I know there is a rule against one person having more than one ID or account. But I see considerable confusion. Some people call these socks. But other people seem to think that socks only refer to people who bring two or more accounts online at the same time and appear to talk with each other - usually to quarrel with each other or to applaud each other. In this case, some people call these “sock puppets” because one person controls what each ID posts. It’s like a person having a hand up the back of a puppet and then speaking while they appear to be a different ID.
But I’ve never seen any explanation as to why there is such a fear of multiple IDs. I’m not suggesting they should be permitted. But it seems like you have such a terrible fear of anyone having multiple IDs. May I ask why?
I’m curious to know why multiple IDs are considered such an evil. It’s as if you consider them to be the very worst thing that anyone can do. It gets them banned immediately. People can make all kinds of insults and just get a warning. Why are multiple IDs so much worse? What harm do they do?
By the way, some people think that “sock” refers to a sock puppet. But as I understand, it is short for “socket” which what an Internet connection is called.
What argument could you make for allowing multiple IDs and the ensuing benefits?
“Some people”!?
Apparently, (almost) all people agree that it refers to a sock puppet as used in it’s earliest known usage by Dana Rollins (July 9, 1993).
If you have another theory as to the term’s origin, please provide a cite.
From a practical perspective I have no idea how that would ever be detected. And banning someone for life from reading only would be pretty pointless since you don’t need an account to read the board.
I’ve also seen multiple instances where people reach out to mods because they joined years ago, can’t remember their account/password and created a new one.
The responses from mods has always been of assistance not you’re banned for life.
Intent matters.
They are detected when both IDs are created using the same IP address. As far as being “pointless”, the point is that they would be assumed to intend to post at a later date. As you said, “intent matters” and I agree with you.
I also agree that if someone does something accidental and reach out to the mods, they will be treated with understanding and helpfulness.
Ummm … Please people! I didn’t start this thread looking to have arguments with you. As I said, I’m just curious why one penalty is seemingly so much greater than the other.
I’m not going to post to this thread again because I don’t want to quarrel. If the mods feel that this thread is looking for quarrels, then by all means please delete it.
It’s one of those rules where it’s far easier to have a bright line saying what is and isn’t acceptable, than it is to adjudicate when someone is using a second ID insincerely.
Forcing users to have only one ID is also not restrictive to the content of the board. It is trivially easy to participate without having multiple IDs and the hardships endured by having only one ID are minimal.
OTOH, vigorous debate and discussion sometimes results in people getting irritated and insulting someone. Put the clamps down on that, and the board itself would suffer. I’m a member of a Facebook Group where people are unfailingly nice and supportive. I mean, it’s just about the nicest place on the internet, but they don’t discuss anything important, or even the slightest bit controversial. They can’t, which is fine because that’s not what the group is about, but it wouldn’t work here.
I can imagine someone finding it convenient to have two different IDs for relatively innocuous reasons, like wishing to keep a firewall between (say) their extensive and detailed posting about biology questions in GQ and their wild Sopranos theorizing in CS, or their Yang campaign posts in Elections. But at the SDMB the consensus is to let moderators prevent arguments about Tony’s fate to spill over into a discussion of entomology in GQ, and let members decide that they will only read ImaginaryDoper’s election posts but never his biology ones and vice versa.
Some people think that “jumping the shark” means pushing an idea over the top, when in fact it refers to an episode of Happy Days, a television comedy program that aired in the 1970s and 1980s. The character of Arthur Fonzarelli, who was also called “Fonzie” or sometimes “The Fonz,” jumped over a shark while water skiing, which led to the expression “jumped the shark.”
By the way, the show Happy Days was set in the 1950s and 1960s, even though it was made much later. Many people find that confusing.
Right: the OP is not asking “Why is this not allowed?” (or “Should this be allowed?”) but rather “Why is this so bad that it merits an insta-ban rather than a warning? Why is it the unforgivable sin?”
I think part of the answer is, as Cheesesteak said, that it is a clear bright line that no one’s going to cross by accident. But there may be more to it than that.
Some socks are banned or suspended posters attempting to return under a new name. No mystery why they deserve banning.
Innocuous maybe but ----- isn’t someone with such a breadth of interest and knowledge a lot more interesting than 3 fake people each with one? And lets face it; for some of us long-term participants its not just the words we find interesting but the people behind them as well.
When I’ve seen socks on other sites, the kind who are not necessarily on at the same moment, its usually to push the rules and everyone’s buttons with one while being the “voice of reason” most of the time with the other. And when the “evil twin” gets hit with a ban the other carries on and creates something else. Or a good moderator knocks both with the ban-hammer and everyone is up in arms because “Asshole and Angel can’t be the same person”. The harm of allowing such behavior outweighs the possible benefit to me.
One thing I’m curious about is why they waited until the 1970s to film a program set in the 1950s.
They had to build a set that looked like a 1950s diner, and give the actors clothing and hairstyles from that time, and teach them to talk the way people talked back then. That seems like a lot of trouble to me!
They could simply have made the show back in the 1950s. Or, set it in the 1970s if that’s when they were going to film it. But they didn’t. I wonder why?
They wanted to start broadcasting it in 1953, but it took surprisingly long to research all the details. Note that even after the show started they had to correct errors (initial research indicated the existence of a “Chuck” who it turned out didn’t exist).
Then why didn’t they film That 70s Show back in the 70s? Why go to all that trouble of replicating 70s fashions, 70s cars, etc, when they could have saved all that money using existing locations, cars, appliances, and everything else?
The best I ever heard was from a fan board for a hosted horror show. One of the super-prolific posters didn’t want the fan-boy label so as his count hit say 500 he would create a second identity and after a month or so allow the first one to go inactive. Lather, rinse and repeat every so often. No harm and no foul really but to the two/three of us “founders” who knew what was going on there was a little annoyance. Look, to me at least -------- if you count bothers you take a time-out or SHUT UP. Or stop making all those three-word replies. There are other options out there.
The answer is obvious. Both Happy Days and That 70’s Show are SOCK PUPPETS of those original decades, designed to misdirect and confound historians (and those of us simply with long memories) into being confused about what actually happened back then. Similarly Lucy Ricardo was a socket puppet created by a Hollywood mogul named Lucille Ball, through which the driven, focused business executive portrayed herself as a lovable, wacky housewife.