You were convinced that we were lying. You accused us of lying. We weren’t. What do you want from us, an acceptance that accusing us of lying is an appropriate way of making “polite inquiries”?
Frank, accusing me of wanting to further my own socks (post #49) was not particularly polite either, and that came before I ever used the word “lying” in any of my posts. So you threw down the gauntlet, Frank. You were deliberately obfuscatory and downright accusatory when asked about who WeeBairn’s socks were, a question that apparently isn’t such a big deal to answer because Giraffe kindly answered it. Can you see why that would seem odd?
“We”? What are you, a hive mind? The only mod I accused of lying was tomndebb, though I allowed for the possibility that he was just wrong about what happened and talking out his ass, then not admitting it. If he made a mistake, it wouldn’t have been a big deal, except for the insults heaped on Q.E.D. for daring to point it out. THAT is what really bothered me, not tomndebb being inaccurate per se.
Other than that, I simply said I was made suspicious by the secrecies, ambiguities, and inaccuracies. Once the secrecy was eliminated, and the ambiguities were cleared up, that just left the inaccuracies, which as I said were not a big deal in an of themselves.
However, the mods have been extremely hostile, rude, and confrontational in this thread. You feel justified, apparently, and are not terrifically willing to examine it. OK, that’s yours to deal with. Like I said, I’m satisfied with the answers that were ultimately given and thanked you for it. That’s about it.
Maybe my ATMB thread about the banning wasn’t as clear as I thought it was, but on the other hand I think a few posters here got careless in reading what I said. I felt I made it clear that Wee Bairn was NOT banned based on that post alone. I said his post “implied” he had sock accounts, which was “later confirmed,” meaning I followed up on what he said and found proof of the socks. The idea that we’d ban somebody for saying he had multiple email accounts (even if he admitted to jerking people around with them) is very far off-base. We don’t hurry into those kinds of decisions. In this case I had 100% positive proof in hand and I still waited more than an hour until I felt enough of the other Mods agreed with me - and this was a clear rules violation, not a judgment call like trolling.
Rubystreak, for the most part I don’t think we disclose the names of socks, and we were trying to figure out what usually gets done in this situation. When this thread started, we also weren’t sure we had them all - and it turned out we didn’t have one of them, so I think that was fair.
Also, I’m not seeing the dishonesty from tomndebb. He never said Wee Bairn admitted to multiple accounts on this board, I only saw him trying to explain the difference between what we/I saw in Wee Bairn’s post and Cisco’s.
Let me get this straight-we manage to catch someone who has posted under multiple names, and the reason he is caught is because the braggart couldn’t keep his big mouth shut, but some of you think we should give the asshole even more to brag about by giving out all the names he went by? Well, that’s fucking great. Now, not only are there too many posts to move out of sight, but now the banee is probably gloating because he thinks that some of you are pouring over the posts he made under the other names. Did y’all forget what the fuck DNFTT means?
::sigh:: There was a time, in Middle Earth, when this made sense. Now, not so much. Modern times, meh!
No. I, for one, just don’t happen to care. Mostly, I find them funny. I suppose if a troll got too out of hand for me, I could utilize this ignore list thingy. Also, was Wee Bairn a troll? He had multiple accounts, sure but I thought that was evidence of sockery and not trollery. The thread linked above with Jean Poutine as the poster looked more like something he didn’t want attached to his real username. It didn’t seem trollish to me. But hey, there could be other posts from other usernames that were, so I’m not gonna die on that hill. I guess what I’m trying to say here is that I don’t care about what WB thinks about all this. He could be laughing up a storm over at the Snarkpit. Whatever. I wanted info because I love gossip and I got it. I am happy now. I can deal with whatever consequences comes of this.
We put fox pee all around our garden, even though it’s fenced. I’ve seen little critters encounter the scent, pause, and scurry away. But one day, there was a frightened little rabbit — not yet fully grown — cowering in the watermelons. Apparently, he jumped the wrong way upon his startled discovery, and now found himself surrounded by, in his mind, God knows how many predators. Anyway, we rescued him with a fish net and set him loose outside the ring of pee.
It’s not his fault. When someone is too stupid to remember to breathe, you can hardly be surprised when further brain damage follows from lack of oxygen. Pity and occasional shots of pure O[sub]2[/sub] are the charitable response to Q.E.D..
Oh shit! Watch out for that crazy ass toungue! Bleeech!
Bye Wee Bairn. He wasn’t right in the head anyway.
Is this a metaphor or something?
It made me think of the Johnny Cash tune. I should go lay down now. 
“I fell into a burning ring of fox pee…”?
You guys are one-upping the original!
I’d always thought it meant “don’t feed the trolls, because it encourages them to keep trolling, which perpetuates a spiral of disruption,” and so forth.
I don’t have a dog in this particular fight, but ISTM that the troll (if that designation is applicable to Wee Bairn, who I didn’t interact with enough to say) is gone, revealing the socks would be likely to dampen further discussion by ending people’s curiosity, and I’m kinda lost as to why the extra usernames of someone banned for multiple usernames are regarded as a secret to begin with.
ISTM that the standard format of banning announcement of a user with multiple usernames should be along the lines of “Main Doper Username, Sock1, Sock2, … , and Sockn, have been banned, as they were different usernames for the same person.”
Also, I’m not sure why we care if they’re able to brag somewhere else - and I don’t see how the exposing of their additional usernames adds to the brag, or why anyone, anywhere else, would be impressed by the brag anyway. The SDMB isn’t particularly well-known, after all.
I’m sorry that, for some reason, this will keep you up at night.
And although he may have had multiple socks, I have yet to see anything which would label him as a troll. Do you have any evidence to suggest trolling?
who hasn’t created a fake hotmail account to mess with someone they know, either in fun or malicious?
It would be one thing for him to say What is the big deal I have created socks to post on the SD all the time. But what he did say “Who hasn’t done this?” And [[Bthis**launches an under the bed peeking, underwear drawer searching, glass to wall investigation? That is some Barney Fife, new Mod trying to get street cred, over the top BS.
I will admit to liking Wee Bairn & I understand the Mods feel they need to close ranks and support their own. I would hope that a suspension – like has been offered in other cases, might be more appropriate for someone who has added so much to this message Board
Gary Hart/Go ahead and Investigate me, I invite you to/Gary Hart
Looking at the threads he has started since March 20th
4 IMHO, 2 BBQ, 2 GD, 5 GQ 11 CS, 1 MPSIMS (closed by Marley). I’m going to go with “not a troll” here – But I don’t know what he was saying as a sock. Even so he clearly was trying to keep the "Wee Bairn"TM Brand clean – he clearly wanted to do this.
This isn’t the worst injustice ever, but anything that requires Mods “investigating a member” outside their post or posting history strikes me as over the top
March 20, 2008 on:
Is this bad driving etiquette? IMHO
POW’s like Stockdale and McCain caused themselves harm for no good reason GD
Anything to be aware of if getting home equity loan to pay off credit card? GQ
Worst example of child acting in a movie CS
Song with the best background vocals CS
Seinfeld on Unbeatable Banzuke- could this be any harder? CS
A valid reason to hate Oprah. BBQ
More songs that scared you as a kid? CS
Do you smoke half cigs out of your own ashtray at home if low? IMHO
Rhetorical Woodstock/Ten Years After question CS
Hottest 70’s era rocker chick? CS
Spongebob appreciation thread CS
South Park 04/09- open spoilers CS
Parts of town in the US that “even cops won’t go into”- true or UL? GQ
Why does a middle of the night glass of water taste so crappy? GQ
What’s the best piece of specific advice you’ve gotten here? IMHO
(don’t admit that you ever created another email address if you don’t want Mods subpoenaing your Bank records)
Is there a theoretical maximum amount one can urinate at one sitting (or standing)? GQ
What’s the most successful non-diet offshoot of a popular foodstuff? CS
Adobe Acrobat help needed GQ
“Who knew” by Pink- big error, or am I daft? CS
Has SDMB member Blushing Battleaxe moved on to the great retirement home in the sky? MPSIMS Closed by Marley23
Michael Moore is a big fat phony- why do people support this lying hypocrite? BBQ
Should Obama give his superdelegates to Gore for the good of the Dem party? GD
Are there words that you type wrong, every time? IMHO
What’s going on in the Cheetos laundromat commercial with Felecia? CS
The REAL truth is that Marley23 was tipped off by the Illuminati, following a complaint by the Freemasons. Wee Bairn was performing perverse Scottish Rites over the preserved head of John F. Kennedy.
Now can we all forget this conspiracy nonsense?
Tuba was talking about a rabbit.
:::note to self: send message to mod que–“next time, use fox, not giraffe pee”:::