Could there be consideration for a registered sock?

About This Message Board
21

[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
With all due respect, I have to call you on this. This is an exceedingly poor example but no doubt you can find others. Stephen King did not set out for Richard Bachman to be identified. Ever. He himself made this clear in various notes to readers and forwards of various editions of his books. As Bachman was outed and died of “cancer of the pseudonym”( if I could cite the King book that included that quote, I would but I can’t find the hard cite online and not all of my King books are here in the house ), it all became a bit of a game. Initially though, it was a way to keep the $$$ machine cranking at 2x speed. Here at the Dope, I’d say if we ever DID let people use a sock, it would have to be an open sock, so that moving the cursor over the member name revealed the original member’s name. Messy, and…well. Bad.

The idea of a sock is anathema here and I must admit, I am with that crowd. You take a stance, you use a name and stick by it. It is one of the strongest things about the SDMB.

Cartooniverse
[/QUOTE]

The cite you are looking for can be found in the introduction to the second edition of The Bachman Books. I think he initially coined it in some magazine article or another. Point taken on Bachman, however Gore Vidal published as Edgar Box. I am having a brain-fart about who did the Parker the thief books. Either way, there are times where a Doper wants to try a new voice. My initial suggestion was that it would be a semi-open sock. You couldn’t mouse over the name, but you could click on it and see the user profile with the associated sock listed.

I am getting the idea that it is not a popular suggestion here, but we have lost some good posts because the person does not want to use his/her real name. Some people may have some personal stories to tell, but don’t want it to come back to haunt them. I know we are all anonymous here, but we are also kind of a close group. So the poster you are today is the poster you must be tomorrow.

I guess another suggestion would be that places like GD and GQ would be off limits for the sock.

I have appreciated all the comments so far, however.

SSG Schwartz

22

We’ve had some people who fooled the community, some of them for quite a while. We’ve not had anyone recently, so perhaps you don’t know what it was like when the truth came to light, SSG Schwartz. People were outraged, hurt, devastated at being thus manipulated and each incident has been painful.

I can think of no reason so compelling that we would be willing to put people through that sort of circumstance again. Like it or not, this is a community where people care, where people take you at your word as to who and what you are. Yes, nobody knows you’re a dog here but everyone assumes otherwise. Is that our bad? Maybe. But the community that has been built around that is worth the risk and it is our job as moderators to look out for them. That means socks are not tolerated.

23

[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
With all due respect, I have to call you on this.
[/QUOTE]
With all due respect, I’m rather an idiot. I don’t know the story, or history with Bachman; but rather I just walk into a bookstore and I know that the two are the same.

If my example was a poor one, then such is that. Onward with discussion of stockings this season!

24

Okay, no socks, got it.

But what about a masquerade ball? Everyone wears masks, and at the end of the evening everybody whips off their masks and reveals their identity.

It could even be confined to one thread, call it the Masquerade Ball thread, and at a set time, say midnight GMT…we all reveal who we are.

It could even be a game, trying to identify people through their posting styles.

25

[QUOTE=ivylass]
Okay, no socks, got it.

But what about a masquerade ball? Everyone wears masks, and at the end of the evening everybody whips off their masks and reveals their identity.

It could even be confined to one thread, call it the Masquerade Ball thread, and at a set time, say midnight GMT…we all reveal who we are.

It could even be a game, trying to identify people through their posting styles.
[/QUOTE]

That has been done a few times, but I think it was done outside the realm of the SDMB. I heard about it after the fact, but I never got in on one. It happened late at night, and I was working 3rd shift at the time. Perhaps TubaDiva could fill in the details, or maybe not.

Socks I have seen (that sounds like a thread title) were either banned members trying again, or second identities of a member. The first kind were aggressively being jerks. The second kind would either agrree with and kiss up to the other self, or be wildly abrasive, calling the other self rude names. Neither kind of sock was making a valid contribution to the community. A pox on socks, says I. The internet kind, that is. I’m not a barefooty kind of guy. :smiley:

26

Back when we were on AOL we had nightly chats.

When we had chat, from time to time we had a “Masked Ball” and people would come in with different screen names.

It was quite lovely and a lot of fun and all permissible under AOL’s rules. And ours as well, though even then multiposting from different names was frowned upon on the message board.

That was a long time ago. Thank you for bringing that memory back, I’m grateful. But no, I don’t think we’ll do this on the board, sorry.

27

For technical reasons I’d be more inclined to support an “Anonymous Coward” model, rather than spam the board with one-time-use users who use up the username space and may/may not return, and therefore may/may not be worth responding to.

Overall I’m quite happy with the status quo; it’s well known how anonymity affects people.

28

Originally Posted by Will Repair
Just out of idle curiosity, if someone where to subscribe to the board twice, which subscription is banned for having a sock, the first or the second?

[QUOTE=Q.E.D.]
Both.
[/QUOTE]

I guess I don’t understand this…
What would prevent each of my personalities from having their own account and posting from the same computer?
For all the SDMB knows, (and the way I’d register them) they are me, my wife, my kid and my cousin who lives with us…while I am too cheap to do this, I don’t understand how SDMB would police it. I thought the policy was for a husband and wife to each have their own account, for instance, even if they shared a computer and a credit card.

ETA: of course the way around SSG’s problem is to have an SDMB persona which is already surly and argumentative. That way you never have to hide behind a costly second persona. :wink:

29

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
Originally Posted by Will Repair
Just out of idle curiosity, if someone where to subscribe to the board twice, which subscription is banned for having a sock, the first or the second?

I guess I don’t understand this…
What would prevent each of my personalities from having their own account and posting from the same computer?
For all the SDMB knows, (and the way I’d register them) they are me, my wife, my kid and my cousin who lives with us…while I am too cheap to do this, I don’t understand how SDMB would police it. I thought the policy was for a husband and wife to each have their own account, for instance, even if they shared a computer and a credit card.

ETA: of course the way around SSG’s problem is to have an SDMB persona which is already surly and argumentative. That way you never have to hide behind a costly second persona. :wink:
[/QUOTE]
Short answer: You are who you are and sooner or later you make a mistake. We figure it out. It’s just too much work for most people to simultaneously hold down more than one persona on a message board.

Now I’m not saying we haven’t been fooled before – we’re probably being fooled right this very second in some capacity – but we’ve caught many more people that just couldn’t make it happen consistently, people are who they are and ultimately they slip up.

30

… plus, of course, the software that allows us to watch you while you’re posting.

31

[QUOTE=TubaDiva]
It’s just too much work for most people to simultaneously hold down more than one persona on a message board.
[/QUOTE]
If there are people who for one reason or another feel they need to have more than one online persona here, you might profit by permitting them to do so, with the understanding that there’d be a sticky in ATMB listing all sock relationships.
Those who sock with evil intent wouldn’t be attracted to the scheme, but those with ʎllɐuoısɐɔɔo ǝpısdn uʍop sǝıʇılɐuosɹǝd might find it useful.

32

[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
… plus, of course, the software that allows us to watch you while you’re posting.
[/QUOTE]

Pervert!

ETA- as to the OP, there has been threads that I could have contributed quite a bit of information about, but cannot. Past experiences from when I was a wee child, etc.

For as this is an anonymous board to a certain extent, if someone is determined enough, they can find you. I’ve seen it happen in previous threads.

33

[QUOTE=fisha]
ETA- as to the OP, there has been threads that I could have contributed quite a bit of information about, but cannot. Past experiences from when I was a wee child, etc.

For as this is an anonymous board to a certain extent, if someone is determined enough, they can find you. I’ve seen it happen in previous threads.
[/QUOTE]
And we discourage people from posting real life shocking stories; we have seen instances where such disclosures came back to hurt them.

For some people to do so is therapy; for others, an object lesson they hope to pass on; for still others, just shock value. Whatever the motivation usually people regret being so candid. We’d just as soon not have this information on the board to begin with.

If you can’t put your name to it and feel good about it . . . maybe that’s a sign that you shouldn’t post it to begin with. Safety first.

34

[QUOTE=SSG Schwartz]
I am getting the idea that it is not a popular suggestion here, but we have lost some good posts because the person does not want to use his/her real name. Some people may have some personal stories to tell, but don’t want it to come back to haunt them.
[/QUOTE]
The question is whether the relatively few good posts would outweigh the effects of obnoxious socks. The less well moderated parts of the Internet clearly show there are vastly more of the latter. That proves to me that the answer is “no”.

35

[QUOTE=TubaDiva]
And we discourage people from posting real life shocking stories; we have seen instances where such disclosures came back to hurt them.

For some people to do so is therapy; for others, an object lesson they hope to pass on; for still others, just shock value. Whatever the motivation usually people regret being so candid. We’d just as soon not have this information on the board to begin with.

If you can’t put your name to it and feel good about it . . . maybe that’s a sign that you shouldn’t post it to begin with. Safety first.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

On the other hand, look at the great thread fifty six had about the experience of being in prison. Somehow, out of 3-4000 active members, I highly doubt he is the only one, yet to my knowledge, no one else came forth.

Does the possibility of threads like that outweigh the unending crap that allowing socks would entail? Probably not.

36

Note that one can share confidential personal information with friends at a party, where you can ask them not to share it further (“I keep a secret just fine, it’s the people I tell who can’t keep a secret.”) in a way that is impossible online. Online, we’re out in public. So, while the analogy of a party and group of friends works well for some aspects, a better analogy is a group of friends having their party in a public place, where they can be overheard by almost anyone.

37

I can think of worthy reasons for wanting to use a sock - for example, to ask an embarrassing question about anal warts (not that I have any of these - it’s my friend).

But I can’t, in that (or any other) case, understand the point of having the sock identity linked to the main one in a way that is easily discoverable by the posting public (OK, maybe by mods and admins) - what would be the point of that?

38

[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
Note that one can share confidential personal information with friends at a party, where you can ask them not to share it further (“I keep a secret just fine, it’s the people I tell who can’t keep a secret.”) in a way that is impossible online.
[/quote]

The online analogy would be to pick several people in a similar thread that seem to share your opinion and e-mail them or PM them all simultaneously and share your secret with them and hope that none of them reveal that information on the message board. There’s probably a similar probability that your secret will remain one.

To me, the real life equivalent of this is to walk outside your house with a Zorro mask on while all your neighbors are having a BBQ and announce that you run naked around the neighborhood at night. I’m guessing that people will be motivated to find out who you are and will.

39

I’ll just hazard a guess that a sock who made the minor effort of not being obvious about it, i.e. not rehashing some pet obsession that got his/her original account banned, could easily run out a guest membership without being noticed.

If they want to pay… let 'em.

40

And Bryan is correct.

If you really want to ask that anal wart question, you can go to a library computer, start a guest account, and ask away. When the anal wart thread is over, you let the guest account lapse. How are the PTB going to connect you?

The people who get caught are people who were such big jerks that they got themselves banned. So they start a sock account. But the trouble is that they’re still big jerks, so the odds are high that they’re going to run afoul of the PTB with their new account. I’m not privy to the secret meetings, but you can bet that every time a new high profile jerk shows up, a little discreet IP check is done to see if they match a previous banned jerk.

Of course, if the sock doesn’t act like a jerk with the new account, no one cares much. But if the sock had the ability to refrain from being a jerk, they would have done so in the first place and not gotten themselves banned. The fact that they got themselves banned is a pretty good indication that they aren’t capable of changing their ways.

As for the other scenario of one person using two accounts and claiming to be two people sharing a computer, well, I suppose you could do it, but you’re probably going to screw up eventually. It would be a lot of work…and for what? If you really want an anal wart account, you’re not going to re-use it for anything else, are you? Is it really that important to have one account that participates in serious Great Debates, and another that talks about anal warts? Why can’t you do both with one account? Who cares? You honestly think your credibility in GD will suffer if you ask about anal warts? You’re that concerned with your image?

And then we have the situation like we just had. If you really want to leave behind the baggage of the past, why not try just moving on? Because if you really like posting here, you’re going to inadvertantly connect yourself to your old account, unless you want to make up a whole fake persona, and that’s a lot like work, isn’t it?

We’ve had posters here who were pretty big assholes and/or dolts, and they’ve turned themselves around. Their old doltish posts are still there somewhere, but so what? All that means is that when you run a search and come across an old thread, you think, “Boy, what a dolt FormerDolt used to be. I’m glad he’s not such a dolt anymore.” Is that such a bad thing?

Of course, if you’re still a dolt, then running away from your doltish past is useless, because you’re still a dolt, and every word you write lets people know you’re a dolt. So what good is a new account going to do? Only a dolt would imagine a new account would allow them a fresh start. They’re still a dolt. That is their crime, that is also their punishment.