CPAPtalk.com

Guys,

I'm running into a 5 PM meeting. (Yes...we have those).

We are going to build a chat service that:

1. Detects your cpaptalk username and sets it uneditable to that if it exists.

2. Names you Guest1, Guest2, Guest3, etc if it can't find a CPAPtalk username.

Guests will still be able to chat, but not with names of their choosing. It is sad, but it has come to it. Will the next person please step through the naked scanner machine now.

Regarding all the feedback. If I was in chat with people being mean like that, I'd be pretty angry too. And if the moderator was slow to respond, it wouldn't help. That's happening here. If you don't like how things are run on CPAPtalk, speak up and poll away. I'm not exempt from "this sucks" messages when it sucks.

It will be several weeks before new chat is ready. I hope it does better than new coke.

Johnny

Thank you Johnny.

PS When I read the sentence about "new coke" I was not at first clear on WHAT KIND of coke you were talking about, powder or liquid.

snuginarug wrote:Thank you Johnny.

Ditto. I was pretty upset when I was being impersonated, but was livid when I went in to speak with Carolyn, who was listed as being in chat, only to find it wasn't her but the imposter. I'm sure Carolyn didn't take too kindly to it either.

Johnny, I personally want to express thanks for taking this seriously.

Thank you RG, I have never been there. I suppose I'll wait until the gremlins are gone.

snuginarug wrote:I am in the dark here... what did Johnny actually say on this topic? Could someone provide me with a link to that thread? Thanks

viewtopic.php?p=547155#p547155

johnnygoodman wrote: Howdy,

This situation is getting out of hand. I've put in a ticket for our chat system to pick up authentication from a logged in CPAPtalk user only and mark the rest as Guest1, Guest2, etc.

Johnny

viewtopic.php?p=547264#p547264

carolyngoodman wrote:
I have received some questions and wanted to provide clarification.

Once the chat updates are in place:
1) No one will be able to use your registered CPAPtalk name in chat
2) If you are not logged into CPAPtalk and enter chat - the system will automatically give you a name. The first person to enter chat who is not logged in will automatically receive the name "Guest1." The second person will automatically receive the name "Guest2."

Just like posting on CPAPtalk, we still want people who do not have an account with CPAPtalk to be able participate in chat. Many of you remember first coming to the forum and not quite being ready to "register" until you were more comfortable with the community and the information.

Regards,
Carolyn

I emphasized in bold-red the part of Carolyn Goodman's post that answers your question, Snug.

Thank you, Rested Gal

Somehow I think it would just continue under the Guest1/2 etc. names.

GumbyCT wrote:Somehow I think it would just continue under the Guest1/2 etc. names.

Yeah, Gumby, I agree. But at least the problem of impersonating members would be stopped, which is pretty important, it seems to me. Regular members who chat can easily see when someone uses a name that approximates one of us, and confront it so that newbies are not mislead. Still. I agree with Rested Gal that the posting list is the primary venue for folks to get help.

rested gal wrote:I go to the chat room occasionally, just to relax. I don't use my usual nickname "rested gal" when I'm in the chatroom.

Somebody is in there right now (hover over the Chatting Live link) as Laura - RG; is that you?

mars wrote:

brain_cloud wrote: Since the forum owners are on record with their view on this matter (to wit, that unregistered guests shall be allowed in to chat), the poll is both otiose and somewhat lacking in tact.

Nonsense. Johnny Goodman has always been open to what members think, and I am pretty sure he is in favour of free speech. Disparaging him whilst trying to disparage me can hardly be thought helpful.

Calm down, Gertrude.

brain_cloud wrote: And since the problems are being fed in large part by the neuroses of registered members, one can imagine that said forum owners' patience is being tried.

More nonsense. Blaming the victims demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of what is going on.

A troll came and found easy pickings. A few old ladies began to hyperventilate. Let's not be overly dramatic.

brain_cloud wrote:A troll came and found easy pickings. A few old ladies began to hyperventilate. Let's not be overly dramatic.

I'm going to say this with politeness and respect, but you're being a real jerk. Your recent comments are both insensitive and insulting.

Madalot wrote:

brain_cloud wrote:A troll came and found easy pickings. A few old ladies began to hyperventilate. Let's not be overly dramatic.

I'm going to say this with politeness and respect, but you're being a real jerk. Your recent comments are both insensitive and insulting.

I certainly didn't intend to be insensitive.

brain_cloud wrote:

mars wrote:

brain_cloud wrote: Since the forum owners are on record with their view on this matter (to wit, that unregistered guests shall be allowed in to chat), the poll is both otiose and somewhat lacking in tact.

Nonsense. Johnny Goodman has always been open to what members think, and I am pretty sure he is in favour of free speech. Disparaging him whilst trying to disparage me can hardly be thought helpful.

Calm down, Gertrude.

brain_cloud wrote: And since the problems are being fed in large part by the neuroses of registered members, one can imagine that said forum owners' patience is being tried.

More nonsense. Blaming the victims demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of what is going on.

A troll came and found easy pickings. A few old ladies began to hyperventilate. Let's not be overly dramatic.

I thought it was my job to be dramatic?

brain_cloud wrote:

Madalot wrote:

brain_cloud wrote:A troll came and found easy pickings. A few old ladies began to hyperventilate. Let's not be overly dramatic.

I'm going to say this with politeness and respect, but you're being a real jerk. Your recent comments are both insensitive and insulting.

I certainly didn't intend to be insensitive.

Wow.

plr66 wrote:

brain_cloud wrote:

Madalot wrote:

brain_cloud wrote:A troll came and found easy pickings. A few old ladies began to hyperventilate. Let's not be overly dramatic.

I'm going to say this with politeness and respect, but you're being a real jerk. Your recent comments are both insensitive and insulting.

I certainly didn't intend to be insensitive.

Wow.

Only insulting.