Does Anyone Believe Guests Can Know Board History?

[joyfool]

I see this a lot, especially in the pit, that a member calls into question a guest saying that been reading here for a long time before they joined. And that got me thinking, since I really don’t see it as that far out of the norm, why. See, I was one of those who did that. This was a Big Scary Place for me and everyone seemed to be friends. I was terrified of not fitting in, or worse, making a complete fool (hehe) out of myself. So I spent a lot of time hunting around. Of course, back in 2000-2001, guests could still search and that made quenching my desire a lot easier. However, that was only for nit-picky things anyway because someone always provided a link. If Satan was brought up, it took nothing to read up on why he was banned. I also knew about Melin and Falcon before I ever opened my cyber mouth. There’s lots more than that I knew in advance, but I’m sure you get the gist.

Why, therefore, is it so routine to not believe others who claim this? Like the recent kerfluffle over whether or not newbies would actually know what Liberal was called before, it seems apparent that this could be an easy answer (along with simply reading whatever transpired before in the thread you’re participating in ) and might be higher up on the possibility list than the fact that most everyone is a fraud. What say y’all? Oh, and the other reason that we wait to post is that we’ve got to have our asses moved to do so. Which means it has to be the specifically right topic, yanno? Thanks to any that can help me out here. I look forward to understanding better.

[Captain_C]

I gotta say, I don’t even know who Liberal is, and I’ve been reading for at least 2 years. We don’t all look at and memorize the names on thousands of posts, ya know.

[JCorre]

Why was satan banned?

[joyfool]

@Captain_C

I gotta say, I don’t even know who Liberal is, and I’ve been reading for at least 2 years. We don’t all look at and memorize the names on thousands of posts, ya know.

It’s not that. I just would like to know why the default choice has to be that someone is therefore a sock, troll or a socktroll.

And JCorre, I’d love to elaborate, but I hesitated putting actual names in to begin with for fear of dragging old issues back to the surface and only decided I could if 1) it really was ancient and 2) I didn’t assist in answering any further queries about whatever it was that happened. However, I will say that I’m sure even a cursory search will bring it all back up again. Hope that helps a bit.

[dnooman]

The next one to say “yano” “ya…know” “yanno” or any such derivative, will be infected with the Hanta virus. Perhaps ebola. It seems to just happen. Not good.

[JCorre]

@faithfool

It’s not that. I just would like to know why the default choice has to be that someone is therefore a sock, troll or a socktroll.

And JCorre, I’d love to elaborate, but I hesitated putting actual names in to begin with for fear of dragging old issues back to the surface and only decided I could if 1) it really was ancient and 2) I didn’t assist in answering any further queries about whatever it was that happened. However, I will say that I’m sure even a cursory search will bring it all back up again. Hope that helps a bit.

Got it. Don’t want to start troubles. Thx

[MrDibble]

I read for months before I signed up.

Plus it is possible (however unlikely) for a Guest to have come here via one of the … Other Places…first, and already be aware of some of the more visible personalities, and which buttons to push if so inclined. Without being a sock. If that’s the only reason they came here, they’d still be a jerk, but just because someone did their research doesn’t make them a troll automatically.

[MrDibble]

I’d just like to add that a socktroll will probably be entertaining my 2-yo very shortly. Thanks, faithfool

[joyfool]

@dnooman

The next one to say “yano” “ya…know” “yanno” or any such derivative, will be infected with the Hanta virus. Perhaps ebola. It seems to just happen. Not good.

Sorry. Guess this wouldn’t be the time to say “My bad!”, would it?
JCorre, I do hope you can find what you’re looking for though. If nothing else, I found it entertaining and an excellent way to pass the time. Like we don’t get that enough here already.

See, MrDibble gets it! ‘Course ( ::: wonders where dnooman has got to since I’m goin’ all out here ::: ) then it makes me want the hoards of people who do it, over and over again, to show up and account for themselves, dammit. Where are youuuuuuuu?? Don’t make me have this thread moved now, ya hear? Oh, and MrDibble, you’re more than welcome. I hope you and the little one have tons of fun for me too.

[JCorre]

I did a cursory search and didn’t find out why. I guess it doesn’t matter much. I’ve been reading this board for a long time and I remember satan being one of the funnier posters from back in the day.

It’s not important enough to dredge up old issues. I’m sure that if he got banned it was for a good reason.

[enigm4tic]

I knew about Libertarian’s name change and have at least seen enough references to or read about many of the inside jokes on the board. The other posters you reference I’m not as up on.

[Cicero]

I just looked here for a long time before joining. It didn’t seem like any big deal. Money was not an issue as it was free then, I was just content to read and laugh at others posts. So, I don’t question when someone says they have looked for months before joining.

[tomndebb]

@faithfool

Why, therefore, is it so routine to not believe others who claim this?

Consider the conditions under which the matter usually comes up.

I can discuss the odd nature of the dispute over Mustangs vs Spitfires and the hateful nature of Perky Dan pretty well, (a thread and an idiot on the AOL board from before my joining), but what context would I ever mention them?

In the particular matter that prompted your question, a new poster, Z, joined at exactly the same time that another poster, A, ceased posting. The new poster introduced a couple of new threads on the same sort of (controversial) topics that the departing poster A had favored and posted on the “same side” of the debate–often being mildly insulting in his posts.
That behavior raised immediate questions, of course.
After some back-and-forth, poster M, an occasional opponent of A, offered a truce and an expressed desire to engage in real discussion with Z. Z ignored M’s peace offerings and joined a thread where he “rhetorically” asked some insulting questions about M, using a username that M had not used in almost three years.

Now, the question is not really whether Z might have known about M’s previous name and posting history. That sort of stuff can, indeed, be discovered by a dilligent lurker. The question is why Z, who could have had no “history” with M, would choose to insult M using ancient history so soon after joining the SDMB and without having any serious battles with M.

Posters questioning Z’s behavior might be sloppy and couch their questions in terms of whether Z “could” have collected enough information to post what he did, but the real question is “Why?” What would prompt a new poster–even a new poster with access to good board history–to choose to launch an insult couched in terms of a username that was nearly three years out of date at a poster who was actively trying to be friendly, even if there were some not-very-explicit references to the older name on the thread?
If a newbie came in, announced that s/he was a long-time lurker, then posted a ribald joke about Satan on a thread about anal sex, it would raise a few eyebrows, but there would probably not be lots and lots of speculation about sockpuppets. If a thread about Iceland brought a quip from a newbie about bj0rn, someone might wonder whether the newbie was on their second username, but then shrug it off. However, a newbie who picks unprovoked fights with another poster while using ancient history for ammunition is seriously more suspect. The questioning may not be wholly rational, (given the possibility of some knowledge of history), but the impulse is probably dead on, given the number of socks who give themselves away by referring to ancient history.

[straight_man]

Yes, it is undoubtedly possible for a guest to be familiar with board history. I know more or less all the memes (without reading the sticky, that is ), I know what OP should be put in which thread, etc. I’m SDMB-literate, and many other newbies are too.

That said, reading as a poster is very different from reading as a lurker. You think much more about what your position/contribution/whatever is in a thread when you canactually contribute it. That alone is a major difference. Also, of course, you have to care more about what to stay out of and what to contribute to. It really is a very different world.

[Klaatu]

Well, I believe guests could put the show posts parameter to “beginning” and see every existing thread in a forum. I just logged out and did this for the Pit. So if they wanted to read all 481 pages :eek: (what I got anyway) they could definitely learn some history. I did notice it only goes back to 2001.

[Klaatu]

:smack: Well, I guess that was dumb. For some reason I thought you had to be a member to read every post. Not to be confused with searching.

[Eleusis]

I certainly lurked before I posted… and I know at least 2 more who lurk right now at this moment. I (rarely, when a certain subject surfaces) try to get them to join to offer their (IMO) legit opinions, but it’s all just “internet geeks”* to them.

I doubt it will happen, but if it does, they will know at least some history.

• I’m one… and they are too… they just won’t admit it yet (HA!)

[glee]

@tomndebb

Consider the conditions under which the matter usually comes up.

I can discuss the odd nature of the dispute over Mustangs vs Spitfires and the hateful nature of Perky Dan pretty well, (a thread and an idiot on the AOL board from before my joining), but what context would I ever mention them?

In the particular matter that prompted your question, a new poster, Z, joined at exactly the same time that another poster, A, ceased posting. The new poster introduced a couple of new threads on the same sort of (controversial) topics that the departing poster A had favored and posted on the “same side” of the debate–often being mildly insulting in his posts.
That behavior raised immediate questions, of course.
After some back-and-forth, poster M, an occasional opponent of A, offered a truce and an expressed desire to engage in real discussion with Z. Z ignored M’s peace offerings and joined a thread where he “rhetorically” asked some insulting questions about M, using a username that M had not used in almost three years.

Now, the question is not really whether Z might have known about M’s previous name and posting history. That sort of stuff can, indeed, be discovered by a dilligent lurker. The question is why Z, who could have had no “history” with M, would choose to insult M using ancient history so soon after joining the SDMB and without having any serious battles with M.

Posters questioning Z’s behavior might be sloppy and couch their questions in terms of whether Z “could” have collected enough information to post what he did, but the real question is “Why?” What would prompt a new poster–even a new poster with access to good board history–to choose to launch an insult couched in terms of a username that was nearly three years out of date at a poster who was actively trying to be friendly, even if there were some not-very-explicit references to the older name on the thread?
If a newbie came in, announced that s/he was a long-time lurker, then posted a ribald joke about Satan on a thread about anal sex, it would raise a few eyebrows, but there would probably not be lots and lots of speculation about sockpuppets. If a thread about Iceland brought a quip from a newbie about bj0rn, someone might wonder whether the newbie was on their second username, but then shrug it off. However, a newbie who picks unprovoked fights with another poster while using ancient history for ammunition is seriously more suspect. The questioning may not be wholly rational, (given the possibility of some knowledge of history), but the impulse is probably dead on, given the number of socks who give themselves away by referring to ancient history.

So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and continues an argument by a previously banned poster about whether duck quacks echo, it’s probably a troll sock duck?

[Klaatu]

@glee

So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and continues an argument by a previously banned poster about whether duck quacks echo, it’s probably a troll sock duck?

A trock?

[MerryMagdalen]

Also, some people have a better knack for picking up…vibes? of history.

I first got attracted to the board 6 months to a year before joining…and I’ve got a relatively low post count for my time on here.

I don’t know exactly when Liberal changed his username, but I knew about it, either from reading old linked threads or from lurking at the time (I’m not sure which).

And I started reading the board in the Pit, which is where you learn about conflicts between people. So if you put together a long period of lurking, with an ability to pick up on interpersonal relations on a messageboard, with an attention to where people really let how they feel about those relations hang out…

You can find out quite a lot.

So I don’t know lots about board history, but I know more than I might be expected to.

(I apologize for my grammar, but right now I can’t figure how to put it right. I need to go to sleep.)