working for free, sure, but they are employees at the rate the site was willing to pay.  You want to hold them to legalese but they are acting in good faith.  Cut some slack.
  


  • Don_Homer, Lonello, Napoleon 1er and 3 others like this

#104 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 3,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 23 February 2018 - 01:11 AM

I would strongly suggest the moderator team create a survey / form


  • Napoleon 1er likes this
WINNER of the first ever Astros Stratego Series! :D

#105 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • NASF Committee
  • 931 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 23 February 2018 - 01:42 AM

As this discussion progresses and I have had conversations with moderators elsewhere, I believe that that most of the problems people have raid boil down to one key issue: the exact role of the MT.

 

From what I have read, the MT and members of the community regard themselves as volunteers. They do not see themselves as agents of Jumbo, but rather as members of the Stratego Community who have experience, offer guidance and deal with a few bad apples. This is evident from Major Nelson's decision to advertise a Gravon tournament, the desire by Napoleon to protect Overlord and the unwillingness to enforce bans that they did not approve. When viewed from this perspective, the MT is doing a competent job.

 

However, in my opinion, the role of moderator is much different. The moderators are agents of Jumbo and they should treat their position like a job. This means they need to always act in the best interests of Jumbo. They should not engage in religious or political discussions or attempt to irritate players they dislike because you would not get away with that in a 9 to 5 job. Additionally, the MT should constantly work to improve their rules and the site, instead of taking a more complacent attitude and enforcing standing policies with no change.

 

Doing that is very hard and not fun, particularly when there is no administrative support whatsoever. It is very easy to get burned out and do things the easy way because the admins do not care. I would not fault anyone for falling into that trap. However, if you cannot motivate yourself to treat your position as a moderator like a job, then you should not be one. Stepping down does not mean you are a bad person, quite the opposite as it indicates you have the self-awareness to realize your faults.


  • Morx likes this
Cheesecake

#106 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,623 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Major

Posted 23 February 2018 - 01:45 AM

Let's say it's held on July 4th at 9 pm (21 gmt). 

 

Ahem, there's a slight problem with this that my apparently young American colleague forgot.  At 21 GMT it's 5 p.m. on the East coast of the USA and not nearly dark enough for fireworks yet.  At 21 GMT it is indeed 10 p.m. in London on July 4th, that's true.  It's a good dark time for fireworks then but I don't see a lot of Brits celebrating July 4th.  :)



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#107 Fairway

Fairway

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 3,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 23 February 2018 - 02:08 AM

Ahem, there's a slight problem with this that my apparently young American colleague forgot.  At 21 GMT it's 5 p.m. on the East coast of the USA and not nearly dark enough for fireworks yet.  At 21 GMT it is indeed 10 p.m. in London on July 4th, that's true.  It's a good dark time for fireworks then but I don't see a lot of Brits celebrating July 4th.  :)

Not exactly Gary, I'm saying 9 pm here , which equates to 21 GMT in Greenwich (9+12= 21) NOT saying it would be 21 GMT in Greenwich at that exact time. (It would be 1; 9+12+5= 26) Kind of confusing when I look back at it. Does my explanation make sense?


WINNER of the first ever Astros Stratego Series! :D

#108 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,623 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Major

Posted 23 February 2018 - 02:16 AM

1) Too many players were banned permanently. Don't ban players permanently because it kills the forum and damages the stratego community. When someone breaks the rules, delete some posts and when the player does it again, give him a ban for a week. When he returns and breaks some rules again, do it again. This is some work, sure, but it keeps the community alive.

 

2) Publish a list of who was banned in the past and why exactly. I know of a case were a player didn't break a single rule of this forum. He was banned! MT banned him because they didn't like what he was writing and they got some complaints from other players, who also didn't like what he was writing. Well, is it a rule that everyone has to like what one says? No!

 

 

Permanently banned players usually have done something very wrong and that's why they're gone.  But your idea about a published list of pb'd members has merit.  It would take some research to begin a list from the beginning but it might be worthwhile.  It's a good idea anyway.  As for this person you say didn't break any rules but was banned, whom are you speaking of?


  • imperium likes this

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#109 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,379 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 23 February 2018 - 02:17 AM

 

However, in my opinion, the role of moderator is much different. The moderators are agents of Jumbo and they should treat their position like a job.

 

This means they need to always act in the best interests of Jumbo. They should not engage in religious or political discussions or attempt to irritate players they dislike because you would not get away with that in a 9 to 5 job. 

 

 

A job with no pay ! If Jumbo want 'professional' moderators , then they recruit them and pay them and instruct them. Seemingly they don't want to do this.

 

The concern of 3 or 4 forum members for Jumbo's profitability is very strange indeed . Also it is quite ridiculous . That people that like Stratego go and play some games on another site with about 70 players is going to harm the company that runs this site is of course not remotely credible . That a tournament there being 'advertised'  (in private messages ! )  is some cause for concern also it is hard to take these things seriously .

 

The 'site policy' referred to , supposedly to prevent discussion of Gravon , is to me a simple , standard , 'anti spam' policy .

 

As far as the forum goes we see our job to facilitate discussion of the game . People talking about games on other sites does no harm .  Banning people from this forum for discussing Gravon harms this forum as it would reduce the membership significantly.

 

As it is so hard to take seriously any of these 'site policy' objections we will have to speculate on the real motivations of those that bring them.

 

Is Nortrom being banned from Gravon an issue here ? If it is then no wonder it is not mentioned  ,as some ancient feud may seem petty as a motivation and lessen the prestige of those keeping the thread going .


  • GaryLShelton, Don_Homer, Lonello and 2 others like this

#110 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,623 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Major

Posted 23 February 2018 - 02:21 AM

Not exactly Gary, I'm saying 9 pm here , which equates to 21 GMT in Greenwich (9+12= 21) NOT saying it would be 21 GMT in Greenwich at that exact time. (It would be 1; 9+12+5= 26) Kind of confusing when I look back at it. Does my explanation make sense?


Fairway, Fairway, yeah, I'm afraid you're a bit confooz-ed on this one. 21 GMT is called "21 GMT" because it's 21 GMT there. Your "9 pm" would be 21 hours for you, yes. But it would be 01 hours GMT at that time as you're -4 in the summer with respect to GMT.

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#111 tobermoryx

tobermoryx

    Major

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,379 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 23 February 2018 - 02:27 AM

 

 

 

As I have already wrote I used the report button exactly in line with the  instrucions of MT in greek forum , something which you in MT ignored . Never used pm to bring this case.
 
I used the same procedure  few weeks later in another report against vspy (father of Overlord)  . In this case everything run smoothly from MT and decision  was public http://forum.strateg...-2018/?p=445397

 

Secondly as you have already read in the pm where i have asked the same question ,  Gary  has given a totally different answer  

Can you decide im MT to give common answers or not?

 

 

It is true that there has been inconsistency with whether these warning points have been announced.

 

Often warning points are given for things that are quickly hidden and it is better that what had been posted is not mentioned .

With cases brought in the Abusive Behaviour thread then we do post the outcome .

 

Cases brought by PM or  through Report Centre (which is usually followed by a PM )  then sometimes we have made a public announcement and sometimes not .

 

I agree we should discuss the policy for this for the future.


  • KARAISKAKIS and GaryLShelton like this

#112 Losermaker

Losermaker

    Major

  • Moderators
  • 1,041 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 23 February 2018 - 02:49 AM

"The concern of 3 or 4 forum members for Jumbo's profitability is very strange indeed . Also it is quite ridiculous . That people that like Stratego go and play some games on another site with about 70 players is going to harm the company that runs this site is of course not remotely credible . That a tournament there being 'advertised' (in private messages ! ) is some cause for concern also it is hard to take these things seriously .

The 'site policy' referred to , supposedly to prevent discussion of Gravon , is to me a simple , standard , 'anti spam' policy .

As far as the forum goes we see our job to facilitate discussion of the game . People talking about games on other sites does no harm . Banning people from this forum for discussing Gravon harms this forum as it would reduce the membership significantly."


Wow I have certainly missed some serious stuff whilst I have been away.

There is so much that I could comment on but I don't have the time to do so now,
however, I would like to say that I fully agree with toby here. I have been one to mention Gravon and even put up posts to help people with signing in. I did not in any way mean to offend anyone or intend to harm this site, all my concern is for the best for the game we all love and enjoy, and I will keep this as my goal both online and live.

Sincerely,
Losermaker

Edited by GaryLShelton, 23 February 2018 - 07:49 AM.
Fix quoting

  • Don_Homer and Fairway like this

#113 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 23 February 2018 - 05:05 AM

From what I have read, the MT and members of the community regard themselves as volunteers. They do not see themselves as agents of Jumbo, but rather as members of the Stratego Community who have experience, offer guidance and deal with a few bad apples. This is evident from Major Nelson's decision to advertise a Gravon tournament, the desire by Napoleon to protect Overlord and the unwillingness to enforce bans that they did not approve. When viewed from this perspective, the MT is doing a competent job.

The way I view it they are both.  Jumbo's agreed to let them serve a function on a volunteer basis.  So they're quasi-employees, but also site consumers.  They're functioning in the interests of Jumbo, but that doesn't mean they necessarily refain from the interactions that a traditional employee would avoid.  It's part of the unique arrangement.  Jumbo gets free assistance and they get the personal satisfaction of serving a community they enjoy. 
 
Major Nelson's invitation to a Gravon tourney is no conflict.  They make pennies from the ad revenue here.  They probably leave the site up mainly for promotion of the game.  Gravon poses no threat to Stratego.com, but increased enthusiasm only sells more board sets, which is what Jumbo wants.  Now if Jumbo chimes in and tells him to stop then he would be under obligation to do that or resign.  But I doubt they would. 
 
Anyone who's read the MT's non-Stratego posts knows they are friendly people with varied viewpoints.  Assuming one of them would even hold it against you for thinking differently, it's unlikely that all of them would, and even more unlikely that all of them would tolerate blatant discrimination.  Look at the responses Napoleon's given.  Does it sound like someone scheming to keep the little man down?  No.  He's given very reasonable replies.
 
So I think your objections are exaggerated. 
 
btw: I don't always like avatars, but when I do, I prefer those like yours.  ;) 

  • Don_Homer, Napoleon 1er and OVERLORD like this

#114 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,871 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 23 February 2018 - 08:05 AM

Napoleon,
 
"See my explanation to malcom somewhere up. Personnally i consider that on that particular case you've made against Lonello, I'm unable to be impartial due to a long history in MT together with him with ups and downs and I don't feel I'm able to guarantee that these ups and downs would not influence my vote. Therefore my vote would be a blank vote on that case. If only one other mod has same consciousness issue as i have, then MT will be unable to reach the required 3 votes majority, so the only way for the plaintiff will be to go to the level above which is admins."
 
You asked some examples about favouritism? Why would you not be able to look at the definition of "libel" and then compare that to the things posted by Lonello? You're saying that you consider yourself not capable to give an impartial judgement , despite there being a clear definition of "libel", is that right?
 
You have two factual things
 
1. Lonello's comments
2. Libel definition
 
You can compare those two and come to a verdict, this has nothing to do about whether its from Lonello, me or someone else. The statements made by Lonello are either true or not. Simple as that.
 
 
 
Edit : I wouldn't like (and don't like) to judge cases against a WCO member in a WCO game, but our own rules (WCO) clearly state that we are supposed to do it. Just like the MT policy, which, apparently, you do not like to carry out. I personally have had to judge the game of Aris vs. KARAISKAKIS (published too for transparancy purposes) and an unplayed game between Morx and Nikos and I trust that anyone, not involved in this specific game, reading any of the messages exchanged would feel an 100% impartial decision was made on both cases. I hoped you would be able to do the same.


I agree with what you say and i acknowledge i have a weakness here, if that only thing makes a free volunteering mod not being eligible then that's it ... but then make sure to add a condition to the competencies of mod: be able to ban your free volunteering team mate if necessary.
My guess is that this would significantly reduce the number of eligible candidates.
  • Great Manos, hellinon and virusgr like this
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#115 KARAISKAKIS

KARAISKAKIS

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,495 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 23 February 2018 - 08:27 AM

 

 
 
  Look at the responses Napoleon's given.  Does it sound like someone scheming to keep the little man down?  No.  He's given very reasonable replies.
 
So I think your objections are exaggerated. 
 
 

@ DarthRemark

Look again Napoleon's respond in my post ( blue letters)and tell me if it is reasonable:

MT NEVER  post the decision for Overlord in forum exactly with what is happening for all the players who have be found guilty for abusive behavior.# 9 of Theo/Napoleon's list correct, simply because there have never been any formal claim raised against him, only a hidden active report from you and above pm again hidden to the public. Why was it so important for you to keep this case hidden to the public in december and why is it so important for you to bring it to light now about 2 months later? I'm sure all people from the stratego community who will read that would be interested to know what your real personal intentions are with those posts?
 
Personally I have no intention and no  interest in the banning of overlord but your logic is purely based on favouritism.# 10 of Theo/Napoleon's list.
 

 

 

1. He asks me why it was important for me  to keep the case secret  because I followed the appropiate way (using the report button)  exactly as it is described in MT"s  instructions over here : http://forum.strateg...nt/#entry442285

2. He asks me why it was important for me  to bring this case here after 2 months when HE  has asked a douzen times in this thread to provide examples/ cases for favoritism etc.

3. Finally he does not lose the opporunity to give his own conclusion and attack me with his question about my real personal intentions when i have already underlined in my post which are these. 

I have already explained my true intentions to Major Nelson before my post in this thread. I call him to confirm it public.

 

My real intention with my post is to prove that this man should have resigned YESTERDAY.

 

After all the above do you believe that is reasonable such persons to be still member in MT?

 

 


#116 KARAISKAKIS

KARAISKAKIS

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,495 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 23 February 2018 - 08:52 AM

I call also Lonello to post here his reply in Napoleon post about heros etc   in the pm send from MT and in which there are as participants all the MT and 5 more persons from greek community. 

Lonello said the things in the correct way it should be as a true member in MT



#117 KARAISKAKIS

KARAISKAKIS

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,495 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 23 February 2018 - 08:53 AM

It is time for transparency ,  gentlemen !!!!



#118 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,623 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Major

Posted 23 February 2018 - 09:12 AM

Secondly as you have already read in the pm where i have asked the same question , Gary has given a totally different answer
Can you decide im MT to give common answers or not? # 4 of Theo/Napoleon's list

.

I don't know where it is you think I might have answered differently than tobermoryx, but I'd like to look into it. Can you tell me the exact pm you think this happened?

That we on the MT have occasionally presented differing responses to the community is unfortunate, but hopefully rare. Any time this occurs we will be happy to provide a uniform answer if asked about it. The same goes for here if you will let me know the pm name and date of the post I made there.


On another related but slightly different topic, tobermoryx stated to you that there have been some inconsistencies in reporting decisions to do with warning points. And that is a fact. There have been.

But this little bit of imperfection in our reporting should not cause alarm. There's never been any intention to conceal any case decisions except for where in our opinion it might contribute to unnecessary strife among the community. In the case of Aris1970 and zoografos we took an unusually long time to arrive at the decision due to the nature of the offense and the time it took to gather evidence. So much so that, by the time we arrived at a decision in the matter we felt that it was best "announced" in a low-key mode (via pm to those involved). In retrospect this may have been the wrong path to take in wrapping up that case, especially since as I've admitted to you it was an oversight not to also notify yourself of that decision via pm as well.

Let me assure you we did not ever intend any deception with our action. Rather, we felt the low-key approach less stressful for the community. For the record that decision was merely that Aris received 2 warning points and a week-long forum-only ban. zoografos received one warning point and a warning letter asking him to change to login data/passwords and not to allow anyone else to again use them.

Returning to warning points a moment, I can admit to you that one thing that definitely played into any previous "low-key announcements" of warning point decisions. But it was an honest mistake. I, for one, was of the erroneous impression that whenever a warning point (a WP) was given to a forum member (WP's are only given for forum abuses) that the entire community could view the result just like we could. For example, we on the MT can clearly view the 2 warning points for Aris and one WP for zoografos. But can regular members see these same WP's? I never thought they couldn't. In fact, I have only recently confirmed with regular member KMC that he cannot see those same WP's. So my point is until recently this moderator, at least, didn't know the full extent of the concealment of WP decisions that we reported "low-key".

The MT will have to discuss these "low-key announcements" internally. Just please know this fact. These types of announcements by us have only been an exceedingly small percentage of the total decisions we do make and publish publicly over the course of a year. Our transparency is really very high.

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#119 KARAISKAKIS

KARAISKAKIS

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,495 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 23 February 2018 - 09:31 AM

Gary

 

I have already send you my reply in the pm where you can check what you have asked

About case Aris and zoografos MT ignored my suggestion and made one of the most unfair decisions i have ever seen

2 WP for the same thing and 1 week ban which means one step before PB

My suggestion to close the history without further complications and discusions in greek community was one WP and ask from zoografos to change his login data 



#120 Nortrom

Nortrom

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,846 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 23 February 2018 - 09:32 AM

I agree with what you say and i acknowledge i have a weakness here, if that only thing makes a free volunteering mod not being eligible then that's it ... but then make sure to add a condition to the competencies of mod: be able to ban your free volunteering team mate if necessary.
My guess is that this would significantly reduce the number of eligible candidates.

Napoleon,

 

What was asked of you:

 

1. Look at the represented facts (both regarding Lonello's comments and the definition of "libel")

2. Come to a verdict

 

This has nothing to do with"banning your free volunteering team mate". The fact that the "free service" card has to be played out also implies that incompetence should be forgiven and taken for granted.

 

What you did:

 

1. Come up with a very weak story about how you consider yourself incompetent on the area of impartial judgement

2. Make some story about "to ban your free volunteering team mate if necessary" 

 

What you should do:

 

1. Look at the represented facts (both regarding Lonello's comments and the definition of "libel")

2. Come to a verdict

3. Wait for other MT members to do the same
4. Share the verdict (may be done by another MT member too)
5. Optional: Assign one or multiple WP's. If this offense (if found guilty) would be severe enough for enough WP's for a ban (I assume libel is quite a severe case) you should follow the procedure.
 
 
 
As for the issues raised by KARAISKAKIS, I must admit to being shocked you take ☆OVERLORD☆'s future potential into consideration when coming to judgements. While true, overlord having great potential, one of your MT members, lonello clearly stated, and I suppose this also is an MT policy, that no "uber platinum marshal favouritism" must happen. The issues raised by KARAISKAKIS clearly show you are either not willing or / and not capable of coming to impartial fair judgements.

  • KARAISKAKIS and texaspete09 like this

"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog post

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users