Why? I use my real name, and it’s never done me any harm, Henry.
I am disturbed that I knew exactly what that would link to before I even clicked on it.
I too think that simply posting “banned for sock account” makes more sense, especially if it’s a long established poster.
This banning has spawned a thread over 60 posts long, with people speculating about sockitude. If the goal of the policy is to reduce such chatter, I’m afraid it’s not very successful.
Not to mention the wear and tear on SamClem’s keyboard.
And the wear and tear on SamClem himself. 
You kid, but, unfortunately, a couple people there took that post the wrong way. I just meant I put on a “costume” for one of their Halloween parties. They have a thing where they try to guess who you are, and no one guessed who I was. To tell the truth, I’m not sure I was memorable enough for them to care.
Sometimes I kinda wish they’d ask me before jumping to conclusions about what I mean. But I guess that wouldn’t be as much fun.
So the moral of the story is if you have a problem with cookies or other baked goods (or unbaked goods) just fess up to it.
It was a funny thread but there was no reason he had to create a new account to start it. The great thing about this place is there are plenty of other members that will get the joke and run with it. There is no need to work both sides.
What a stupid thing to do.
Nobody expects the Straight Dope Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to Pope [del]Ed[/del] Cecil....
Wow, it looks so weird seeing BANNED under Drewtwo99. Seemed like a reasonable fellow but…ok.
If I understand a sock, it is someone with multiple accounts with different names, if that is the case especially with thousands of posts, the sooner banned the better. It is kind of gross that a deception like that could slide for so long.
It was less than 24 hours from the time NoBakeNonsense made their one and only post to when drewtwo99 was banned.
My bad, I thought this person had been doing this for a while. Not suggesting doing it at all is hip.
“Gross”?
You’ve got a weird standard for “gross”.
It’s certainly a violation of the SDMB rules, but most web forums are less…um…intense…about socks. It’s hardly “gross”. Just violating a rule that (IMO) the SDMB takes far, far more seriously than most other webforums*
*Which is fine. Bright-line rule. “One acc’t per user. Period. If you have more than one, you’ll probably be instabanned”. Draconian, but clear.
For the most part I think we agree, one account per user. We don’t need to agree on everything:)
I don’t feel the need to get into gross, wasn’t trying to offend. To me it seems silly, foolish, (grossly immature) behaviour from an adult.
Not strictly true. This is the case mainly when we feel the additional account was deliberately made for the purpose of deception. Sometimes people make more than one account by accident, or because they had an account years ago and have forgotten the password, etc. If we’re satisfied with their explanation, they are offered the chance to merge accounts.
Yeah, bummer that he’s banned. But he presumably knew what he was doing and knew the consequences. I read “elsewhere” that he regrets having done it, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
[Quote=Warren Buffet]
It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.
[/quote]
From http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/warrenbuff108887.html#1gJZAawPET0wJPML.99
Well, he learned not to trust wiki.
Back to question #1, I get why the thread was closed I wonder about the last part of mhendo’s question…
So why is this poster’s behavior been permitted to continue?
What rule(s) do you accuse him of breaking by those actions?
Sure, there’s another rule many of us think he is breaking (see the Pit thread), but that has to do with an apparent disingenuousness of his actions, not the actions themselves.