AO guest account?

For the first time ever, I needed to log into the site as "guest" b/c I didn't want to enter my username and password on a particular computer (that I'll be limited to for several hours a week...with nothing else to do but surf the net) but I wanted to post a comment or two on the site today. So I tried logging in as "guest" and "Guest" with like 15 different passwords for each (and tried logging in without a password...as it is a "guest" account). I was getting frustrated b/c I know I've seen people log in as guests before - with no APs allowed and no post count or w/e....am I losing my mind?

i think you are refering to some titles that appears on users from time to time, but i think that those appears because the person was banned in a special way..

anyway you are not loosing.... you already lost your mind :D

Er.. Isn't a guest just a visitor... A lurker... They can read stuff but they can't post etc....

Should I say "Duh" or can you say it for yourself? :D

Lol, I know that TS but I've seen posts from accounts called "guest", so that makes me wonder... Anyway, if it's not possible to login as "guest" then would anyone be opposed to me making a seperate account just for use when I'm away and want to post but don't want to potentially give my account away? I could have something in my signature like "My 'away' account - plz send negs, greenies, and PMs to 'keezel'". I doubt I'd use it for anything other than logging in from skool or friends' houses, and public computers in general anyway.

Weren't guests allowed to post when JP was the owner, after a while he disabled it though, but i think i saw a recent post by "Guest" too !

Admins-shed some light on this !

Posts from accounts with the "guest" thing are from back when guests were allowed to post. Either that (or in GreekGoddesses case) it was a request. This is AFAIK by the way..

Hehe, yeah, let's bring up that GG thing again where we see where more favoritism is shed to light, rofl...

Back on track, if I were to have a message board (which I do), I disable any logins that try to create anything that resembles the word "Guest". It's already set up in phpBB as a default association if the person's not registered and posts in open forums. I also never have anything in my forums available for "guest" posting because it's simply too abused. Register, or just lurk and read...one or the other and I don't have the time to sit around looking at IP logs from the web server trying to find the "guest" who rants, raves, and harasses actual members...

Vorlin: Concerning the GG thing, I dunno wtf your talking about..

What's wrong with just logging in and logging out?

Cookies. Logging. Unwanted prying eyes. I realize that this is bordering on paranoia, but it's a legitimate concern.

As for the GG thing - I know she has access to the "guest" account but I dunno wtf anyone means by favoritism or w/e. Anyhow it has no place in this thread...

After thinking about it, I agree with the policy to not allow people to just log in as "guest" because it opens the door to all sorts of trouble. Such as people posting and signing other member's names to the post... My question remains - why can't I just use a seperate, "throw-away" account to use on public computers?

Policy. But I'm not an admin or mod I just think that's what will probably be said.

I think you're right....that's exactly what will be said. I might as well lay down my main argument to that right now: aren't policies general guidelines? They are there to help admins and mods do their job - policies reinforce the decisions they make and the actions that they've taken. And ultimately, the power lies with the admins and mods; not in some rule book. I doubt that I'm "important" enough (or that my situation is dire enough) to warrant an exception to our policies on this matter, but it can't hurt to ask. ;)

the only guests that could ever post here were in the newsgroup forums, the alt.hacker and ****.. afaik

what was the point of thoes forums anyway.....i see their now gone but did they serve any purpose what so ever?

hexadecimal: My guess is they were more for informative and educational purposes. Even if mostly skiddies went there who looked to be "l337".

why dont you just create a NEW account, and let people know its you and that your on THIS particular computer. i suggest this because you dont want to risk your username / password, but if you create another account with a different password? whast the difference with asking someone to create a guest account for you??

Quote:

---

whast the difference with asking someone to create a guest account for you??

---

He's not asking someone to amke a Guest account for him ! he wanted to know how to log in into the Guest account (which is no longer possible), the guest account weas there for guests t post questions i think...

Quote:

---

why dont you just create a NEW account,

---

Multiple accounts are prohibited, one account per person !

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by CybertecOne
why dont you just create a NEW account, and let people know its you and that your on THIS particular computer. i suggest this because you dont want to risk your username / password, but if you create another account with a different password? whast the difference with asking someone to create a guest account for you??

---

That's kindof what I just said.

Quote:

---

My question remains - why can't I just use a seperate, "throw-away" account to use on public computers?

---

By that I meant a seperate account that *I* made. I'm thinking of doing it anyway b/c as long as I don't abuse antipoints or flame or anything there shouldn't be a problem with it. Hell, several trolls I know have like 4 or 5 accounts at a time and they got away with tons of sh*t before they were banned. And I'm not even planning to cause trouble. There shouldn't really be a problem...unless somebody makes a problem out of it. (heh, or if somebody says "no")

*edit*
Mem was quicker on tha draw. ;)

Quote:

---

Multiple accounts are prohibited, one account per person !

---

Damn - I was hoping nobody'd point that out, lol. My point is that there should be a clause within that policy....a very strict clause that helps people in my position out.

Quote:

---

quote:
why dont you just create a NEW account,


Multiple accounts are prohibited, one account per person !

---

sorry keezel, looks like you cant..... *shrugs*

Perhaps when you're using the "Insecure," PC and logging into AntiOnline, you could shred the AntiOnline cookie, erradicate the history, etc?

It would probably be good to change your AntiOnline password on a secure machine, before and after your session on the insecure machine.

Does that help, even if it is a simplistic view?

[EDIT]
Better still, just browse / lurk on the insecure machine(s) and use your patience skills then post froma secure machine. If your that paranoid, this is your best option! lol
[/EDIT]

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by ©opy®ight
Multiple accounts are prohibited, one account per person !

---

Lesson learned???

oh, man, AO acct isnt your Bank acct. If someone steals your acct, just create another one....

Dont be so attached to your greenies....

Quote:

---

If someone steals your acct, just create another one....

---

Hrmm.. and if you use a valid email? Then that person has access. In addition, if it's an account that is high on the AP total list they could use the account to do malicious assignments of APs plus post as "you" in a malicious manner.

Keezel, do you have the possibility to tunnel the connection? Perhaps it might be worthwhile to put in a Site Suggestion to have the login (much like Yahoo and hotmail do) SSL encrypted. Or put forward a suggestion of the creation of a non-posting, non-AP receiving short-term browse account (maybe only browses for 5 - 10 min for a specific period for a specific IP)?

There is no "guest" account, at least not at this time. I haven't been around long enough to know about the "GG incident", but nothing like that will be going on anymore.

Creation of temporary accounts is something that isn't going to happen.

It seems like I've read the reasoning behind vB not adding the option for encrypted logins to their software, but I can't remember what that was (and we don't use anything like clean vB code anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter that much). I'll look into this and let you guys know whether it's feasible.

- h