Sock-hunting is stupid

[jsgoddess]

The rule against anyone having socks is stupid. Those who engage in sock-hunting are stupid. Sending away paying customers while claiming the board is penniless is stupid.

Someone comes back after being banned? Fine. Ban 'em again. Otherwise, their money spends just as good as anyone else's.

[Garfield226]

Needing more than one identity on an already-anonymous Internet message board is stupid. Stupid people don't belong here.

[neutron star]

jsgoddess, would you have started this thread if the sock that this is obviously about was someone you didn't like?

If so, why didn't you start it the last hundred times that the mods banned socks?

[jsgoddess]

Needing more than one identity on an already-anonymous Internet message board is stupid. Stupid people don't belong here.

Well, paying to post so nitwits can read you is idiotic, but here we both are.

And this board has some of the most egregiously self-important fucktards in the history of the internet, all convinced that their presence here confirms their brilliance.

The board is fine. It is not a font of genius. There are plenty of stupid people here.

[Anaamika]

My thought was honestly that she wanted to be banned.

[jsgoddess]

jsgoddess, would you have started this thread if the sock that this is obviously about was someone you didn't like?

I didn't have a chance to like or dislike the person. I don't remember previous incarnations and didn't interact with this one much so far as I recall.

[Ephemera]

Sock hunting is stupid but so are the people who feed the behavior.

She knew the rules and broke them, hence banishment.

[descamisado]

What if the socks are people who just keep creating guest accounts? They're not paying. Fatgail was a member but only because someone paid for her without her even asking. Somebody correct me if I'm remembering this incorrectly.

[jsgoddess]

My thought was honestly that she wanted to be banned.

And I want a pony! Is someone going to give me that? :D

Seriously, though, this has little to do with the most recently banned and much to do with the entire atmosphere of the board. Omigod, a sock! Omigod, a troll! Omigod, our precious bodily fluids!

I get a sense of paranoia and it's silly. Are we such precious flowers that we need protected so diligently?

[OtakuLoki]

I disagree with the OP, as well.

The ban on socks is well publicized, and well known to any regular poster, or lurker. While one might argue that this or that rare specific poster should be allowed a bye, that doesn't change that I believe that the rule against socks is one of those things that makes for a more pleasant board experience all around.

[neutron star]

It's not all that hard to follow the rules. If she wanted a fresh start, all she had to do was email a mod and say that she'd like to rejoin with a new name. Sure, it'd still show that she had thousands of posts, but I'd hope that most people are like me in that they wouldn't really care who she used to be and wouldn't search her post history to find out.

[Frank]

The rule against anyone having socks is stupid.
One of the things that is pretty much a requirement for fostering a sense of community (as we are trying to do here) is that posters are known in the community. Socks detract from that.

[jsgoddess]

While one might argue that this or that rare specific poster should be allowed a bye

I'm not looking for a bye for rare specific posters. I'm looking for a rule change that says that if you have been a member in good standing, you can come back under another name.

My board experience is made more pleasant when threads I'm participating in aren't closed, when people I may be communicating with aren't disappeared, and when other members aren't running around like spastic chickens attempting to figure out who is a sock.

[OtakuLoki]

I'm not looking for a bye for rare specific posters. I'm looking for a rule change that says that if you have been a member in good standing, you can come back under another name.

But my belief is that for a member in good standing to want to come back in, under another name without the association of their previous posting history, is a very, very rare situation.

Most socks are, to be plain about it, jerks we've already dealt with once. And, for the most part, I don't derive enough enjoyment from watching the jerks getting banned to want to see the process repeated.

[jsgoddess]

One of the things that is pretty much a requirement for fostering a sense of community (as we are trying to do here) is that posters are known in the community. Socks detract from that.

To me, this argument lends credence to the idea that at the Dope you are judged not for your posts but for your post count.

[Inner Stickler]

I agree with jsgoddess that sock-hunting is distracting and annoying. As for community-fostering, the posters who are well-liked and popular aren't going to create new accounts. It's the ones who made a bad decision in choosing what to post that want the chance to try again. I don't see why that is such a terrible thing to want.

[Revtim]

Yes, we need the sense of community, so we can label new people we don't like as "trolls" and "shit-stirrers", then when they start threads or make comments that are unpopular in any way, then we can easily ban them.

Yay community!

[askeptic]

To me, this argument lends credence to the idea that at the Dope you are judged not for your posts but for your post count.

So you're saying that you think that some people think Lib and Guin are the king and queen of the Dope?

[jsgoddess]

But my belief is that for a member in good standing to want to come back in, under another name without the association of their previous posting history, is a very, very rare situation.

I think I made it clear in the OP that I wasn't talking about people who have been banned.

[neutron star]

It seems to me that the sock in question took the SDMB for a bunch of fools. I mean, what kind of accountant can't afford a $15 fee? :dubious:

[jsgoddess]

So you're saying that you think that some people think Lib and Guin are the king and queen of the Dope?

I think that people respond to the poster instead of the post.

[Frank]

To me, this argument lends credence to the idea that at the Dope you are judged not for your posts but for your post count.
How does it do that? It is the content of the posts that makes one known.

Yes, we need the sense of community, so we can label new people we don't like as "trolls" and "shit-stirrers", then when they start threads or make comments that are unpopular in any way, then we can easily ban them.
Then why have usernames at all? Why not just have Anonymous as the author of all posts? Sure, there are members that act as you describe; I hardly think that they define the community. YMMV.

[OtakuLoki]

I think I made it clear in the OP that I wasn't talking about people who have been banned.


I understand that. But, how would you go about rebanning those posters without the "no sock" rule? That's what I don't get. If you remove the "no sock" rule, how do you justify banning the returning person?

For the most part, the assumption here on the Dope is that your IP is going to be used by just one poster. There are some couples who post from the same computers, but my understanding is that they cleared that situation with the PTB, so it's a known situation.

Now, without the "no sock" rule, how do you deal with jerkX when he comes back as jerkY. Same IP, but says he's the roommate of jerkX. With the "no sock" rule, the PTB can point to a specific and well-publicized rule that allows them to assume that the two names are the same person. And so jerkY's stay is not going to have to go through the process of building enough ill-will to merit his own banning. (Yes, I assume a troll is going to be a rules lawyer. It just seems to go with the territory, IMNSHO.)

If you're going to argue changing board policy on the basis of what appears to me to be a corner case, it's quite fair to bring up other corner cases that I think may follow the change that you want to see.

I am not making a hard and firm stand here, just offering my own opinion. If the PTB choose to agree with you, that's their headache. FTM, if you can convince a majority of the correctness of your position, that's fine. I just am offering my own opinion on some likely consequences.

[descamisado]

jsgoddess, do you care to respond to this, since you mention paying customers in your OP.

What if the socks are people who just keep creating guest accounts? They're not paying. Fatgail was a member but only because someone paid for her without her even asking.

[askeptic]

I think that people respond to the poster instead of the post.


Shouldn't people consider the source when deciding how to respond to something?

[jsgoddess]

How does it do that? It is the content of the posts that makes one known.

And once you're known, you get judged accordingly.


Then why have usernames at all? Why not just have Anonymous as the author of all posts? Sure, there are members that act as you describe; I hardly think that they define the community. YMMV.

Obviously my mileage varies or I wouldn't have started the thread.

It's hard to follow a conversation without usernames, especially on a board like this where there isn't the sort of threading you can get with usenet.


Maybe I should just back up and ask, "In what way do socks detract from the community?"

Do we need to know who someone is before we can read what they write and judge them accordingly? That doesn't seem like it because we allow new people to join, though some members are hostile and snotty to guests.

[jsgoddess]

jsgoddess, do you care to respond to this, since you mention paying customers in your OP.

I think pay to post is pretty stupid, so I don't have any objection to someone going around it. Those of us who do pay are the foolish ones, to me.

[Revtim]

Sure, there are members that act as you describe; I hardly think that they define the community. YMMV.When moderators (not necessarily you) act that way, in official moderation, then the community is indeed defined that way.

Example: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=454061
Yes, a ribald subject for a poll, but no worse than many other threads I've seen.

Don't tell me that if this identical thread was started by a long-timer, it wouldn't still be open. I don't care that some people have decided this person is a "shit-stirrer", whatever board rule that breaks, threads should be judged on their own merit. This looks like nothing more than pack mentality, and I've seen many times on this board.

[Bryan Ekers]

"Sir, is this gonna be a stand-up fight or just another sock hunt?"


If I wasn't paying for a membership, I wouldn't care how often someone changes his name, though I'd object to having more than one active name at a time, lest we get drowned out by idiots who this it's hilarious to register fifty names and have a party across every thread.

Because I am paying, though, I don't like the idea of someone perpetually getting a new guest membership every 30 days.

[jsgoddess]

Shouldn't people consider the source when deciding how to respond to something?

If a guest comes to the Dope, are you able to judge their posts despite not knowing anything about the source? Of course you can. So why is it suddenly cats and dogs living together if someone comes back under a different name?

There's nothing already that prevents me from lying about myself, so there's nothing special about socks when it comes to the ability to lie.

We don't require written manifestos or long questionnaires of new posters, so it isn't not knowing the source.

What is it about a sock that's so dangerous to a community?

[Cat Whisperer]

I certainly don't completely *ignore* poster name, join date and post count when reading posts. There are a couple of people here who are so intractable in their stupidity that my supply of sympathy ran out for them; other posters get much different responses from me when they post about their problems. I can't be arsed to go sock-hunting (if I even knew how), but I do like to be able to consider the source when responding to posters.

[Frank]

And once you're known, you get judged accordingly.
What's wrong with that? Why should, in general, posters not remain known?

Some years ago, I had a major kerfluffle with a well-known and respected poster. Had I gone away then and come back as Last Year's Model or something, you would be fine with my desire to airbrush my history?

[jsgoddess]

Because I am paying, though, I don't like the idea of someone perpetually getting a new guest membership every 30 days.

I can't even imagine caring if someone does that. To me, they're just willing to put in effort that I am completely unwilling to put in. And they're willing to put up constantly with troll and sock hunting members who would drive me 'round the bend in about three minutes.

[jsgoddess]

Some years ago, I had a major kerfluffle with a well-known and respected poster. Had I gone away then and come back as Last Year's Model or something, you would be fine with my desire to airbrush my history?

Yup. I could not possibly care less. If I figured it out, which I probably wouldn't, I would assume you either lost your password or decided to change your image. Neither one bothers me in the slightest.

[Cat Whisperer]

I<snip>
What is it about a sock that's so dangerous to a community?
I think this speaks to trust; we assume that most people are representing themselves honestly, and we base our interactions on that. Socks and trolls make us feel stupid and betrayed, when all we were trying to do was have a conversation with someone.

[Inner Stickler]

I think this speaks to trust; we assume that most people are representing themselves honestly, and we base our interactions on that. Socks and trolls make us feel stupid and betrayed, when all we were trying to do was have a conversation with someone.Really? Well, I must have missed the memo. Maybe it's because I tend to hang with theatrical crowds, but there have been several occasions where I've met someone for the first time and they were putting on an act. When it fooled me, I congratulated them for their skill and when it didn't I explained what tipped me off. But I've never felt stupid and betrayed about it.

[Voyager]

When you're hunting for a sock, I've found that it is often folded into a sheet.

:what?:

[Cat Whisperer]

Really? Well, I must have missed the memo. Maybe it's because I tend to hang with theatrical crowds, but there have been several occasions where I've met someone for the first time and they were putting on an act. When it fooled me, I congratulated them for their skill and when it didn't I explained what tipped me off. But I've never felt stupid and betrayed about it.
I don't hang out with theatrical crowds because they tend to be kind of assholish. Your mileage may be varying.

Voyager, I felt like I had solved one of the mysteries of the universe when I found socks in the pocket of a fitted sheet taken out of the dryer. AHA!

[jsgoddess]

I think this speaks to trust; we assume that most people are representing themselves honestly, and we base our interactions on that. Socks and trolls make us feel stupid and betrayed, when all we were trying to do was have a conversation with someone.

I assume most people are representing themselves honestly, base my interactions on that, and don't feel anything if it turns out they were someone else. It doesn't reflect on me at all if someone lies to me.

But even more, I don't consider someone having a different username to be a lie. I can have just as fine a conversation with an anonymous (though it took some thinking before I could spell it) person as with someone I know well.

Sure, the few people on my ignore list would foil my intentions if they came back under different names, but they are so overwhelmingly stupid that they'd end up back on the list quickly. Otherwise, heck, it might be nice to be able to read some people's posts without my issues with them getting in my way.

[Squink]

Recent ATMB thread: Could there be consideration for a registered sock? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=449512)

[HMS Irruncible]

Then why have usernames at all? Why not just have Anonymous as the author of all posts?
So that people who want to build a reputation may do so. Is it that hard to conceive a world where this is optional?

The only reason where socks need to be controlled is when there is a multiplicity of them created for one purpose; i.e. you post a message and then have your legion of socks post "me too!". That's bad, it should be controlled, and it is easy to tell the difference between that situation and someone just abandoning an undesired handle for whatever reason.

Some years ago, I had a major kerfluffle with a well-known and respected poster. Had I gone away then and come back as Last Year's Model or something, you would be fine with my desire to airbrush my history?
Why wouldn't I be OK with that? The only reason I'd need to know you did something bad in the past is if you're trying to do it again, or if I want to use an ad-hominem attack against an argument of yours by bringing up your irrelevant tiff with someone popular.

[Idle Thoughts]

I just wanted to ring in here with some insight based on things that came up in the other thread (the one that started this one).

Regarding people having no lives and finding IPs: I run a Vbulletin message board too and it's not automatic (as was answered) and members cannot see IPs so that theory goes out the window entirely. As was also answered, only mods and admins can but it's not like one has to constantly search through IPs just to compare one suspected sock to another, the process is much easier and faster than that.

As easy as one putting in an IP into the admin/mod control panel, clicking "find who else has this IP" and having a list that comes up showing you.

No muss, no fuss, and nobody who doesn't "not have a life", although the last one still may certainly be the case. If it is, it's by sheer coincidence.

[Guinastasia]

IIRC, weren't socks allowed at one time, and then someone fucked that up, and the "no socks" rule was put in place?

[neutron star]

When I changed my name in February of 2000, I didn't know that emailing the mods was an option so I just opened a new account. Months later, when the mods realized that there were two names registered under my IP address, they said something but I correctly pointed out that though it was against the rules at that time, it wasn't in early 2000 when I did it.

Of course, I never tried to deceive anyone and even put my former nickname in my sig to let people know who I used to be.

I don't remember if there was a specific event that led to the rule change regarding socks.

[susan]

I care less about socks than about trolls. I have no idea what proportion of socks exist in order to troll, but trolling is certainly one reason people create socks.

[Jayn_Newell]

I think part of it is that members in good standing will rarely have any reason to create a second account. Troublemakers, however, do. The "no sock" rule, to me, is essentially a way of keeping troublemakers out (Um, no offense to the poster of the same name), giving the mods a faster way of getting rid of them without having to go through the time a normal banning process takes--because frankly, if they were banned once odds are they'll get themselves banned again regardless.

[tnetennba]

I've never seen a board with more rules and more obvious socks and trolls than this one... which makes me think the rules aren't working.

[Mangetout]

Seriously, though, this has little to do with the most recently banned and much to do with the entire atmosphere of the board. Omigod, a sock! Omigod, a troll! Omigod, our precious bodily fluids!
Can't say I've really noticed that. All of the member reaction to revelations of sockery (recently, at least) have been rather tepid.

[susan]

I've never seen a board with more rules and more obvious socks and trolls than this one... which makes me think the rules aren't working.I don't know if they work as compared to some other strategy, but I do know that I keep re-upping here because of the amount of moderation, not despite it.

[twickster]

I don't know if they work as compared to some other strategy, but I do know that I keep re-upping here because of the amount of moderation, not despite it.
Exactly.

[A Priori Tea]

I've never seen a board with more rules and more obvious socks and trolls than this one... which makes me think the rules aren't working.

So, the SDMB is the only board you ever visit? I can't say I disagree with that practice (it's the only one I visit regularly, at this time), but maybe you should just go have a peek at places where the rules are less strict, the moderators are fewer and/or more apathetic, and the level of footwear and under-bridge-dwellers is *truly* a problem.

[Thudlow Boink]

What is it about a sock that's so dangerous to a community?Short answer: If there were not a one-to-one correspondence between usernames and posters, this would be a different sort of board.

You might even like that sort of board better than the one we have now, but not everyone would agree with you.

To mention just a couple of reasons why:

If socks were allowed, I'd be reading this thread wondering if anybody else who posted agreeing with you was really just one of your own socks.

There wouldn't be nearly as much incentive to avoid being a jerk in various ways, because if you acquired a bad reputation, you could always just start over with a new name.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

To me, this argument lends credence to the idea that at the Dope you are judged not for your posts but for your post count.

Er, how would it show that? :confused: Seems to me only fair that what one says should remain. Most people don't buy new faces, and get new IDs to get away from what they said or did. Exceptions being witness protection program participants. But here, all we know each other by is what we say. You can look at a person's posts, and read how they've grown and changed over the years to varying degrees. I don't think a person should (except under extraoridinary circumstances, like say a battered spouse in hiding, or someone with a stalker who knows their posting history) be able to post here without their posting history visible. Note: I did point out that people grow over time, and therefore hinted at the idea that while we can read over what they said in the past, it might not be what they are like today.

[kaylasdad99]

Heh. Maybe for a $45.00 per year premium, the Board could offer a Witless Protection Program membership...

[Czarcasm]

I've never seen a board with more rules and more obvious socks and trolls than this one... which makes me think the rules aren't working.
With all due respect, but regarding the "socks" part of your comment-BullFUCKINGshit. Unless you are a moderator on these other boards, you have no idea how many socks they are infested with, how hard they try to get rid of them, or even if they bother to get rid of them at all.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Heh. Maybe for a $45.00 per year premium, the Board could offer a Witless Protection Program membership...


Eek! No! :eek: All I was saying is, I think the system as far as no socks as it is enforced here works. I'm sure if the mods ever ran across something where a person had to jettison their old ID for reasons other than "I said some thoughtless things, and some people here don't like me." or the like, they'd at least consider what to do.

[Heffalump and Roo]

Those who engage in sock-hunting are stupid.
Since, as noted here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9437508&postcount=42), the only people to engage in sock-hunting are mods, as the rest of the membership don't have access to IP adresses, what are you saying about them?

As samclem notes here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9437215&postcount=35):
While others may assume we're stupid, this isn't the case.
Are you calling samclem a liar? Or mistaken? Or speaking for too broad of a population making broad claims? Or all of the above?

Or since samclem posted 16 minutes after you did, did that clear that whole issue all up for you?

[Lute Skywatcher]

I've never seen a board with more rules and more obvious socks and trolls than this one... which makes me think the rules aren't working.So, the SDMB is the only board you ever visit? I can't say I disagree with that practice (it's the only one I visit regularly, at this time), but maybe you should just go have a peek at places where the rules are less strict, the moderators are fewer and/or more apathetic, and the level of footwear and under-bridge-dwellers is *truly* a problem.I suggest any 9/11-related board at the IMDb.

[Heffalump and Roo]

I just realized that my post above needed more smilies, so here they are:

;)

:p

:D

:dubious:

in any order you choose. :cool:

[jsgoddess]

Since, as noted here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9437508&postcount=42), the only people to engage in sock-hunting are mods

The mods might be the only ones capable of sock catching but sock hunting? Hardly.

[susan]

Go to Amazon.com. Click on Today's Deals. Go to the bottom of the page. Read any Customer Discussion. Marvel at how offensive, insulting, and derailing some of the posters are. Notice that several unpleasant posters have nothing better to do than be obscene and offensive all day and all night. Notice the high "U sux!!11LOL!!" representation in these discussions. Try complaining by using the "abuse" button--Amazon claims that these boards are moderated. Notice that nothing happens. Sure, the comment might be hidden one click away if a high enough proportion of posters complain, but the comments are still there. That's what I don't want to see happen here.

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip> I'm sure if the mods ever ran across something where a person had to jettison their old ID for reasons other than "I said some thoughtless things, and some people here don't like me." or the like, they'd at least consider what to do.
The one time I've really lost my shit here has been over a poster being allowed to do exactly that - made a big, fat stinking mess, and then was allowed to change her name to try to get away from the stink she made. I still don't think that was right.

My husband is on a message board that is owned and moderated by one woman and her cronies - I tried it but left due to the incredibly uneven moderating. Really, people who think this board is bad need to try some other places, and come back here, thanking the gods of the internet that this place exists - for all its imperfections, this is still a good place to hang out.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

The one time I've really lost my shit here has been over a poster being allowed to do exactly that - made a big, fat stinking mess, and then was allowed to change her name to try to get away from the stink she made. I still don't think that was right.

My husband is on a message board that is owned and moderated by one woman and her cronies - I tried it but left due to the incredibly uneven moderating. Really, people who think this board is bad need to try some other places, and come back here, thanking the gods of the internet that this place exists - for all its imperfections, this is still a good place to hang out.


If it's the board I'm thinking of, I hear ya. But that place did allow someone to jettison their old identity for pretty much the reasons I outlined. Their stalker knew their online ID, and knew their posts.

[Heffalump and Roo]

The mods might be the only ones capable of sock catching but sock hunting? Hardly.
Ah, interesting distinction. So are you wanting to revisit the rules which allow people to be called socks/trolls in the Pit? I seem to remember a lengthy discussion when this was first allowed (I thought it was a little over a year ago right before I joined), but I can't seem to find it.

I think there were good points on both sides in that argument. What would be the benefit from your point of view?

The one time I've really lost my shit here has been over a poster being allowed to do exactly that - made a big, fat stinking mess, and then was allowed to change her name to try to get away from the stink she made. I still don't think that was right.
I remember that. Just imagine if the poster was able to create a whole new identity without the ability to search the poster's past posts. I think that's far worse. Especially if, for example, some people know about it, but you don't.

So, the SDMB is the only board you ever visit? I can't say I disagree with that practice (it's the only one I visit regularly, at this time), but maybe you should just go have a peek at places where the rules are less strict, the moderators are fewer and/or more apathetic, and the level of footwear and under-bridge-dwellers is *truly* a problem.
I agree. Or better (worse) yet, go to a message board with no rules and ostensibly no moderation and you'll see that all intellectual discussion ceases. It gets totally drowned out by all the noise.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

The one time I've really lost my shit here has been over a poster being allowed to do exactly that - made a big, fat stinking mess, and then was allowed to change her name to try to get away from the stink she made. I still don't think that was right.



Hang on a second, wasn't that poster just granted a name change? The posts remained, but it was a stealth name change, and it was found out by someone looking over their old posts? (I pre-emptively concede that I could be badly brainfarting here....) The most recent banee's name change wasn't as stealthy as the other one, but maybe I'm not recalling all the details of that incident?

[Lama Pacos]

Seems like a pretty damn stupid rule. I don't think the idea that disallowing buying a new account somehow preserves "community" holds very well.

For one, most people don't have the money or desire to pony up $45 to maintain a tripartitite identity; obviously, members in good standing would typically buy a new membership for some reason, not just willy-nilly whenever they feel like it.

Second of all, whenever I see a post that seems particularly laudable, it's almost guaranteed to be by somebody I don't recognize. Most of the forum members who I recognize by name and by presence are so because they're freaking insufferable. Insightful, interesting posts are nearly always from people previously unknown to me.

fatgail was one of the few members that I checked off as my mind as having made specifically above-average posts. It's too bad she is no longer allowed to post here.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

<snip>
For one, most people don't have the money or desire to pony up $45 to maintain a tripartitite identity; obviously, members in good standing would typically buy a new membership for some reason, not just willy-nilly whenever they feel like it.
<snip>


Tripartitite? (Did you mean tripartite (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=tripartite)?) Where do you get that? She had one account previously, on that account she got a name change. Then her membership lapsed, and years later she made a sock rather than come back and keep her post history. Three names, two accounts, and only one account she paid for because someone else paid for this most recent identity's membership I do believe. (If she paid when the board went pay to post? Don't remember.)

[Lama Pacos]

Tripartitite? (Did you mean tripartite?)

No, I actually meant tripartitite; in some dialects the infix --ti-- is used as an intensifier. So what I meant was tripartite, but even more.

Where do you get that? She had one account previously, on that account she got a name change. Then her membership lapsed, and years later she made a sock rather than come back and keep her post history. Three names, two accounts, and only one account she paid for because someone else paid for this most recent identity's membership I do believe. (If she paid when the board went pay to post? Don't remember.)

I wasn't referring to fatgail's specific situation, I was referring to the fact that allowing multiple accounts by one person won't cause people to suddenly buy five hundred usernames.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

No, I actually meant tripartitite; in some dialects the infix --ti-- is used as an intensifier. So what I meant was tripartite, but even more.



I wasn't referring to fatgail's specific situation, I was referring to the fact that allowing multiple accounts by one person won't cause people to suddenly buy five hundred usernames.


You don't know the nature of some of the trolls that continue to re-visit here then I guess. You must not have been paying attention. Some have been back more than once, paying each time for a new account.

[Lama Pacos]

Yeah, but the salient issue doesn't seem to be whether or not someone comes back; it's whether or not they're in good standing. I don't object to banned members not being able to return.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Ever hear the saying "If you let a camel stick its nose in the tent, soon the rest of the camel will follow"? Otherwise phrased as "Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile!". Point being, if the rule were stricken, then as another poster already pointed out, that would be a way for the trolls to also skate by. Making the rule be "Paying members can have more than one ID, but if you are banned you can't come back." wouldn't work out well. Some people might decide they want to make a "backup" ID, (or more than one) make trouble, get banned, and come back. (Not to mention the temptation some might feel to then make a sock to be a choir of praise for their posts, or a "foil" to argue against in order to push their agenda.) The rule needs to be simple, and one that can leave no room for abuse.

[What Exit?]

I think all the drama happened before I joined, why did JarBaby want to hide her past? Was she being stalked? Did she pull some really stupid and embarrassing stunt in a thread?

She seemed like a nice poster, why not just post under her board rules abiding name change TinyHam?

If it was something that shouldn't be posted, perhaps someone could PM me?

Jim

[CarnalK]

She wanted to hide her past because she was super bitchy and proud of it, for quite a good period. To be honest, I've been quite surprised about how gutless she has been these last couple of times trying to hide her identity. Doesn't quite jibe with the ballbuster of yore.


Continuing with the honest, I think the mods should make an exception and let her restart her little ham account. Her sock accounts weren't malicious in any way, in fact they were ridiculously honest outside of the initial "lie" - that's why she was so easily spotted.

While the andrewt's and Badtz's of the Dope may cry some unholy foul, I think most Dopers would accept a "prodigal son" type exemption for well liked members. Especially if it's mostly done in the open.

[istara]

I'm not looking for a bye for rare specific posters. I'm looking for a rule change that says that if you have been a member in good standing, you can come back under another name.
Yeah, I agree. The problem with being a regular member of any community is that anonymity is not anonymity after a while. Even if you are very careful with your real life details to avoid being phished out (and most people aren't) your anonymous handle still becomes known and recognised. It carries reputation which you may want to protect. You may want to meet up in real life with other members. You may be happy for them to share your recipes and political questions; you may not be comfortable for them to know that you have a groin rash.

So why should one, as a paying member, have less privileges than someone who hasn't paid and can sign up a totally unknown name to ask a particularly personal question?

So I have always thought it was justifiable for a known poster to create a sock account to ask a personal sexual question, for example. I haven't done it - neither wanted to nor needed to. But I think it would be fair enough. As for emailing a mod: they know our REAL names from our subscription/credit card details. They are people too. And they have been known to majorly cross the line - in terms of offline actions - in the past. So I have to say I wouldn't trust them any more than the average anonymous member.

[bbs2k]

What CarnalK said.


Just for fun, I'll mention that I have socks on some other message boards, openly. They're rather fun and silly, when not abused.

[samclem]

As for emailing a mod: they know our REAL names from our subscription/credit card details. They are people too. And they have been known to majorly cross the line - in terms of offline actions - in the past. So I have to say I wouldn't trust them any more than the average anonymous member. No, we don't. We, mods and administrators, don't know your real name anymore than we know if you're an extremely clever dog.

I only know what your email address is.

[Triskadecamus]

Some people don't care what reputation their "user name" earns. Fine, some people don't care much about their own personal reputations as well. But discarding your reputation like a pair of old socks is not the same thing.

People stop responding to you? Change your identity! People catch you lying? Change your identity! One of the reasons this board is different is that it does not allow multiple identities. You are invested in the words you post. Perhaps not much, but at least to the extent that your user name remaining yours, and your posting history remaining yours as well.

I am Triskadecamus. It is not my real name, but no one else is Triskadecamus, and everyone who knows that name gets to make their judgments based on what I have posted here, and what I have posted in other places under that cyber handle. Therefore I am careful what I post. I care about my reputation, and I consider your reputation when I read, or decide not to read your posts.

Tris

[neutron star]

You may want to meet up in real life with other members. You may be happy for them to share your recipes and political questions; you may not be comfortable for them to know that you have a groin rash.

So why should one, as a paying member, have less privileges than someone who hasn't paid and can sign up a totally unknown name to ask a particularly personal question?
So don't meet anyone in real life. Or if you do, save your embarrassing personal questions for real life friends who you feel comfortable asking. Or ask a doctor. Or ask on some other board where nobody knows who you are. Hell, these days message boards get so specialized that you can find a forum for practically anything.

These wonderfully advantageous guest privileges you're talking about are only good for thirty days. And if you ask something you don't want people knowing during that time, I guess you might as well not sign up at all.

You may have something approaching a point, but the no-socks rule is a bit of a trade-off. You give up a tiny bit of anonymity in exchange for good moderation that keeps out a lot of trolls that would have otherwise slipped through. In eight years, I can't say that I've ever wished I had a sock, so it seems like a pretty good trade, IMHO.

Continuing with the honest, I think the mods should make an exception and let her restart her little ham account.
She kind of already had that chance and blew it, didn't she? Instead of offsetting her bitchiness by acting nice for a long enough time for people to forgive and forget, she decided to take a shortcut that she knew was against the rules - not just that, but she screwed some generous Doper out of $15 that she could have doubtlessly afforded. Gotta say that I'm having a tough time mustering up any sympathy here.

[jsgoddess]

I think it's really clear from this thread that I do not take this board as seriously as some, or most, Dopers. For some, there's a lot of things bound up in this place that I simply reject.

Good moderation is a red herring. I have little issue with most moderator decisions on this board.

[twickster]

While the andrewt's and Badtz's of the Dope may cry some unholy foul, I think most Dopers would accept a "prodigal son" type exemption for well liked members. Especially if it's mostly done in the open.
Actually, I wouldn't.

a) No moderating decisions on this board should be about popularity or lack thereof. I think the current mods are pretty good about this, despite the regular claims that Mod X has a wild hair up his ass about Poster B -- in general, I don't see it.

b) If it's done in the open, as in a name change (which may or may not be ballyhooed publicly, according to the wishes of the person granted the name change), it is, by definition, not the creation and deployment of a sock.

[Liberal]

I think that people respond to the poster instead of the post.I hope you don't think you're an exception. I encounter your hostility practically everywhere on the board. You seem to take things way too seriously.

[What Exit?]

I hope you don't think you're an exception. I encounter your hostility practically everywhere on the board. You seem to take things way too seriously.
Wow, really? You find jsgoddess hostile? I think this one might just be either about you or in your mind. She is generally one of the nicer posters. She generally tries to find the positives when people are being negative.

Do you really find her being hostile in general or maybe she has just challenged you a few times?

Jim

[Shodan]

I think that people respond to the poster instead of the post.I agree with this. More specifically, it affects how closely they read something.

I don't disagree with the decision to ban fatgail/jarbabyj/tiny ham, although I am sorry she set up the sock account. I never saw her post anything objectionable, or even what would trigger cyber-stalking.

If she really wanted a fresh start, and no association with anything she had posted in the past, I have a feeling that maintaining a new identity would be a difficult task. Even if the mods allowed it, if you were running away from past jerkdom, the temptation would be to re-engage in the same jerkdom. If you were running away from people who were harassing you because of what you posted, they would spot you, or at least see someone posting in a way that would trigger a desire to harass. And start it up again, whether or not they realized they were harassing the same person.

If I said to myself, "Gee, the boards hate conservatives, so I want a new account so no one will harass me on that basis", and the mods allowed me to set up another account, either I could not post to political threads, or post things I didn't believe. The first is no fun and a name change wouldn't be necessary to bring it off. The second is too hard to maintain - how can I keep track of what I believe this time?

I'm sorry tiny ham is gone, but what can you do?

Regards,
Shodan

[Thudlow Boink]

I think it's really clear from this thread that I do not take this board as seriously as some, or most, Dopers.You've confirmed my earlier guess that you want this board to be a different kind of board than what it actually is. I don't think it's a matter of how seriously people take the board. After all, you're the one who started this thread and keeps vociferously defending her opinion in it.

[susan]

She wanted to hide her past because she was super bitchy and proud of it,I don't think her posts as fatgail represent any departure from this self-presentation.

[bbs2k]

Wow, really? You find jsgoddess hostile? I think this one might just be either about you or in your mind. She is generally one of the nicer posters. She generally tries to find the positives when people are being negative. Ooh ooh! Do me next!

::hyper::

[Inner Stickler]

She kind of already had that chance and blew it, didn't she? Instead of offsetting her bitchiness by acting nice for a long enough time for people to forgive and forget, she decided to take a shortcut that she knew was against the rules - not just that, but she screwed some generous Doper out of $15 that she could have doubtlessly afforded. Gotta say that I'm having a tough time mustering up any sympathy here.Except that Featherlou and Heffalump and Roo have already shown that no amount or length of playing nice will earn you a forgive or forget.

[Heffalump and Roo]

Except that Featherlou and Heffalump and Roo have already shown that no amount or length of playing nice will earn you a forgive or forget.
Whoa, wait! I think I need to clean that up a bit. If we're talking about the same incident, the reason I remember it was because I was on the side of the poster. I think they made some poor judgments and was sadly needing to use the message board to give out too much information about it, but from my point of view, there was nothing to forgive. . . about that one incident.* Everyone makes mistakes.

But for that reason, however, I do remember it.


*there was a lot more complexity that made it more complicated later

[Liberal]

Wow, really? You find jsgoddess hostile? I think this one might just be either about you or in your mind. She is generally one of the nicer posters. She generally tries to find the positives when people are being negative.

Do you really find her being hostile in general or maybe she has just challenged you a few times?

JimYou know what, Jim, my boy? I find her to be an anal retentive bigotted hag who has made no secret of her disgust for me and for my posts, which a simple search would show you if you're really all that interested, which you seem to be every goddamn time I interact with somebody. Your nose is always there, sniffing for whatever it is you use to pronounce your judgments about whether I'm doing the right thing or thinking the right way. But since you delight in making every fucking thing your business, check the history. Compare how many times she sniped at me or took a side against me to how may times (if any) she said a kind word or found "the positives" in anything I said. She has even gone so far as to recommend that no one ever read my posts. And it isn't just me. A cursory review of her Pit posts shows that she rips and tears down a wide variety of people, bashing them for everything from being Southern to being libertarian — both of which she equates with white supremacy and militia groups. So either do your research or just butt out, okay? Criminey.

[TubaDiva]

Whoa. This has gone from a discussion of board rules and staff actions -- which goes in the Pit -- to a more personal analysis of thought and action by someone who cannot explain or defend themselves in any way. (Not to mention some namecalling.) And that ain't right.

I probably should close this thread except that the discussion of rules and actions is still meaningful and to restart this from the beginning would be a further annoyance. I caution everyone not to put personalities into it and do not use this thread to weigh in on their actions; that's not what this is about.

[Sarahfeena]

I think on a board like this one, you really need to have a "no-sock" rule. People are blunt on the board...very very blunt...about their opinions on issues and their feelings about other posters. It's easy to confront people on all kinds of levels around here, in ways you probably wouldn't in real life. The only thing we have that holds people back at all is that you can't run from what you've posted.

Besides that, I agree with what Shodan said...to me, this is really an ongoing coversation and relationship I have with people, over a wide variety of topics. I have a pretty good idea of where I stand with people, and I know where they stand with me. I know where folks are coming from on all kinds of subjects, and it facilitates the conversation. In this sense, it's pretty much like "real life." You don't know someone for a year or two or longer, and not have an idea of who they are. I don't think that's taking the board too seriously, I think it's just a normal expectation of having a relationship with someone.

[Robot Arm]

Ooh ooh! Do me next!Careful, dude. I got my first, and only, mod warning for a post just like that.

[Thudlow Boink]

Heh heh heh. I don't think the Google Ads understand what kind of socks we're talking about. :)

[Sarahfeena]

Heh heh heh. I don't think the Google Ads understand what kind of socks we're talking about. :) I don't know what a wigwam sock is, but I think I need some!

[twickster]

Heh heh heh. I don't think the Google Ads understand what kind of socks we're talking about. :)
I'm getting "undo circumcision damage"! :eek:

[OtakuLoki]

Heh heh heh. I don't think the Google Ads understand what kind of socks we're talking about. :)


Huh? We're talking evil socks, and they've got ads for argyle socks. Seems appropriate to me.




(Arrrrrgh-Gyle is the nemesis of Ambush Bug.)

[wring]

I think it's difficult enough to get a handle on who folks are around here w/o allowing for additional personas/accounts per person. Folks that I have intereacted w/for years, I tend to have an idea of who they are, what they're like etc.

Of course, there have been some spectacular meltdowns here, too. What to do then? What's happened so far, is that the poster has been allowed to change their name to try and get a 'fresh start'. But when some one is doing that w/a post count of 4K, it's kinda obvious something happened. ANd, there's folks here who seem to be very good at keeping track of who is who was who. I've seen any number of folks try and change their names to get a fresh start, only to have their past come up. While it's tempting to offer some one a totally clean slate, it's not very realisitic, doesn't happen in real life either.

THe mature thing to do is to take one's lumps, appologize to those you've insulted, then (and here's the kicker) don't do the bad behavior anymore. Sure there will be some who'll hold grudges for years, like they're some 401k Plan or something, but most of us have too much going on in our lives to keep track of the bazillion little side plots a place like this has.

Liking or not liking the posters in question isn't the issue to me. It's 'what procedure will allow for the best potential for interaction among members in good standing here, now and in the future'.

And I think that can only be accomplished if we get/have to be who we are.

[CarnalK]

Actually, I wouldn't.

a) No moderating decisions on this board should be about popularity or lack thereof.

Why not? This is a little online discussion club, not the fucking UN. It's not like she broke the sacred all-encompassing "don't be a jerk" guideline. Or maybe she did, that one is always hard to peg.

She kind of already had that chance and blew it, didn't she? Instead of offsetting her bitchiness by acting nice for a long enough time for people to forgive and forget, she decided to take a shortcut that she knew was against the rules - not just that, but she screwed some generous Doper out of $15 that she could have doubtlessly afforded. Gotta say that I'm having a tough time mustering up any sympathy here.
The Doper who gave it as a gift doubtlessly could afford it and was certainly not "screwed out of it". Whoever it was wanted that sock to stick around. If anything the mods screwed the donor out of something. And seriously, you don't find any room for sympathy that someone so desperately wants to be a part of a specific community but is too scared to face her former rivals internet wrath? That's as pathetic as all get out.


TubaDiva, while "fat gail" is being used as an example I guess she's given up on coming back so she is pretty useful to use as a hypothetical. The only "personal analysis of thought and action" is what she has plainly stated herself:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7265758&postcount=4

[Cat Whisperer]

Except that Featherlou and Heffalump and Roo have already shown that no amount or length of playing nice will earn you a forgive or forget.I wouldn't say that, but you should be prepared to live with what you post here.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...758&postcount=4

So this was her 2nd return as a sock, after being given dispensation from the powers that be to rejoin after her 1st banning??

[Hakuna Matata]

Maybe you aren't allowed to do this......

But if you have a terrible history here and are reformed (somehow I always think of the Bumble from Rudolph when I write that!), can't you just ask for your account to be closed? In effect banned?

Then you open a new account under a new name (with the admins blessing of course). You have no history now, you can't support your old name (which I thought was the reason for the no-sock rule) by posting to their threads in support of them. Your old account is closed and you have a new one. Seems very straightforward and simple to me.

I thought the rule was not to have two active accounts here? So close the old one and you are good to go.

right??? Or is that not allowed?

hello...is this thing on?

[twickster]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...758&postcount=4

So this was her 2nd return as a sock, after being given dispensation from the powers that be to rejoin after her 1st banning??
I don't think she was banned the first time -- she did a voluntary disappearance when things got too hot for her.

And CarnalK -- no, I really don't think we should have one set of rules for posters "everyone" likes and another for those who don't have that big a claque -- for one thing, I think you can count on one hand the people who are "universally" loved, so you'd have to get into some weird calculations to determine what constitutes "popular," let alone "popular enough to deserve a dispensation."

[CarnalK]

And CarnalK -- no, I really don't think we should have one set of rules for posters "everyone" likes and another for those who don't have that big a claque -- for one thing, I think you can count on one hand the people who are "universally" loved, so you'd have to get into some weird calculations to determine what constitutes "popular," let alone "popular enough to deserve a dispensation."
Well, I didn't mean "universally loved" I just meant "generally gets along". IMHO, that is already the status quo in general. If you are new or have a history of shit disturbing you get watched a little closer and warned a little quicker.

[OtakuLoki]

I don't think she was banned the first time -- she did a voluntary disappearance when things got too hot for her.

Wasn't there talk about how not banning her for tinyham was going to be a one-time thing, though?

[bbs2k]

Careful, dude. I got my first, and only, mod warning for a post just like that.Hmm, while I suspect good ol' Jim would suspect I was joking, I'll take back that offer on your better judgment.

Carry on.

[Wheezley Blighter]

As a guest, I know that I have no "right" to question or comment on the behaviors of the SDMB community, but I'll say this- it strikes me as one of the most unfriendly places for n00bs, guests or contrary opinions/thoughts/ideas I've seen on the interwebs. Flame away, I'm impervious to it.

[Thudlow Boink]

Maybe you aren't allowed to do this......

But if you have a terrible history here and are reformed (somehow I always think of the Bumble from Rudolph when I write that!), can't you just ask for your account to be closed? In effect banned?

Then you open a new account under a new name (with the admins blessing of course). You have no history now, you can't support your old name (which I thought was the reason for the no-sock rule) by posting to their threads in support of them. Your old account is closed and you have a new one. Seems very straightforward and simple to me.

I thought the rule was not to have two active accounts here? So close the old one and you are good to go.

right??? Or is that not allowed?Well, it's definitely not allowed without the mods' blessing. Whether you could do it with their blessing would be up to them. And then they wouldn't tell us they'd done so, because that would defeat the purpose.

So, you'd have to ask a mod for the official answer, but I think it's: if you really think you need a "fresh start," present your case to the mods; but don't count on that option being available.

But I'm wondering why, or whether, there are all that many people who think they need a fresh start or a new identity. Aren't you happy being you? Why do you need to be someone else? We like you just the way you are.
[/Mr. Rogers]

[Inner Stickler]

Maybe you aren't allowed to do this......

But if you have a terrible history here and are reformed (somehow I always think of the Bumble from Rudolph when I write that!), can't you just ask for your account to be closed? In effect banned?

Then you open a new account under a new name (with the admins blessing of course). You have no history now, you can't support your old name (which I thought was the reason for the no-sock rule) by posting to their threads in support of them. Your old account is closed and you have a new one. Seems very straightforward and simple to me.

I thought the rule was not to have two active accounts here? So close the old one and you are good to go.

right??? Or is that not allowed?

hello...is this thing on?That would upset our carefully calibrated community! Posters would not have their reputation at stake for what they say! No one could trust that the people they're talking to are real! Horses would eat each other!

[What Exit?]

Hmm, while I suspect good ol' Jim would suspect I was joking, I'll take back that offer on your better judgment.

Carry on.
I did. Weren't you?

I am still trying to access Liberal's response, it was rather strong. Oh well.

[Hakuna Matata]

That would upset our carefully calibrated community! Posters would not have their reputation at stake for what they say! No one could trust that the people they're talking to are real! Horses would eat each other!


dogs and cats living together...oh my!

I guess if you are reformed you will change your behavior and no one will be the wiser, if you haven't changed then it will come out pretty soon, because we all have a posting style.

I think it is a pretty small minority of posters that would opt for this. I really don't see it as a huge problem to be honest.

Personally I don't see the need to change your name or open a new account--I stand behind what I posted here, otherwise why post if you don't truly post what you are saying? You are who you are by posting here. Any strong personality posting now would be outed within a 100 posts I think. But if you really did start off on a really bad foot and no one would drop it, but you had truly changed then I could see going another route.

[TubaDiva]

As for emailing a mod: they know our REAL names from our subscription/credit card details. They are people too. And they have been known to majorly cross the line - in terms of offline actions - in the past. So I have to say I wouldn't trust them any more than the average anonymous member.Not true.

The staff has no access to the subscription system and cannot see any of your subscription information EXCEPT for these things:

1. The date your subscription started.
2. The date your subscription expires.
3. If your subscription is currently in force.

And that is only administrators; moderators can't even see what I just listed, they can't see anything regarding your subscription at all.

The only person I know of who has access to your subscription information is Jerry Davis at the Chicago Reader. And he does not share that information with anyone.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/rules.php?

If you subscribe to the SDMB using a credit card, your card number and related information is retained in a secure database at our office. Access to this database is restricted to authorized Reader personnel. SDMB moderators and administrators do not have access to the database.

[Hakuna Matata]

Well, it's definitely not allowed without the mods' blessing. Whether you could do it with their blessing would be up to them. And then they wouldn't tell us they'd done so, because that would defeat the purpose.

So, you'd have to ask a mod for the official answer, but I think it's: if you really think you need a "fresh start," present your case to the mods; but don't count on that option being available.

But I'm wondering why, or whether, there are all that many people who think they need a fresh start or a new identity. Aren't you happy being you? Why do you need to be someone else? We like you just the way you are.
[/Mr. Rogers]

I agree it would be a small number of people opting for this. But it seems if you really felt you needed to do this, at least this option (if it is available) seems preferable to what just happened in the jarbabyj series. She hasn't posted for a long time, so close out her account and let fatgail do what she can. This is very different from a banned poster trying to come back it seems.

[Hostile Dialect]

As for emailing a mod: they know our REAL names from our subscription/credit card details. They are people too. And they have been known to majorly cross the line - in terms of offline actions - in the past. So I have to say I wouldn't trust them any more than the average anonymous member.Not true.

Do you deny, then, that you have personally crossed the line before, and unrepentantly at that? If so, can I have some of what you're smoking?

[Garfield226]

Do you deny, then, that you have personally crossed the line before, and unrepentantly at that? If so, can I have some of what you're smoking?
To be fair, the "Not true" likely applies to the "Mods have access to info that personally identifies us." I don't believe they do either, and in that sense, Tuba's statement is accurate.

The fact that the privacy of members has been flouted in the past and incidents like that could contribute to the untrustworthiness of certain mods/admins is pretty bulletproof, I'd say.

[Rubystreak]

I hope you don't think you're an exception. I encounter your hostility practically everywhere on the board. You seem to take things way too seriously.

You know, Lib, for once I agree with you. That's because sometimes, jsgoddess responds to the poster and not the post. By her lights, you or I should, if we felt the weight of her negative opinion of us too heavily, be allowed buy a sock and pretend to be someone totally new. Would that be OK, jsgoddess, or is your laissez faire policy on socks only for posters you like? Think it through-- you might accidentally find yourself saying something nice to Lib or me. Ewww.

I'm sure you think that Lib or I would be our asshole selves regardless of what identity we took on, so you'd be safe from the horror of being nice to our socks unintentionally. But I wouldn't be so sure you'd know. This is a big board. I hardly know who's who half the time, and I'm sort of paying attention.

Thing is, everyone here has to own what they say. Kinda like real life, only not. I like it that way, even if I am sometimes not proud of everything I've ever said here. That's for me to think about and deal with. What's NOT dealing with it is buying a sock (or worse, getting some poor sap to buy me one) and sneaking in the back door in an effort to get out of being a bitch in the past.

[Leaper]

To be fair, the "Not true" likely applies to the "Mods have access to info that personally identifies us." I don't believe they do either, and in that sense, Tuba's statement is accurate.


Considering that's exactly what she says IN THE QUOTED POST, RIGHT AFTER THAT STATEMENT, I'd say you're right. :D

[levdrakon]

There are times I wish I could switch to anonymous mode and ask about that embarrassing rashy itch in that embarrassing place possibly caused by that embarrassing activity I engaged in.

Too bad we don't have a forum where everyone is anonymous, but not for flaming or trolling crap. Maybe I don't want everyone to know about my hemorrhoids, et al.

[Omegaman]

Maybe I don't want everyone to know about my hemorrhoids, et al.

They've got a cream for that. I've never used it but I hear tell it works very well.....

[samclem]

Do you deny, then, that you have personally crossed the line before, and unrepentantly at that? If so, can I have some of what you're smoking? You know what----you're an ass. You're not only an ASS, but a rather poor excuse for an ASS. My ASS would be embarassed if I compared it to you. World Class Asses would be chagrined if compared to you. Take a course in reading comprehension, buy a clue.

The question was asked and answered about Mods/Admins having personal information about people who post here. We F-U-C-K-I-N-G DON'T. Get it yet?

[Garfield226]

You know what----you're an ass. You're not only an ASS, but a rather poor excuse for an ASS. My ASS would be embarassed if I compared it to you. World Class Asses would be chagrined if compared to you. Take a course in reading comprehension, buy a clue.

The question was asked and answered about Mods/Admins having personal information about people who post here. We F-U-C-K-I-N-G DON'T. Get it yet?
And yet, it's true.

[Hostile Dialect]

To be fair, the "Not true" likely applies to the "Mods have access to info that personally identifies us." I don't believe they do either, and in that sense, Tuba's statement is accurate.

Then why didn't she cut it off after the bolded part of the following quote, which is the exact same snip that TubaDiva quoted and responded to with "Not true."?

As for emailing a mod: they know our REAL names from our subscription/credit card details. They are people too. And they have been known to majorly cross the line - in terms of offline actions - in the past. So I have to say I wouldn't trust them any more than the average anonymous member.

Instead, she left the part about the mods having been known to majorly cross the line in the past. If she didn't intend to deceive newer Dopers by doing that, what was her intent? To demonstrate a laziness in quoting that would (presumably) cast some positive light on Dope mods? Why would she have quoted that section and responded to it with "Not true."? By doing that, she expressly and cavalierly denied that SDMB mods in general, and she in particular, had ever "majorly crossed the line". That's a flat out lie. It's simply a fabrication. That samclem's only defense was to scream about how awful I am says a lot about the strength of his argument, FTR. (I would respond directly to his post, but I'd break out laughing, and that wouldn't be very nice.)

[levdrakon]

Instead, she left the part about the mods having been known to majorly cross the line in the past. Hostile, far be it from me to defend mods (who are more than capable of defending themselves), but shut the fuck up. Which mods are known to "majorly" have crossed the line in the past?

Are mods occasionally ass-twats? Meh, not my fight. Do they know my real life name? Doubtful and who gives a shit. They can come to my house, sleep on my couch and eat all my popcorn and I really don't give a shit unless there actually was some precedence of malfeasance which there simply isn't.

What's your agenda? Got some friends you're trying to impress, Gospodin Quixote?

[Hostile Dialect]

Which mods are known to "majorly" have crossed the line in the past?

TubaDiva, the mod who specifically responded to the accusation by saying "Not true".


What's your agenda? Got some friends you're trying to impress, Gospodin Quixote?

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? If I gave a shit what they thought of me or had any desire to impress them, I would have driven my car into the Pacific by now.

[levdrakon]

TubaDiva, the mod who specifically responded to the accusation by saying "Not true".One administrator, one time. That ain't "majorly."
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? If I gave a shit what they thought of me or had any desire to impress them, I would have driven my car into the Pacific by now.Obviously you're not trying to impress them, but do you know you're not impressing me and most likely anyone else? You've got a gripe with Tuba. Why? Drive your car into the Pacific? Please, don't pollute my favorite ocean. Try therapy. You *are* taking this board too seriously.

[Hostile Dialect]

One administrator, one time. That ain't "majorly."

The way I read it, "majorly" referred to the severity of the known example(s?), not the frequency of same. YMMV, apparently.

Obviously you're not trying to impress them, but do you know you're not impressing me and most likely anyone else?

Why are you so attached to the idea that I'm trying to impress someone? Hey Sherlock, since you're such a world-class detective, why don't you go find the people I expected to impress? Why give up after only one try, like you just did?

You've got a gripe with Tuba.

Actually, I don't. What is it about some people, assuming that whenever I say anything critical about anyone, I must have some unnamed gripe with that person? Since you're playing Sherlock again, why don't you go find some evidence that I hold a persistent grudge against Tuba in particular, as you claim?

[levdrakon]

Using my amazing detectivity powers I conclude that if you don't have a gripe with Tuba then your statement "mods having been known to majorly cross the line in the past" is um, how we say, without ground?

Do not put your car in my Pacific, buster! ;)

[berff]

As a guest, I know that I have no "right" to question or comment on the behaviors of the SDMB community, but I'll say this- it strikes me as one of the most unfriendly places for n00bs, guests or contrary opinions/thoughts/ideas I've seen on the interwebs. Flame away, I'm impervious to it.

Agreed. Although I'm actually a member, I do not plan to be renew my membership when it expires next month. Of course, I strongly doubt anyone will care (or notice since I rarely post anyway). Maybe this board just needs better (or more strict) moderation?

[bbs2k]

HD, enough kiddo. I've had my disagreements as well. She's a nice enough lady who babysits the messageboard.

If you'd like to keep complaining, then go ahead. Bitching about bitching only sounds like more bitching.

Holy crap! I'm a philosopher!

[chela]

So Fatgail is tiny ham aka jar , I just knew it! SOmething about her posts were so familiar,

remember when she and BBJ used to go at it? those were the days...

[Cat Whisperer]

And *I'm* the one with a problem with forgiving and forgetting? You had a chance to vote with your feet at the time, Hostile Dialect. Maybe it's time to think about getting over it.

[hawthorne]

You had a chance to vote with your feet at the time, Hostile Dialect. Maybe it's time to think about getting over it.I (eventually) decided to stay. But there was a vigilante betrayal. And a whitewash. In staying, I accepted that there was and that whilst I was unhappy with how it played out, these generally superbly-moderated boards moved on.

I didn't agree to accept that it never happened, nor that my opinion of this place has changed.

[Cat Whisperer]

Yes, it happened, and a lot of people did leave over it. How long should we continue bringing it up? As I posted earlier, I think there was a bad moderator decision regarding a name change, but I stayed, and at some point I'll stop bringing that up, too. Maybe I'll take my own advice and stop now.

[Dragonblink]

I (eventually) decided to stay. But there was a vigilante betrayal. And a whitewash. In staying, I accepted that there was and that whilst I was unhappy with how it played out, these generally superbly-moderated boards moved on.

I didn't agree to accept that it never happened, nor that my opinion of this place has changed.

This is my stance, along with that of other people. I wasn't happy with the knowledge that people in charge of this board can and will make use of personal information they can figure out. In the aftermath of that particular incident, someone (I think it was Dex?) made it clear that they felt any information we give them is fair game for them to use, and I felt very uncomfortable about that. But I decided to stay partly because of the wealth of information that is here, and partly because any personal information I gave them was already theirs, and would not magically vanish off their database if I declined to re-subscribe.

That said ... I am a person of many names but in places like this I think it is best to stick to one. If I ask an embarrassing question, I do that knowing that this is the freakin' internet and it's out in the open for the world to see. If people don't like me because of what I say or how I say it ... well, I guess that sucks but welcome to Social Interaction 101.

Peoples' opinions of individuals can change, and I think they have. Nobody's personality is static; I am a far different person now, as a grad student with a girlfriend of three years and living in an apartment full of computers, than I was when I joined (as an undergrad in a cramped student slum in Orange County). Sometimes there are people who ignore changes in others, and when they see Poster A talking about (insert J. Random Current Interest here) all they see is (Controversial Interest From Five Years Ago). I think this is the motivation behind more than one sock, including the one that probably prompted this thread. I mean, you can try to ignore people who are stuck in the past but it's more than sticks and stones when it interferes with the discussions you're trying to have in the present.

But the rules are the rules, and people who post here know them. The decision has been made that you cannot just wipe everything clean with the board's blessing -- you have to stand behind everything you have said. Even if you wouldn't say it now, you can't gloss over the fact that you said it then. You can only say "I have changed."

And even then ... it only works if you've actually changed.

[CarnalK]

Sweet shit, let's get something straight: Tuba was a fucking jackass but she didn't betray any confidences whatsoever. What she impetuously did was definitely in bad form but it wasn't even remotely an abuse of her position or leadership. Any member of the boards could have done the same thing. SM brought it on himself with his own stupidity. It's simply that fucking simple, retards.

[Hostile Dialect]

I conclude that if you don't have a gripe with Tuba then your statement "mods having been known to majorly cross the line in the past" is um, how we say, without ground?

That wasn't my statement, dumbass. Why don't you come back when you've finished 6th grade reading comprehension? Maybe we can have a more productive conversation. If you do really well, I'll give you some candy.

You had a chance to vote with your feet at the time, Hostile Dialect. Maybe it's time to think about getting over it.

Who's not getting over it? I'm not one of the many insisting on some kind of grudge match. I'm also not the one who brought up the incident in the first place. In fact, it looks like I'm the only one here who doesn't have a grudge against Tuba; when an entire message board sees fit to accuse me of having that grudge, based on zero reasonable evidence, the only rational conclusion is that most/all of them are projecting. All I did in this thread was call Tuba on a blatant lie. Of course, if she had stepped in a reasonable amount of time after the fact and said "Hey, sorry, I didn't mean to deny that", or even "Dude, get a fucking grip, it was a damn misquote", I would have shrugged and walked away. Her cautious avoidance of the whole thing speaks volumes. Of course, I never intended for my response to Tuba's egregious lie to explode into the galactic space opera some of you are taking it as, and I'm sure Tuba never wanted that either; but by avoiding the issue entirely (would it have been so difficult to at least offer an excuse here?), she has singlehandedly caused that explosion. For that, yes, I must admit that I'm beginning to grow a little irritated at her. However, this shall pass, as have all other momentary disappointments or irritations I have suffered at the hands of Dopers; most of these folks, I couldn't remember when or why we quabbled. It shall soon be the same with Tuba, especially if she at least shows enough respect to pop in here with a decent excuse for her historical revision.

FTR, deciding to stay on a board where an egregious breach of privacy has occurred and at the time it seems pretty clear that it wouldn't happen again, is pretty different from accepting a revisionist policy of denial with shrugged shoulders. (Not to mention that I'm not about to walk out on one of my favorite sites over some pedo's sob story, but that's beside the point.) I'm not saying that it's your (or anyone else's) duty to hold Tuba's feet in the fire: I'm just genuinely puzzled as to why mods would blatantly deny known facts about this board's past, if not with the intent to deceive. I, for one, have generally been willing to admit my failings and at least attempt some reasonable standard of contrition when it was called for. I don't understand why a mod or admin, who is generally asked to demonstrate a higher standard of behavior, would fail to do the same.

Another FTR, since this thread is straying back to the point (the whole jarbabyj/fatgail thing): anyone who can't weather out the storm of Internet grudges and build a decent reputation for themselves doesn't have thick enough skin for a semi-anonymous message board like the Dope. I mean, really. My own popularity has waxed and waned at different poitns in time for different reasons, and there have been times when I honestly believed that a majority of Dopers might have hated me. Did I whine and bitch about it? No, I realized that you can't please everyone, and I tried to make changes in my online persona where appropriate. jarbabyj got bitched out in a couple of Pit threads and now she can't take the heat? Boo fucking hoo. That's the Internet.

[Talon Karrde]

I did. Weren't you?

I am still trying to access Liberal's response, it was rather strong. Oh well.
Your "I think this one might just be either about you or in your mind." probably offended him in particular. I don't know if you wanted to be accusatory but it wouldn't be hard to read it that way.

Sweet shit, let's get something straight: Tuba was a fucking jackass but she didn't betray any confidences whatsoever. What she impetuously did was definitely in bad form but it wasn't even remotely an abuse of her position or leadership. Any member of the boards could have done the same thing. SM brought it on himself with his own stupidity. It's simply that fucking simple, retards.
How did she get the poster's name? I don't remember exactly, but I thought she somehow got that info through the board in a way that only admins can.

[bbs2k]

Holy crap, I was going to respond to good ol' CarneyK's post, but then thought, "You know what, this issue has been discussed enough, let's let this thing die." Then fetus comes around and launches off with whatever the hell that was.

To be honest, if you'd like to know, I really don't have any grudge for what Tuba did. Sure it was wrong, but it did actually make me all warm and fuzzy inside. It was like "awwww, she's trying to protect her flock".

Baa motherfucker, baa.



Your "I think this one might just be either about you or in your mind." probably offended him in particular. I don't know if you wanted to be accusatory but it wouldn't be hard to read it that way.
Yes, thank you for noticing. I was tremendously offended.

[CarnalK]

when an entire message board sees fit to accuse me of having that grudge, based on zero reasonable evidence, the only rational conclusion is that most/all of them are projecting.
What's the rational conclusion when some goofball thinks the entire message board is out to get him?

[CarnalK]

How did she get the poster's name? I don't remember exactly, but I thought she somehow got that info through the board in a way that only admins can.
It's part of his user info/email. I defy you to go to his user page and NOT be able to figure out his real name.

[Hostile Dialect]

What's the rational conclusion when some goofball thinks the entire message board is out to get him?

I'm not sure whether it's a good or bad thing that you have no concept of hyperbole. On the one hand, it makes your arguments in the Pit funnier (more "laugh-at" than "laugh-with", though). OTOH, it makes your website as boring as it is mean-spirited. Decisions, decisions.

[CarnalK]

Oh Hostile Fetus, they really could have used you during that first season of Friends. But I guess you were suckling at your momma's teat at that point.

[Bryan Ekers]

when an entire message board sees fit to accuse me of having that grudge
I hadn't, but based on this post, I'm considering starting.

[CarnalK]

Uh oh. If Hostile accuses Bryan of not understanding hyperbole my brain aneurysms are going to go nuclear!

[bbs2k]

OTOH, it makes your website as boring as it is mean-spirited. Decisions, decisions.To steal a page out of their book, why can't it be both?

The direction of this thread is going all sorts of crazy

[hawthorne]

Tuba [...] didn't betray any confidences whatsoever. The admins were made aware of a complaint. Surely that complaint was in confidence.

[Q.E.D.]

The admins were made aware of a complaint. Surely that complaint was in confidence.
The specific nature of the complaint was never, to my knowledge, revealed. So, as far as that goes, the confidence was kept. Not to defend Tuba's actions on that front, but let's not accuse her of things she didn't do.

[istara]

No, we don't. We, mods and administrators, don't know your real name anymore than we know if you're an extremely clever dog.

I only know what your email address is.
Fair enough - I can accept that mods and admins generally may not have access to that. But someone at Chicago Reader must, because my credit card payment went through in my real name.

That always makes me nervous. It's not that I specifically distrust admins, but I am all too aware that they are just regular other people. And regular other people can go just as weird/freaky/stalky as a non-admin/mod regular other people.