Well, I’ll disagree with a lot of folks here. I think significant lying about the facts involved in an issue under discussion–whether those facts are of one’s experiences or are facts generally available to the public–is a tremendous harm to a messageboard like this.
When I’m in Great Debates, I want to be thinking about what other folks are saying; I want to think about the logic of their points. The more trust I can place in them to be representing factual issues as accurately as they can, the more time I can spend thinking about the viewpoint they’re putting forth. The less trust I can place in them, the more time I must spend double-checking all their facts to make sure they’re not pulling a fast one on me.
For generally-available information, I can do that. For someone’s experiences, I cannot. So, I can choose either to discard everyone’s personal experiences as not germane to a discussion; or I can choose to trust people to try to represent their personal experiences accurately.
I prefer to do the latter. I think it makes for a more interesting environment for discussion.
What that means is that, once you’ve lied to me, I’m not going to trust you again. I’m going to want you gone from the messageboard for violating my trust, and for making it that much harder for me to trust other people’s personal accounts on the messageboard.
I’d like to minimize that happening. Banning people who tell such lies is a pretty good way to minimize it, in my opinion.
And the lawyerfake was named something like soothingmoon, or moocow, or something like that. I remember it, even though I don’t remember the name in question.
The lawyer was a poster by the name of Beryl_Mooncalf… or something like that. Bricker called him out and the faux-lawyer went into meltdown mode. It was an interesting thread.
K6 was not banned for either hijacking threads (It was proven in the Freejooky thread that she was not hijacking off-topic threads, and probably the only reason I knew she claimed to be a transexual is that people kept pitting her for it).
As Anaamika said, K6 was banned because K6 asked to be banned, and it was a lot easier to accept that than deal through the muck.
Back in our regularly-scheduled rant, I think I agree with Daniel, at least in spirit.
This is similar to what happened in one of the two previous cases I mentioned in the OP. I don’t want to mention a name because I read about this second hand (and hardly have perfect recall) so I may have the facts wrong. But as I recall, there was a poster who falsely claimed to have had a miscarriage.
The other incident I was referring to was the poster who made it look like he was the victim of a crime as a practical joke.
And I now remember there was another incident with a poster who admitted to posting lies. I’ve forgotten the details but it involved an encounter with a woman on a bus.
There was also a poster who claimed to be a CIA agent but I didn’t count that one as nobody believed him in the first place.
In all of these cases, the poster left the board soon after being exposed.
No - it’s more than a slogan, it’s a statement of purpose.
You’re not wrong - I’ve had reason to post the mods that a certain thread be closed (I’m not going to give details).
I disagree: if you’re being a jerk, it doesn’t matter if you’re lying. I think that lying is a big deal, but is shouldn’t necessarily be immediately bannable. We all know the damage of an unspotted typo, for instance. Something that is quickly spotted and called and responded with “Doh!” or “You’re quite right” or similar, or “I’m sorry, but I don’t agree because XYZ” is very different to the fabricated persona scenario. (BTW Thanks for helping me clarify that in my mind)
I don’t know that banning is even necessary, in such a case where the poster 'fesses up to fabricating their persona to such an extent. That poster’s credibility is shot, and any future posts would be ridiculed or ignored.
I’d bet a lot of posters have lied about something on the board, at some point. Perhaps a lie of exaggeration or embellishment, perhaps a lie of omission. Nah, that shouldn’t be a bannable offense.
But who’s going to police everybody’s posts for factual consistency? I can just see it:
Poster A: “What’s it like to work for the government?”
Poster B: “Well, I worked for the SSA in 1998, and blah blah blah…”
Administrator: Hmm, Poster B mentioned working for the Philadelphia Police Department in 1998 in a post last year, so we’d better investigate. Let’s pull his/her employment records and see.
I don’t really think anyone wants to take on the task of ascertaining the veracity of each post. This is the internet; people aren’t always truthful. Once someone is exposed as a fraud in an online community, I doubt they’re likely to have any meaningful continued involvement in that community.
I hadn’t heard about the Beryl_Mooncalf incident until now (as I said I’m always coming in late on these things) but having read SkipMagic’s link it shows me what would have happened if I had tried to act on my hypothetical plan from post #3 and pretended to be a lawyer on this board. I’ve decided that if I ever pick a fake online profession, I’m going to claim to be an astronaut - less chance of running into a real one and getting called out.
I agree wholeheartedly…there are lies and there are LIES. I’ll bet we all have a different level of tolerance, but I think most people will accept at least some lies.
I think that any false persona should be banned, but the person should be given one chance to return as herself or himself.
It is particularly harmful when people try to pass themselves off as experts in a field. That is automatically jerkish behavior.
I know one person, still currently a member, who has done that in the past. He has left contradictions about his personal life trailing behind him. Lately, he seems to have curtailed the charade.
What about, well, call them “anonymity protecting” lies? I mean, small things that don’t affect the topic under discussion, that you might throw in to provide deniability if you have reason to think or fear that someone might be able to connect your SD nom with your real name, to some possible detriment?
I’m thinking of lies on the order of, well, saying you have two pet dogs, when in fact you have three. Or relating a somewhat embarrassing youthful misadventure, and saying it happened at a Pizza Hut instead of at a Dominoes.
Okay, it’s still lying, it makes the Baby Jesus cry, but it doesn’t seem to me that that kind of lie would be hurtful to other posters or the board in general.
I’m going to admit that countless times I’ve considered enhancing my persona with bullshit, but the fear of getting outted sometime in the future has prevented me from doing so.
That and the fact that many of the long time posters I’ve come across have clearly demonstrated an honest portrayal of themselves which enhances the credibility of the entire community of the SDMB.
Honesty is the No#1 asset we have. We should protect it.
Anyone can dream up a situation where a poster is justified in lying about something. Anyone can also dream up a situation where a poster who lies deserves to be banned. These things must be decided on a case by case basis.
Since this thread is obviously about one specific case, the only question of any relevance is this: Does anyone here not think Kaitlyn deserved to be banned?
I was in a somewhat similar situation a year or so ago, though I don’t think of myself as having been trolling.
I was lurking on another (unmoderated) board that I wanted to contribute to as soon as I’d read enough posts to get a feel for how things were done there. Turned out to be a good idea, because I did see one thread in which a female poster was participating. Someone asked her if she was a lesbian, to which she said no, and he went off on her, asking, “Then what are you doing here? This forum is for gay men only! We don’t want breeders!” Other posters hastened to reassure her that her contributions were welcome despite what this guy said, but she stopped posting shortly afterwards.
Granted, this wasn’t a site that would have a lot of appeal to heteros, but there wasn’t anything in the terms of service when I registered that said, “For Gay Men Only.” But as I said, the board was unmoderated, so I didn’t think it was entirely wise to introduce myself saying, “Hi, I’m a woman and I think…” So I chose a gender-neutral name and chimed in on the discussion that had led me there. Other posters seemed to accept me, and as soon as the discussion was played out, I stopped posting.
Would I have continued, and actively passed myself off as a gay man? Probably not, mostly because the forum in its entirety didn’t appeal to me. Beyond that, though, I probably couldn’t have kept up such a charade very long, and I would have felt like scum even if I didn’t get called out. If someone had asked me a direct question, like “When did you come out?”, I probably would have just left quietly. People come and go on the net all the time; rarely do they have to defend themselves. And when they do, it’s usually because they spun an elaborate web of lies.
DrFidelius: So you started posting when you were six years old?
But we have pilots and we have astronomers and between them they’d find you out in about ten seconds. I don’t lie here because tracking the lies I told would be too hard, as K6 found out, thanks to Pineapples.
Bricker, I just wanted to say something that I couldn’t in the other thread: Your “Munchausen by Proxy Server” line balances several of your sins. Keep that up a you’ll pull yourself out of Hell yet.
I thought there was a moon in it, and I thought there was a cow in it, but I couldn’t remember the details.
