Probably. Can’t remember who did that.
I temporarily banned techchick when she was drunk and out of her mind with grief for some reason, and she threatened to hack the board. We’d had the board hacked at least once before, possibly more than once, at that time, so it was a threat that I had to take seriously. I made it clear that it was a temporary ban until she could get hold of herself. I seem to recall that a friend of hers had recently died, and she was upset that people on the SDMB were laughing and joking about life, as was our custom. Apparently the whole SDMB was supposed to go into mourning for her friend, even though we didn’t know that this person had died and we didn’t know ahead of time that techchick was grieving.
Later, techchick upped the ante and got banned permanently. I really don’t remember the details of it.
There was some kid that found a way to edit people’s titles. And there was somebody else who figured out a trick for posting under what appeared to be other people’s usernames.
I’ve seen both tricks done, but I thought that boards today had name security in place to prevent them (so you can’t do something like create a name (blank)xtisme or some variant on that). Unless this was with the previous board software?
-XT
Weren’t a couple of people banned for flagrently lying about who they are in real life? One person who claimed to be a young woman but was actually a man and another person who discussed legal issues and claimed to be a lawyer but he wasn’t?
Those are banning offenses?
-XT
So, theoretically, if you used a sock account to threaten a lawsuit, you could go back in time? And be banned before you even did it?
Cool.
Signed,
“Brocker, Esquire”
It was quite a while ago (back when posters could still have multiple accounts which prevented it from being a bannable sock-puppet offense). Apparently there was some way that you could create a username that looked like an existing username to the people reading it but the computer recognized as a seperate name. For obvious reasons, I don’t think the board ever explained how the trick was done but some computer-savvy posters said they knew how the trick worked even if they wouldn’t stoop to doing it. No idea if the software was changed to close whatever this problem was.
There was a debate on that at the time. It was a question of whether these two individuals had been banned for being jerks over the issue of their fake personas or whether the use of a fake persona was by itself a bannable offense. I don’t know what the current policy is.
I guess it’s what you do with the fake persona. If you use it to elicit sympathy, spin elaborate yarns round it to pluck at Dopers’ heartstrings, etc then it would surely come under the heading of trolling, which of course is a bannable offense.
That was the real issue involved with Kaitlyn, who spun a very elaborate tale across multiple threads about her experiences as a transgender Asian-American schoolteacher. Investigation of “her” earlier posts (under a previous username) revealed she was actually a middle-aged white guy who fabricated the whole thing.
We don’t usually have a way to check if a person’s board persona matches that in real life, and we mostly don’t care. It’s only when posters blatantly lead people on that it might be a problem.
I don’t think claiming to be a lawyer when you’re not would by itself be a bannable offense. It might, though, if you were continually opening “Ask the Lawyer” threads or constantly providing obviously wrong answers in GQ based on your supposed legal expertise.
Don’t know about legal advice but there has been a banning for giving out medical advice after being told not to.
As I recall it became an issue here because there were disagreements about some legal issues. Finally another poster, who was a lawyer, said that there was no way a real lawyer would make the statements this supposed lawyer was making. So he challenged him on some points of legal knowledge that a non-lawyer wouldn’t be likely to know and the jig was up. The guy knew enough to convince non-lawyers he was a lawyer but he couldn’t fool a genuine lawyer.
Side question: How can a BANNED member post ? Please explain briefly.
They can’t. If you see a post made by someone with “banned” under his or her name, that post was made before he or she was banned.
Can I ask here what is the problem with “socks.” I know it is an instaban offense but I’m curious to why. There must be a thread somewhere discussing this but I couldn’t find one (though I admit, I didn’t try very hard).
It’s been banned for years here because it’s deceptive and makes it easier for trolling. Here’s a recent example. During the pay-to-post years people also sometimes used sock accounts to keep posting here without paying for a subscription.
Thanks twickster !
However, that poster, Beryl_Mooncalf, was not banned solely for posing as a lawyer. Rather, toward the end of the Pit thread in which this took place, s/he essentially admitted to trolling. Other offenses such as copyright violations were also involved.
Well, what is the current policy on lying? Suppose I decided that my posts on current affairs weren’t getting the respect I felt they were entitled to. So I started telling people I have doctorates in history and political science and teach these subject at an Ivy League university. I don’t get rude about it but I cite my expertise on a regular basis.
A couple of years go by and somehow it’s revealed that I do not have a doctorate and I am not a professor. I’m a college dropout who works in a prison. Many people would deservedly be pissed at me because I’ve been lying to them but would this rise to the level of being a big enough jerk to get banned?