#1  
Old 01-31-2020, 06:41 AM
Charlie Wayne is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,007

Multiple User IDs or Accts


I know there is a rule against one person having more than one ID or account. But I see considerable confusion. Some people call these socks. But other people seem to think that socks only refer to people who bring two or more accounts online at the same time and appear to talk with each other - usually to quarrel with each other or to applaud each other. In this case, some people call these "sock puppets" because one person controls what each ID posts. It's like a person having a hand up the back of a puppet and then speaking while they appear to be a different ID.

But I've never seen any explanation as to why there is such a fear of multiple IDs. I'm not suggesting they should be permitted. But it seems like you have such a terrible fear of anyone having multiple IDs. May I ask why?

I'm curious to know why multiple IDs are considered such an evil. It's as if you consider them to be the very worst thing that anyone can do. It gets them banned immediately. People can make all kinds of insults and just get a warning. Why are multiple IDs so much worse? What harm do they do?

By the way, some people think that "sock" refers to a sock puppet. But as I understand, it is short for "socket" which what an Internet connection is called.

Last edited by Charlie Wayne; 01-31-2020 at 06:44 AM.
  #2  
Old 01-31-2020, 06:43 AM
Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 30,080
It makes for insincere discussions and debates.
  #3  
Old 01-31-2020, 07:05 AM
Charlie Wayne is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
It makes for insincere discussions and debates.
Agreed. But that is only if both accounts post at the same time. Is that correct? Or am I misunderstanding you.

The way I see it - and please correct me if I'm wrong - someone can start two IDs but never even make a single post. They then get banned for life.

That just seems so much greater a punishment than someone who insults another poster in the most egregious possible way. They only get a warning.

It's as if one offense is ten times worse than the other and I'm just curious why one is so much greater than the other.
  #4  
Old 01-31-2020, 07:10 AM
Sparky812 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Great White North
Posts: 4,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Wayne View Post
I know there is a rule against one person having more than one ID or account. But I see considerable confusion. Some people call these socks. But other people seem to think that socks only refer to people who bring two or more accounts online at the same time and appear to talk with each other - usually to quarrel with each other or to applaud each other. In this case, some people call these "sock puppets" because one person controls what each ID posts. It's like a person having a hand up the back of a puppet and then speaking while they appear to be a different ID.

But I've never seen any explanation as to why there is such a fear of multiple IDs. I'm not suggesting they should be permitted. But it seems like you have such a terrible fear of anyone having multiple IDs. May I ask why?

I'm curious to know why multiple IDs are considered such an evil. It's as if you consider them to be the very worst thing that anyone can do. It gets them banned immediately. People can make all kinds of insults and just get a warning. Why are multiple IDs so much worse? What harm do they do?

What argument could you make for allowing multiple IDs and the ensuing benefits?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Wayne View Post
By the way, some people think that "sock" refers to a sock puppet. But as I understand, it is short for "socket" which what an Internet connection is called.
"Some people"!?
Apparently, (almost) all people agree that it refers to a sock puppet as used in it's earliest known usage by Dana Rollins (July 9, 1993).
If you have another theory as to the term's origin, please provide a cite.

Last edited by Sparky812; 01-31-2020 at 07:11 AM.
  #5  
Old 01-31-2020, 07:16 AM
jonesj2205 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Wayne View Post
The way I see it - and please correct me if I'm wrong - someone can start two IDs but never even make a single post. They then get banned for life.
From a practical perspective I have no idea how that would ever be detected. And banning someone for life from reading only would be pretty pointless since you don't need an account to read the board.
I've also seen multiple instances where people reach out to mods because they joined years ago, can't remember their account/password and created a new one.
The responses from mods has always been of assistance not you're banned for life.
Intent matters.
  #6  
Old 01-31-2020, 07:24 AM
Charlie Wayne is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky812 View Post
What argument could you make for allowing multiple IDs and the ensuing benefits?
Please don't misunderstand me. As I said in the OP, "I'm not suggesting they should be permitted".
  #7  
Old 01-31-2020, 07:29 AM
Charlie Wayne is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesj2205 View Post
From a practical perspective I have no idea how that would ever be detected. And banning someone for life from reading only would be pretty pointless since you don't need an account to read the board.

I've also seen multiple instances where people reach out to mods because they joined years ago, can't remember their account/password and created a new one.
The responses from mods has always been of assistance not you're banned for life.
Intent matters.
They are detected when both IDs are created using the same IP address. As far as being "pointless", the point is that they would be assumed to intend to post at a later date. As you said, "intent matters" and I agree with you.

I also agree that if someone does something accidental and reach out to the mods, they will be treated with understanding and helpfulness.

Ummm .... Please people! I didn't start this thread looking to have arguments with you. As I said, I'm just curious why one penalty is seemingly so much greater than the other.

I'm not going to post to this thread again because I don't want to quarrel. If the mods feel that this thread is looking for quarrels, then by all means please delete it.

Last edited by Charlie Wayne; 01-31-2020 at 07:30 AM.
  #8  
Old 01-31-2020, 07:44 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 14,127
It's one of those rules where it's far easier to have a bright line saying what is and isn't acceptable, than it is to adjudicate when someone is using a second ID insincerely.

Forcing users to have only one ID is also not restrictive to the content of the board. It is trivially easy to participate without having multiple IDs and the hardships endured by having only one ID are minimal.

OTOH, vigorous debate and discussion sometimes results in people getting irritated and insulting someone. Put the clamps down on that, and the board itself would suffer. I'm a member of a Facebook Group where people are unfailingly nice and supportive. I mean, it's just about the nicest place on the internet, but they don't discuss anything important, or even the slightest bit controversial. They can't, which is fine because that's not what the group is about, but it wouldn't work here.
  #9  
Old 01-31-2020, 07:51 AM
Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,296
I can imagine someone finding it convenient to have two different IDs for relatively innocuous reasons, like wishing to keep a firewall between (say) their extensive and detailed posting about biology questions in GQ and their wild Sopranos theorizing in CS, or their Yang campaign posts in Elections. But at the SDMB the consensus is to let moderators prevent arguments about Tony's fate to spill over into a discussion of entomology in GQ, and let members decide that they will only read ImaginaryDoper's election posts but never his biology ones and vice versa.
  #10  
Old 01-31-2020, 08:38 AM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Wayne View Post
By the way, some people think that "sock" refers to a sock puppet. But as I understand, it is short for "socket" which what an Internet connection is called.
Some people think that "jumping the shark" means pushing an idea over the top, when in fact it refers to an episode of Happy Days, a television comedy program that aired in the 1970s and 1980s. The character of Arthur Fonzarelli, who was also called "Fonzie" or sometimes "The Fonz," jumped over a shark while water skiing, which led to the expression "jumped the shark."

By the way, the show Happy Days was set in the 1950s and 1960s, even though it was made much later. Many people find that confusing.
  #11  
Old 01-31-2020, 08:46 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 28,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Wayne View Post
Please don't misunderstand me. As I said in the OP, "I'm not suggesting they should be permitted".
Right: the OP is not asking "Why is this not allowed?" (or "Should this be allowed?") but rather "Why is this so bad that it merits an insta-ban rather than a warning? Why is it the unforgivable sin?"

I think part of the answer is, as Cheesesteak said, that it is a clear bright line that no one's going to cross by accident. But there may be more to it than that.

Some socks are banned or suspended posters attempting to return under a new name. No mystery why they deserve banning.
  #12  
Old 01-31-2020, 09:38 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 31,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
Some people think that "jumping the shark" means pushing an idea over the top, when in fact it refers to an episode of Happy Days, a television comedy program that aired in the 1970s and 1980s. The character of Arthur Fonzarelli, who was also called "Fonzie" or sometimes "The Fonz," jumped over a shark while water skiing, which led to the expression "jumped the shark."

By the way, the show Happy Days was set in the 1950s and 1960s, even though it was made much later. Many people find that confusing.
Thank you ever so much. I find your information illuminating and sheds much light on the days of Happy Days.
  #13  
Old 01-31-2020, 09:45 AM
kopek's Avatar
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 16,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy L View Post
I can imagine someone finding it convenient to have two different IDs for relatively innocuous reasons, like wishing to keep a firewall between (say) their extensive and detailed posting about biology questions in GQ and their wild Sopranos theorizing in CS, or their Yang campaign posts in Elections. But at the SDMB the consensus is to let moderators prevent arguments about Tony's fate to spill over into a discussion of entomology in GQ, and let members decide that they will only read ImaginaryDoper's election posts but never his biology ones and vice versa.


Innocuous maybe but ----- isn't someone with such a breadth of interest and knowledge a lot more interesting than 3 fake people each with one? And lets face it; for some of us long-term participants its not just the words we find interesting but the people behind them as well.

When I've seen socks on other sites, the kind who are not necessarily on at the same moment, its usually to push the rules and everyone's buttons with one while being the "voice of reason" most of the time with the other. And when the "evil twin" gets hit with a ban the other carries on and creates something else. Or a good moderator knocks both with the ban-hammer and everyone is up in arms because "Asshole and Angel can't be the same person". The harm of allowing such behavior outweighs the possible benefit to me.
  #14  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:00 AM
Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by kopek View Post
Innocuous maybe but ----- isn't someone with such a breadth of interest and knowledge a lot more interesting than 3 fake people each with one? And lets face it; for some of us long-term participants its not just the words we find interesting but the people behind them as well.

When I've seen socks on other sites, the kind who are not necessarily on at the same moment, its usually to push the rules and everyone's buttons with one while being the "voice of reason" most of the time with the other. And when the "evil twin" gets hit with a ban the other carries on and creates something else. Or a good moderator knocks both with the ban-hammer and everyone is up in arms because "Asshole and Angel can't be the same person". The harm of allowing such behavior outweighs the possible benefit to me.
I agree. I was doing my best to find an innocuous reason for two or more accounts - but I don't want the SDMB to change the rules.
  #15  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:03 AM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
Thank you ever so much. I find your information illuminating and sheds much light on the days of Happy Days.
One thing I'm curious about is why they waited until the 1970s to film a program set in the 1950s.

They had to build a set that looked like a 1950s diner, and give the actors clothing and hairstyles from that time, and teach them to talk the way people talked back then. That seems like a lot of trouble to me!

They could simply have made the show back in the 1950s. Or, set it in the 1970s if that's when they were going to film it. But they didn't. I wonder why?
  #16  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:12 AM
Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
One thing I'm curious about is why they waited until the 1970s to film a program set in the 1950s.

They had to build a set that looked like a 1950s diner, and give the actors clothing and hairstyles from that time, and teach them to talk the way people talked back then. That seems like a lot of trouble to me!

They could simply have made the show back in the 1950s. Or, set it in the 1970s if that's when they were going to film it. But they didn't. I wonder why?
They wanted to start broadcasting it in 1953, but it took surprisingly long to research all the details. Note that even after the show started they had to correct errors (initial research indicated the existence of a "Chuck" who it turned out didn't exist).

Last edited by Andy L; 01-31-2020 at 10:12 AM.
  #17  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:13 AM
cochrane is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 23,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
One thing I'm curious about is why they waited until the 1970s to film a program set in the 1950s.

They had to build a set that looked like a 1950s diner, and give the actors clothing and hairstyles from that time, and teach them to talk the way people talked back then. That seems like a lot of trouble to me!

They could simply have made the show back in the 1950s. Or, set it in the 1970s if that's when they were going to film it. But they didn't. I wonder why?
Then why didn't they film That 70s Show back in the 70s? Why go to all that trouble of replicating 70s fashions, 70s cars, etc, when they could have saved all that money using existing locations, cars, appliances, and everything else?
  #18  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:25 AM
kopek's Avatar
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 16,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy L View Post
I agree. I was doing my best to find an innocuous reason for two or more accounts
The best I ever heard was from a fan board for a hosted horror show. One of the super-prolific posters didn't want the fan-boy label so as his count hit say 500 he would create a second identity and after a month or so allow the first one to go inactive. Lather, rinse and repeat every so often. No harm and no foul really but to the two/three of us "founders" who knew what was going on there was a little annoyance. Look, to me at least -------- if you count bothers you take a time-out or SHUT UP. Or stop making all those three-word replies. There are other options out there.
  #19  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:37 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 34,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
They could simply have made the show back in the 1950s. Or, set it in the 1970s if that's when they were going to film it. But they didn't. I wonder why?
Furthermore, the character "Richie" was played by Ron Howard and the character "Joanie" was portrayed by Erin Moran.

Although "Richie" and "Joanie" were brother and sister, Ron Howard and Erin Moran are in no way related!
  #20  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:41 AM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 27,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
One thing I'm curious about is why they waited until the 1970s to film a program set in the 1950s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cochrane View Post
Then why didn't they film That 70s Show back in the 70s? Why go to all that trouble of replicating 70s fashions, 70s cars, etc, when they could have saved all that money using existing locations, cars, appliances, and everything else?
The answer is obvious. Both Happy Days and That 70's Show are SOCK PUPPETS of those original decades, designed to misdirect and confound historians (and those of us simply with long memories) into being confused about what actually happened back then. Similarly Lucy Ricardo was a socket puppet created by a Hollywood mogul named Lucille Ball, through which the driven, focused business executive portrayed herself as a lovable, wacky housewife.
  #21  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:45 AM
jnglmassiv is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago's Northside
Posts: 3,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky812 View Post
What argument could you make for allowing multiple IDs and the ensuing benefits?
Not that I'm arguing in favor of allowing socks but there are questions I might ask and threads I might reply to using a different, more anonymous username but not with this one. Similarly, there have been some Email Me Your Secrets threads over the years that are pretty much the same thing.

Like it or not, more apparent users might bolster the numbers for otherwise inattentive corporate ownership should we need to justify the Board's existance. Along the same lines, socks could potentially be monetized.
  #22  
Old 01-31-2020, 11:23 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 13,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
Some people think that "jumping the shark" means pushing an idea over the top, when in fact it refers to an episode of Happy Days, a television comedy program that aired in the 1970s and 1980s. The character of Arthur Fonzarelli, who was also called "Fonzie" or sometimes "The Fonz," jumped over a shark while water skiing, which led to the expression "jumped the shark."
But the character was played by Henry Winkler, who went by both Arthur Fonzarelli and Barry Zuckercorn! And he jumped sharks as both identities! He should be banned.
  #23  
Old 01-31-2020, 11:24 AM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy L View Post
...(initial research indicated the existence of a "Chuck" who it turned out didn't exist).
Never go upstairs!!
  #24  
Old 01-31-2020, 12:14 PM
Bill Door is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Furthermore, the character "Richie" was played by Ron Howard and the character "Joanie" was portrayed by Erin Moran.

Although "Richie" and "Joanie" were brother and sister, Ron Howard and Erin Moran are in no way related!
My understanding is that Ron Howard and Erin Moran are related, they're just not related to each other. They are in fact related to completely different people. Odd, but true.
  #25  
Old 01-31-2020, 12:32 PM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Door View Post
My understanding is that Ron Howard and Erin Moran are related, they're just not related to each other. They are in fact related to completely different people. Odd, but true.
Damn. I went to click the like button but then realized that I’m on a different board from the one that has said button. Odd that no one has ever suggested that.
  #26  
Old 01-31-2020, 12:47 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
One thing I'm curious about is why they waited until the 1970s to film a program set in the 1950s.

They had to build a set that looked like a 1950s diner, and give the actors clothing and hairstyles from that time, and teach them to talk the way people talked back then. That seems like a lot of trouble to me!

They could simply have made the show back in the 1950s. Or, set it in the 1970s if that's when they were going to film it. But they didn't. I wonder why?
They didn't get the time machine until the cartoon in the 80's
  #27  
Old 01-31-2020, 01:00 PM
Bill Door is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
They didn't get the time machine until the cartoon in the 80's
That doesn't make any sense. Once you have a time machine, all you have to do is build another one and bring it back with you into the past. They could have had a time machine in the fifties. Unless of course; placing one time machine inside another creates a recursive loop that destroys the universe. Does anyone know anything about this?
  #28  
Old 01-31-2020, 01:14 PM
74westy's Avatar
74westy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Regina, SK, Canada
Posts: 2,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by cochrane View Post
Then why didn't they film That 70s Show back in the 70s? Why go to all that trouble of replicating 70s fashions, 70s cars, etc, when they could have saved all that money using existing locations, cars, appliances, and everything else?
Happy Days going over schedule pushed everything else back.

Back in the halcyon days of plastic.com, I used to make socks from time to time as a gag. For example, if someone was talking about Marshall McLuhan, I might make a sock account called Marshall McLuhan and post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshall McLuhan
I heard what you were saying. You know nothing of my work. You mean my whole fallacy is wrong. How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing.
It was fun and a couple of times I've wished I could do that on the dope but not doing so has not been a serious hardship.

Oh, and if Happy Days was set in the fifties then what was up with Potsie's hair style?

Last edited by 74westy; 01-31-2020 at 01:15 PM. Reason: Thirty years ago I wouldn't have made that cut and paste error!
  #29  
Old 01-31-2020, 01:35 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 31,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by 74westy View Post
Oh, and if Happy Days was set in the fifties then what was up with Potsie's hair style?
I think it must be in some way related to the hair styler for D+D (named after Dungeons and Dragons, a Fantasy Role Playing Game that became popular in the 1980s), or Game of Thrones which I think is based on a book series. They both had characters with modern looking hair. I don't see why they couldn't make all of their hair look like it did before modern times.
  #30  
Old 01-31-2020, 02:06 PM
74westy's Avatar
74westy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Regina, SK, Canada
Posts: 2,097
I used to play D&D back in the '70s. Well, cool kids did and I always wished they'd invite me. It sounded like a lot of fun. Anyway D&D existed before the '80s.
  #31  
Old 01-31-2020, 02:26 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,921
Harry Boyle was a sock created by Howard Cunningham (unless it was the other way around). Both of them were inspired by threads about American-style love.
  #32  
Old 01-31-2020, 02:28 PM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Door View Post
That doesn't make any sense. Once you have a time machine, all you have to do is build another one and bring it back with you into the past. They could have had a time machine in the fifties. Unless of course; placing one time machine inside another creates a recursive loop that destroys the universe. Does anyone know anything about this?
Nicola Tesla accidentally destroyed the universe almost a hundred years ago. Everything since then has been the simulation running on Charles Babbage’s Universal Engine. Unfortunately, the gears are wearing out and becoming whopperjawed. You might have noticed some strange stuff happening recently.
  #33  
Old 01-31-2020, 02:32 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
Nicola Tesla accidentally destroyed the universe almost a hundred years ago. Everything since then has been the simulation running on Charles Babbage’s Universal Engine. Unfortunately, the gears are wearing out and becoming whopperjawed. You might have noticed some strange stuff happening recently.
I think the critical catalytic event somehow got itself anchored to a date in early November, 2016...
  #34  
Old 01-31-2020, 03:01 PM
kopek's Avatar
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 16,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
Nicola Tesla accidentally destroyed the universe almost a hundred years ago. Everything since then has been the simulation running on Charles Babbage’s Universal Engine. Unfortunately, the gears are wearing out and becoming whopperjawed. You might have noticed some strange stuff happening recently.
And all that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream.
  #35  
Old 01-31-2020, 03:31 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 27,770
Tesla himself created the sock puppet of Emmett "Doc" Brown when he supposedly "died" in 1943, so he could continue to work away from public attention. Unfortunately, he failed to judge the side effects of his work and transported himself back to 1885, where he (Brown) coexisted in the same timeline with him (Tesla). Tesla attempted to repair the rift in the time continuum by staging the death of Brown in a spectacular locomotive crash, but by then the sock puppet had achieved autonomy and appeared in not just 1885 and 1955, but also 1985 and 2015. The sock puppet Brown would/will also become a Klingon commander who kills James Kirk's son in Earth year 2286.

And THAT'S why the SDMB bans socks!

Last edited by Kent Clark; 01-31-2020 at 03:32 PM.
  #36  
Old 01-31-2020, 03:38 PM
cochrane is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 23,098
The Brown sock was also a drug-addled New York cab driver and ordained minister in the year 1978. He was known as "Reverend Jim."
  #37  
Old 01-31-2020, 04:05 PM
Bill Door is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by cochrane View Post
The Brown sock was also a drug-addled New York cab driver and ordained minister in the year 1978. He was known as "Reverend Jim."
I myself own a pair of brown socks that I never get to wear because I only own two suits, one of which is gray and the other one is blue. I'm not sure what they have to do with Nicola Tesla though.

Last edited by Bill Door; 01-31-2020 at 04:05 PM.
  #38  
Old 01-31-2020, 04:40 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 53,140
The best kind of socks are the warm, extra fuzzy ones. I have a whole drawer full of them, including ones that are black and gold, for my favorite sports' teams.
  #39  
Old 01-31-2020, 04:43 PM
Doug K. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hutchinson, KS
Posts: 4,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Wayne View Post
They are detected when both IDs are created using the same IP address. As far as being "pointless", the point is that they would be assumed to intend to post at a later date. As you said, "intent matters" and I agree with you.
It takes quite a bit more than just having the same IP to even suspect a sock, let alone detect it. Computers on the Internet have a private IP and a public IP. The public IP is the one that the website sees when it checks where the traffic is coming from. The private IP is what goes to a specific computer, and it's not visible to the websites you visit. In most cases everyone in the same house will share the same public IP, and it's more common than not that everyone in an office building (or even sometimes an apartment building) will share a public IP. In the school system where I worked for ten years there was one public IP shared among 4 buildings spread out across town.
  #40  
Old 01-31-2020, 08:24 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 34,284
Shoe stores shouldn't have those cheap, single-use socks to give out. If you go shoe shopping without wearing socks, I say, fuck you, buy some socks or go home.
  #41  
Old 01-31-2020, 08:45 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Furthermore, the character "Richie" was played by Ron Howard and the character "Joanie" was portrayed by Erin Moran.
Although it is true that Ron Howard played a character named “Richie”, and that Erin Moran played a character named “Joanie”, Ron Howard never legally changed his name to Richie, and Erin Moran never legally changed her name to Joanie.

Last edited by Moriarty; 01-31-2020 at 08:46 PM.
  #42  
Old 01-31-2020, 09:39 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,393
I once saw a sock puppet with two little brass balls sewn onto the bottom. I think they helped keep the cannonballs in their proper socket. I dunno, but I suspect that particular puppet got thrown out pretty fast.
  #43  
Old 01-31-2020, 10:40 PM
jtur88 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cebu, Philippines
Posts: 15,262
I can see where a person might want to have a different persona in two different conversations. If you have a goofy off-the-wall reputation in IMHO, it could militate against your credibility when replying seriously in GQ. . As in "We're supposed to respect A, when it comes from someone who thinks B?"
  #44  
Old 01-31-2020, 11:24 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky812 View Post
What argument could you make for allowing multiple IDs and the ensuing benefits?...
I also post on another message board that is connected to my profession. It's a small profession. It's quite common for people to have multiple IDs there. They may have one ID in their real name that they use to discuss professional matters. They may have a second ID that they use the shoot the bull and talk politics, without potential future employers linking those posts to their real name. Then, maybe, they've been posting for a while, and a lot of people who actually know them have come to know who they really are. (But not most potential future employers.) But then they have some personal problem, maybe an issue with their boss, or their child, that they don't want to talk about publicly. So they create a new ID.

Does it ever cause problems? Oh hell yes. But usually it doesn't. It's the right choice for that board. And oddly, actually using separate IDs as "sock puppets" to support each other, or make each other look good, is extremely rare. Using alternate IDs (which we refer to as "alts") to avoid consequences of misbehavior is FAR more common. And there are delightful benefits. People create "theme alts". Sometimes, in a discussion of donuts, Homer Simpson will stop by. Someone create an alt "reposted Tolkien", who only posted quotes from Tolkien, always apropos to the conversation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnglmassiv View Post
Not that I'm arguing in favor of allowing socks but there are questions I might ask and threads I might reply to using a different, more anonymous username but not with this one...
Yup. There are questions I haven't asked here because this ID isn't very anonymous.

It's certainly easier to moderate bright lines, though. And this board doesn't need alts the way the other board I've described does. I can see why they have made the decisions they made.

Last edited by puzzlegal; 01-31-2020 at 11:26 PM.
  #45  
Old 01-31-2020, 11:57 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Wayne View Post
But I've never seen any explanation as to why there is such a fear of multiple IDs. I'm not suggesting they should be permitted. But it seems like you have such a terrible fear of anyone having multiple IDs. May I ask why?
Fear? When did a distaste for insincere lying sacks of crap become the working definition of "fear" ?

Oh, I'm sorry, was that unfair to the sock-puppet community?
  #46  
Old 02-01-2020, 02:32 AM
UY Scuti's Avatar
UY Scuti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 1,095
I have always had an aversion toward sock-puppets. One category of suck-puppets that seems to be ignored here includes alter-egos created by forum administrators and moderators. Here are some examples of such second selves mentioned on this pdf source: Another well documented example was with the link-aggregation site Reddit. When it first began, the site administrators made use of sock puppet accounts to post content creating the impression that the site was more active than it actually was. With similar aims of bolstering an 12 organization, the Fox News PR department ran a sock puppet campaign over a number of years. A former 13 employee leaked details of having operated at least 100 sock puppet accounts to counter blogs posts and comments that were critical of the network.
  #47  
Old 02-01-2020, 04:38 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 31,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by UY Scuti View Post
I have always had an aversion toward sock-puppets. One category of suck-puppets that seems to be ignored here includes alter-egos created by forum administrators and moderators. Here are some examples of such second selves mentioned on this pdf source: Another well documented example was with the link-aggregation site Reddit. When it first began, the site administrators made use of sock puppet accounts to post content creating the impression that the site was more active than it actually was. With similar aims of bolstering an 12 organization, the Fox News PR department ran a sock puppet campaign over a number of years. A former 13 employee leaked details of having operated at least 100 sock puppet accounts to counter blogs posts and comments that were critical of the network.
I can't defend the latter, but the former would be more acceptable than non-socked imbeciles and trolls if they generated constructive and helpful content.
  #48  
Old 02-01-2020, 06:49 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I can see where a person might want to have a different persona in two different conversations. If you have a goofy off-the-wall reputation in IMHO, it could militate against your credibility when replying seriously in GQ. . As in "We're supposed to respect A, when it comes from someone who thinks B?"
That actually makes some sense to me. But, I think Dopers by and large pride themselves on their diverse tastes and wide range of interests, and see being able to comment sagely on one topic but goofily on a very different one as a feature, not a bug.
  #49  
Old 02-01-2020, 10:00 AM
digs's Avatar
digs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of Wauwatosa
Posts: 10,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
The best kind of socks are the warm, extra fuzzy ones. I have a whole drawer full of them, including ones that are black and gold, for my favorite sports' teams.
Ooh, I know this one! [buzzes in] Guinastasia, are you from... Pittsburgh?


I knew the Steelers and the Penguins were black and gold, but I looked it up and... "The colors black and gold are based on the colors of William Pitt's coat of arms; Pittsburgh is the only city in the United States in which all professional sporting teams share the same colors."


Regards, digs
(who makes goofy comments in MPSIMS, IMHO, and the Pit, all without needing to change IDs)

Last edited by digs; 02-01-2020 at 10:01 AM.
  #50  
Old 02-01-2020, 01:10 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 53,140
OMG, how did you figure that out??? That's amazing!!!
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017