# Question about socks. **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [May 1, 2016, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572 "2016-05-01T02:56:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/1 "2016-05-01T02:56:26Z")
A question inspired by this post: > [@Whose Doper name do you feel you need a little info on?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whose-doper-name-do-you-feel-you-need-a-little-info-on/753238/87): > > Soks apply to one forum: if you create two accounts with different names on one forum, usually in order to make it look like two people have the same opinion, that is a sok. You can create one account on as many different fora with as many different names each as you like and no one anywhere will give a leap. Now I think (s)he meant messageboard, not forum, and I am sure (s)he is correct but it got me wondering. Is “sock” determined by the mere fact of having more than one username in on the messageboard or by the nature of the intent. For example my username and information shared makes my real life identity clear both to those who would read here who know me in real life and easily deduced by anyone who so cared to. Such informs both how I post and what I share here; that is not a bad thing in mind. I can however imagine a circumstance in which I might want to participate in a discussion sharing information without being so identified or easily identifiable. (Probably wouldn’t whether allowed or not as I do not presume anonymity actually exists, I am surprised by what people share under the belief they are anonymous, but no fighting the hypothetical.) Would two usernames with one used to participate in those sorts of discussions be forbidden under the sock rule? My _guess_ is it would be considered a sock offense despite the lack of ill intent. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/2 "2016-05-01T04:10:32Z")
Yep, one person, one username. If you want to participate in a discussion but don’t want people here to know it’s you, you have to go talk somewhere else. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/3 "2016-05-01T05:11:48Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Would two usernames with one used to participate in those sorts of discussions be forbidden under the sock rule? My _guess_ is it would be considered a sock offense despite the lack of ill intent. Yes, we had a guy do just _exactly_ that not so long ago. Due to some careless wording in one of his posts (IIRC), he was found out, [and instantly banned](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=751250). ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/4 "2016-05-01T05:23:40Z")
FTR, if my sock accounts start making more sense than my main account, can I forward their posts to mine to make me seem smarter? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/5 "2016-05-01T05:48:46Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Would two usernames with one used to participate in those sorts of discussions be forbidden under the sock rule? My _guess_ is it would be considered a sock offense despite the lack of ill intent. You are correct. A second user name, even without ill intent, is not permitted here. It’s also an instantly bannable type of offense, even if you have been here for years. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/6 "2016-05-01T05:53:15Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Would two usernames with one used to participate in those sorts of discussions be forbidden under the sock rule? My _guess_ is it would be considered a sock offense despite the lack of ill intent. Having two usernames is a bannable offense here regardless of intent. In the case you mention, that would definitely run afoul of the “no socks” rule, since the poster intentionally created the sock to disguise their identity. We want transparency here regarding a poster’s identity. This said, we enforce the “no socks” rule on a case by case basis. For example, someone who created an account here 10 years ago, but who has forgotten the password, might be allowed to merge the accounts if they come clean if discovered. In this case the sock was not created in order to disguise someone’s identity. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/7 "2016-05-01T06:46:22Z")
Does the “no socks” rule extend to the prohibition of psychically wearing of socks whilst posting? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/8 "2016-05-01T07:25:25Z")
The well-known Tootsie Rule. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/9 "2016-05-01T08:15:50Z")
> [@Asympotically\_fat](#): > > Does the “no socks” rule extend to the prohibition of psychically wearing of socks whilst posting? Can you provide a peer-reviewed cite for the existence of psychic footwear phenomena? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/10 "2016-05-01T13:07:13Z")
Detecting socks is fun. It’s a great pastime. Much more fun that calling someone a racist. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/11 "2016-05-01T14:05:55Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > For example my username and information shared makes my real life identity clear both to those who would read here who know me in real life and easily deduced by anyone who so cared to. Such informs both how I post and what I share here; that is not a bad thing in mind. I can however imagine a circumstance in which I might want to participate in a discussion sharing information without being so identified or easily identifiable. (Probably wouldn’t whether allowed or not as I do not presume anonymity actually exists, I am surprised by what people share under the belief they are anonymous, but no fighting the hypothetical.) > > Would two usernames with one used to participate in those sorts of discussions be forbidden under the sock rule? We’ve had threads in the past where people have asked that the sock rules be changed to allow for cases like this ([here’s one example](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=490748&)). Such requests have always been turned down. During the recent Outage, [several people tried](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=791057) (with varying degrees of success) openly creating socks in an effort to post at all. Those people were not banned, though the socks they created were. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/12 "2016-05-01T14:18:18Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Having two usernames is a bannable offense here regardless of intent. That seems like an exaggeration. There have been cases where someone was a member of the board for some time, dropped out for years, and then came back under another name. When that person mentioned their previous membership, they weren’t banned - their accounts were merged with no warning, banning or other action, apparently because there was no bad intent (and no simultaneous use of multiple accounts). ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/13 "2016-05-01T14:53:25Z")
Isn’t it supposed to be “sock puppet,” not just “sock”? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/14 "2016-05-01T16:17:26Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > That seems like an exaggeration. There have been cases where someone was a member of the board for some time, dropped out for years, and then came back under another name. When that person mentioned their previous membership, they weren’t banned - their accounts were merged with no warning, banning or other action, apparently because there was no bad intent (and no simultaneous use of multiple accounts). That’s pretty much exactly what I said. You edited out the part where I qualified my remark. Having two usernames is against the rules, and you can be banned without warning for it. We may not enforce the rule if we are convinced there was no attempt to deceive. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/15 "2016-05-01T16:20:49Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Isn’t it supposed to be “sock puppet,” not just “sock”? The original term was sock puppet, but that meant having two usernames simultaneously and using them to support your own arguments. As we use it now, “sock” means a second username regardless of purpose, and it doesn’t need to be simultaneous. The most frequent motivation for a sock is for a banned poster to sneak back in. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/16 "2016-05-01T16:20:55Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > That’s pretty much exactly what I said. > > Having two usernames is against the rules, and you can be banned without warning for it. We may not enforce the rule if we are convinced there was no attempt to deceive. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/17 "2016-05-01T16:22:14Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Isn’t it supposed to be “sock puppet,” not just “sock”? Slang always shortens. That’s a subrule of language always shortens. Or langshort. LS, Dude. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/18 "2016-05-01T16:42:58Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Slang always shortens. That’s a subrule of language always shortens. Or langshort. > > LS, Dude. I find this needlessly wordy. Does not “Dude” cover everything? Dude. ---
**Author:** ![donkeyoatey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47c2d/32.png) [@donkeyoatey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/donkeyoatey)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/19 "2016-05-01T21:29:10Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > I find this needlessly wordy. > > Does not “Dude” cover everything? > > Dude. Word. ---
**Author:** ![Canadjun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@Canadjun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Canadjun)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572/20 "2016-05-01T22:48:07Z")
!bbbbbbb [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-socks/753572.md?page=2)