It was brought to our attention that both posters had posted similar/the same pictures in SDMB threads. Once we looked into it, there was clear evidence that the two posters were the same person. We’ve since received email from NightRabbit, acknowledging ownership of both accounts, so there is no possibility of a mistake in this case.
I hear Kim Cattrall gets to play her in the movie. Or is that Sarah Jessica Parker …? :smack:
Did she say why she did it? It seems weird to me that a poster from 2000 would stop posting, create a sock, get it banned by admitting sockery, then resume the previous identity, right down to posting the topics and the same pictures. I’m just curious. I can see socking if you wanted to reinvent yourself, but she didn’t.
Bolding mine. If that were proof of sockism then most of those people who start pit threads would be socks of one another.
Heh.
No I just meant the pit topics she’d write about were always the same kinds of things. Like how you could always tell a VC30/TURDUCKEN thread just from how it went. Eh it’s a moot point now anyhow, since they were proven to be the same person and have admitted it.
No argument here – it seems pretty weird to me too. As long as I’ve been here (since 2000), the one account per person rule has been the most strictly upheld and has always been grounds for banning of all accounts. It’s not as if she didn’t know what would happen if she was caught.
It kind of makes sense to me. I don’t remember the exact dates, but it seems to me that there was at least a year between her last using the **NightRabbit **account (the first time) and switching to nongoog. I just figured that she forgot the **NightRabbit **account information or couldn’t be bothered to look it up or some such, signed up for a new account, and when that one was banned, had the motivation to dig up her previous account.
Also, I think her posting such similar information/photos/threads could just be chalked up to simplicity. It’s a lot less work to just tell the unguarded truth than it is to always be posting in a particular fictional or partial persona, especially on message boards where you could be posting dozens of small posts a day, at least. Maybe she figured that, there being a lot of posters here, the information she gave wouldn’t be paid such close attention to and remembered, especially since she wasn’t caught right away. And she was kind of right - I didn’t recognize her because of all the little details that were the same but because it just *sounded *like her, and I see I’m not alone in that.
All just speculation. And I hope I haven’t crossed the line into discussion about a banned poster that is forbidden. My apologies in advance if I wind up getting the thread closed.
Especially when you consider that she’s a certified genius.
Newbie here: because Night Rabbit is banned, does that mean she can’t post anymore? In other words, “Do I take her off my ignore list”?
Yes that means she can no longer post.
I don’t remember the poster nongoog but I do remember some of the first posts I saw by NightRabbit and I thought it was strange that it appeared the account was active but had not been used for quite awhile.
The poster appeared so brassy that I thought maybe the account was highjacked and some new strange person was using the account.
Now I guess we know the truth.
That’s because you’re being a vacuous slut when you do that stuff. When she does it, it’s okay.
The joys of rationalization and moral relativism. The things that make NightRabbit what she is.
Robin
It was a nobler place before Giraffe began allowing that sort of unilateral bashing. She’s gone. Punished. It’s over. You’re ironically mocking the morality of someone who can’t even defend herself against you. And you love it, no less. You’re a douche.
As for the mealworm stuff, I’ve come to the conclusion that Google-analytics has gone bonkers. I have no idea how they work relevancy criteria, but whatever algorithm they use has gone belly-up on them. It’s not just the occasional “Whaaa?” bizarre connection, but a consisten thing now. (For the record, Christian Forums also has an account with Google-analytics, and one recent display over there included “Christian Book Club,” “Christian Singles Groups,” and “Christian Dior.” :))
General point of order (not specifically directed at the above-quoted newbie): Does the prohibition against discussing one’s ignore list extend to ex-members? After someone is banned, can we then say things like, “Woo hoo, I saw it coming, I already had them ignored, in your face motherfuckers, hoot hoot hoot”? Just curious.
I think you can say it, but it’s kinda déclassé.
You know, for a libertarian, you sure want a lot of rules. It’s true that we’ll close threads that devolve into bashing bannees, but I’m not going to start handing out warnings because someone commented unfavorably on a banned poster.
It’s never really come up. I can’t say I’d personally get too bent out of shape over it, but if it became part of a general pattern of celebrating the departure of bannees, we could ask people to knock it off, I suppose.
That’s pretty crazy on two levels: (1) libertarians aren’t anarchists who oppose rules just because they’re rules; and (2) I haven’t advocated any rules, and have even attacked some of them like the ridiculously dumb rule against so-called “hate speech”.
Who said you should “warn” anyone? Tuba used to just close them with a comment that it was unfair to bash people who can’t respond. For all the heat she takes, that was very classy of her. I just think its low class and trashy to break bad on people who can’t fight back even if you think they’re worthless just because you banned them. It’s the very definition of bullying.
As I said, I’ll close a thread if it devolves into bashing bannees. I don’t think it’s appropriate to close a thread the moment there’s a single negative post.
It has nothing to do with my opinion of the bannees, incidentally, or the giddy rush of power and superiority I get from enforcing rules on a message board. I just think things go more smoothly if we err on the side of letting little stuff go. Posters can and should let each other know when they find each others’ posts inappropriate or rude, which I think is more effective in building a good message board community that moderators policing each and every post.
You’ve never actually been bullied, I gather. I bet most kids who had actual bullies on their ass wouldn’t consider harsh words typed against one’s anonymous bbs handle in a link that simply can be avoided by not clicking on it as “the very definition of bullying”.
Thanks for patiently explaining your position. You do a great job overall, and you’re definitely a good communicator. I’m glad you at least didn’t pursue the bizarre libertarians-rules connection. I still disagree with you about this particular matter, although I agree with the gist of your philosophy. And I appreciate the out you’ve given me by allowing me to let people know what I think. As I’ve said before, you’re a good egg.