OK, the background on this. As most folks know, or should know, we had a problem recently with a poster who was, among other activities, producing screen names which appeared identical to those of established users. Some of the computer nerds quickly figured out how this was being done, and notified the Powers that Be in a thread over in ATMB, and suggested changes to the software to prevent the use of said trick. In that thread, I mentioned another trick that could produce the same effect, and warned that preventive measures should be also taken against that other trick. Well, in a recent thread by one OatWillie, which appears to be a confession, he/she/it mentions that he/she/it picked up on that trick that I mentioned, and used it.
My question, then, is this: Was it wrong of me to mention it? I realize, in retrospect, that I could have e-mailed the mods, but I also think that it’s best if everyone be aware of such tricks, so that folks’ll be on the lookout for them, and know what’s going on. On the other hand, I’m feeling rather guilty right now for, effectively, handing the troll a loaded gun. What ought I to have done?
Note, by the way: I’m specifically making an effort not to say what either trick was here, as I don’t want to make the same mistake twice. If/when the software is changed, I might say more.
Slythe: I hope this is the right forum for this; this is my first thread here in the new neighborhood, and I’m still getting the feel for the place.
I would say that revelaing the information was for the better. The fact that it may have given some schlophead the means to irritate and annoy is by no means your fault. The schlopheads are to blame, for it is they who decide whether / how to use information presented to them.
Information, in and of itself, is powerless. It is how the information is used that determines its morality.
I’m certain I can find the means to build a small thermonuclear device. I choose not to, however, because I feel to do so is, well, wrong.
If a schlophead lacks the ability to tell right from wrong, that’s not your fault.
No, Chronos, you did nothing wrong–ignorance is not bliss. If you hadn’t posted it, some yutz would have found it anyway–and then the rest of us wouldn’t have known what was going on as early as we did. Oat-brain’s actions were no more your fault than a copycat-criminal’s actions are the fault of those who report the news.
(Incidentally, I speak as someone who had the technique used to create a fake MysterEcks. I don’t blame you, and I don’t see why anyone would.)
I realized what he was doing when Osip got cloned. I emailed a mod and an admin, but also posted it in a thread. That was the first day of clones, I believe, and people were in quite an uproar. I regretted posting it almost immediately, and I won’t post it if I do have another revelation about security holes in the board software - I’ll just email it to an admin.
So, don’t feel too bad, my initial reaction was to do the same thing you did. We learn from experience.
Heck, I don’t have to worry about felching… By the time I make it to any felching thread, someone else has invariably told already :eek:. Thanks for your support, everyone.
They like fantastic stories, and will quickly figure out to ask is Santa real. If you try to con them, and keep the story going, that’s wrong. That’s how people end up believing in other things like ghosts and monsters at the window. If no one explains how passing cars create strange shadows across the room, the simplest things become objects of fear.
Since I just spoke out for truth, and everyone else is mysterious, I think I should ask:
The “secret” you let out in the thread you cited is obviously ". I got some tips from troll-busters, like using the “alternate blank” ascii code. "
This is a perfect example of dicussing things in the open to resolve problems.
Just a few lines higher in the same referenced thread it says:
“Mods turned off instant signup.
Every name must be cleared before it is activated.
This means no more " clones” are possible. "
Since an “alternate blank” looks just like a blank, the Mods will dump that name the same as a regular blank.
“MauveDog” looks like "Mauve Dog “, " Mauve Dog” and the the mods also wouldn’t allow “Mauve.Dog” or even “Mauve Doq”.
They all simply look like the original to the human inspector, even though the computer finds them different.
My point: pussyfooting around the truth makes it seem more mysterious than it is, and helps no one.
Whoa, Easy Tokyo, I don’t advocate deliberately misleading younguns. I only brought it up because of an interesting phenomenon observed by my wife, who teaches third grade.
She has often said that third grade is the last year that kids are willing to believe in Santa. They’re right on the edge of belief and coming to terms with reality. But what’s most interesting to her is that the kids who do know the truth don’t spoil it for the others.
The mods and admins have stated that they’d rather the information not be out there, anyway, and even if I disagree with them on that, I’ll honor their wishes. After all, they can’t know every single poster by name, so the manual approval might still let some clones through. This has been a hot topic for a while now, and I suspect that the hole will be patched by this upcoming upgrade. In that case, presumably the mods will no longer be concerned about this particular trick, and it’ll be reasonable to “go public” about it. In the meanwhile, though, Tuba and Uncle Beer (presumably among others) say they’d rather these tricks not be discussed, so that’s the rule.
Slythe or admins, if you feel this thread is too much information, feel free to close it. Your call.
:eek:. Thanks for your support, everyone.