That was just one instance – here’s the other, which by my reading (which could well be biased, considering I was the target) was more egregious:
Yes, that’s the one I was thinking of.
Damn it @Miller , I wasn’t done bitchin’ and moaning about your modding and now I have to wait until you feel better? How is that fair?
Seriously, take it easy for a day or two. Sorry you got a bad reaction. I got the J&J single jab, no reaction whatsoever. Not even a drop of blood on the band aid when I took it off. Yay for me.
None of your examples fit the main point of a sock, which is to deceive everyone. Having a new account because you were banned = sock. Creating another account to agree with your opinion in threads = sock.
Creating a second account called Bob2 because you forgot your password = not a sock.
What about a dog? Who else is going chase that Frisbee all over the place?
Come on, dude. There are 150 posts in this thread explaining that cracker does not equal all white people. The vast majority of white people in the US will never be called cracker because they don’t fit the stereotype. It’s not a matter of can people take it, it’s a matter of why should people have to take it.
Obsessed in a good way or a bad way? I think I learned in a recent thread that Lawry’s is MSG. Lots of white folks used to be obsessed with that as the explanation of why you want to eat again after eating Chinese food.
BTW, Harriot is a great writer with style. Sometimes I read him and I’m chuckling along and I suddenly realize “Holy crap! He’s right!”
Where’s the misstep thing in the rules? I’m pretty sure that’s not allowed.
I think you got the wrong guy here.
damuriajashi was, in fact, insulting MrDibbles in the link from post #1.
~Max
While @MrDibble got caught up in it, damuriajashi had him confused with iiandyiiii . I may be slow on the uptake, but I’m pretty sure I’ve picked up subtle hints that MrDibble may not be totally white.
Yes, you have. DA, unfortunately, had not–but the matter of care and rigor with which he directs his accusations has been pretty well interrogated in the linked thread.
And this thread doesn’t accuse him of it, so that’s OK then.
Exactly. Like I said upthread, he is just the 2021 version of ChiefPedant/Chen19. When the mods finally shut down the scientific racism stuff, they just faded away. They only came to the boards for the race stuff. Same thing with DA now. You can practically see the spittle flying off his fingers as he types.
I still don’t understand what I’m supposed to think or feel reading that. Is it a parody? Inside jokes for non whites? Whatever I’m a duck, quack.
Is any of that written down in the bright line rule? I looked carefully, because I was arguing that it was a bright line rule, and I was unable to do so. If you have to look past what is written, and interpret what the rule means and not what it is written down, by definition it isn’t a bright line rule.
I know I’m going back and forth a bit but I am open-minded and very aware of my ability to miss something and otherwise make mistakes, and I am receptive to a good argument. I think both you and @Do_Not_Taunt have made great points here. And I also appreciate you both.
I think we are mostly in agreement. We both think something needs to be done, We are just quibbling over details.
I think a lot of people like to rules-lawyer. Sock is understood by most people, I think, as someone using a fake identity to deceive people. Hence, a no socks rule is simple for most people. There are always people who want to rules-lawyer, that’s what the mods are for.
Trolls are another good example. It used to mean someone who posted just to get a rise out of people, like trolling for fish. Now, many people, even on this board, think trolling is someone who doesn’t agree with them and are not convinced by their brilliant arguments.
I don’t think the bright line rule is the problem, it’s the small group of people who don’t want to play by the rule and try to work around and undermine it.
More work for the mods short term? Maybe, but that’s what they are here for and the posters flagging posts will help them out. It’s not like we have 1000 posters here that are just itching to throw around racial slurs as soon as they see a way around the rules. It’s a pretty small group and it wouldn’t surprise me if the mods know every one of them.
Oh yes. I think you hit the nail right on the head. 
That’s the problem with a lot of online communities.
Well, yes, but also no. I mean, in most contexts, you’re right, and that is the etymology of the word ‘sock.’ But, look again at the actual rule as @Atamasama quoted it:
The title of the rule is ‘Socks’, but the actual rule just says ‘Do not use more than one screen name.’ It doesn’t say, ‘Don’t create a second account to fool people.’ But people remember this as the sock rule, but that’s its spirit. Which is my whole point. We all know what the rule is meant for. And that’s how it’s enforced. Were it a ‘bright line’ rule, it would be enforced as written. And it’s not.
But this is what I mean by rules lawyering. Everyone knows exactly what that rule means, it’s just that there is always a miniscule group of posters who want to find a workaround so they don’t have to follow the rules. The other 99.9% have no problem parsing that rule.
That’s not what trolling means? 
It’s not clear to me at this point if you think you’re disagreeing or not. I wasn’t talking about “rules lawyering” at all. I was talking about the meaning of “bright line” rules.
I think we are in agreement for the most part (on the sock rule), we differ on how specific the bright line rule is. If I understand you, you would like a clearer rule while I think the rule would work as is. Just haggling over details. 
I believe the issue is whether or not the SDMB needs to adopt bright line rules. I think the sock rule in particular works just fine as it is. The only quibble is whether or not it qualifies as a bright line rule (I think it’s now obvious that it’s not one) and that only came up because I suggested there were no bright line rules on the board.
I think at this point we’re just arguing about semantics rather than suggesting rules changes. (Arguing about semantics is a huge chunk of what this board does so of course we are.)
No, no, definitely not. I have no interest in changing the rule or how it’s worded, or anything. I just don’t think it’s a “bright line” rule, nor should it be. It’s fine as-is. As @Atamasama said,
Then we are in 100% agreement, I don’t think a rule change is necessary either.
The only change I think we really need is to expand the racial slur category to include words like cracker etc. Just ban all racial slurs no matter how mild individual mods feel they are, just so everyone is on the same page.