So that people who want to build a reputation may do so. Is it that hard to conceive a world where this is optional?
The only reason where socks need to be controlled is when there is a multiplicity of them created for one purpose; i.e. you post a message and then have your legion of socks post “me too!”. That’s bad, it should be controlled, and it is easy to tell the difference between that situation and someone just abandoning an undesired handle for whatever reason.
Why wouldn’t I be OK with that? The only reason I’d need to know you did something bad in the past is if you’re trying to do it again, or if I want to use an ad-hominem attack against an argument of yours by bringing up your irrelevant tiff with someone popular.
I just wanted to ring in here with some insight based on things that came up in the other thread (the one that started this one).
Regarding people having no lives and finding IPs: I run a Vbulletin message board too and it’s not automatic (as was answered) and members cannot see IPs so that theory goes out the window entirely. As was also answered, only mods and admins can but it’s not like one has to constantly search through IPs just to compare one suspected sock to another, the process is much easier and faster than that.
As easy as one putting in an IP into the admin/mod control panel, clicking “find who else has this IP” and having a list that comes up showing you.
No muss, no fuss, and nobody who doesn’t “not have a life”, although the last one still may certainly be the case. If it is, it’s by sheer coincidence.
When I changed my name in February of 2000, I didn’t know that emailing the mods was an option so I just opened a new account. Months later, when the mods realized that there were two names registered under my IP address, they said something but I correctly pointed out that though it was against the rules at that time, it wasn’t in early 2000 when I did it.
Of course, I never tried to deceive anyone and even put my former nickname in my sig to let people know who I used to be.
I don’t remember if there was a specific event that led to the rule change regarding socks.
I care less about socks than about trolls. I have no idea what proportion of socks exist in order to troll, but trolling is certainly one reason people create socks.
I think part of it is that members in good standing will rarely have any reason to create a second account. Troublemakers, however, do. The “no sock” rule, to me, is essentially a way of keeping troublemakers out (Um, no offense to the poster of the same name), giving the mods a faster way of getting rid of them without having to go through the time a normal banning process takes–because frankly, if they were banned once odds are they’ll get themselves banned again regardless.
I don’t know if they work as compared to some other strategy, but I do know that I keep re-upping here because of the amount of moderation, not despite it.
So, the SDMB is the only board you ever visit? I can’t say I disagree with that practice (it’s the only one I visit regularly, at this time), but maybe you should just go have a peek at places where the rules are less strict, the moderators are fewer and/or more apathetic, and the level of footwear and under-bridge-dwellers is truly a problem.
Short answer: If there were not a one-to-one correspondence between usernames and posters, this would be a different sort of board.
You might even like that sort of board better than the one we have now, but not everyone would agree with you.
To mention just a couple of reasons why:
If socks were allowed, I’d be reading this thread wondering if anybody else who posted agreeing with you was really just one of your own socks.
There wouldn’t be nearly as much incentive to avoid being a jerk in various ways, because if you acquired a bad reputation, you could always just start over with a new name.
Er, how would it show that? Seems to me only fair that what one says should remain. Most people don’t buy new faces, and get new IDs to get away from what they said or did. Exceptions being witness protection program participants. But here, all we know each other by is what we say. You can look at a person’s posts, and read how they’ve grown and changed over the years to varying degrees. I don’t think a person should (except under extraoridinary circumstances, like say a battered spouse in hiding, or someone with a stalker who knows their posting history) be able to post here without their posting history visible. Note: I did point out that people grow over time, and therefore hinted at the idea that while we can read over what they said in the past, it might not be what they are like today.
With all due respect, but regarding the “socks” part of your comment-BullFUCKINGshit. Unless you are a moderator on these other boards, you have no idea how many socks they are infested with, how hard they try to get rid of them, or even if they bother to get rid of them at all.
Eek! No! :eek: All I was saying is, I think the system as far as no socks as it is enforced here works. I’m sure if the mods ever ran across something where a person had to jettison their old ID for reasons other than “I said some thoughtless things, and some people here don’t like me.” or the like, they’d at least consider what to do.
Since, as noted here, the only people to engage in sock-hunting are mods, as the rest of the membership don’t have access to IP adresses, what are you saying about them?
Seems to me only fair that what one says should remain. Most people don’t buy new faces, and get new IDs to get away from what they said or did. Exceptions being witness protection program participants. But here, all we know each other by is what we say. You can look at a person’s posts, and read how they’ve grown and changed over the years to varying degrees. I don’t think a person should (except under extraoridinary circumstances, like say a battered spouse in hiding, or someone with a stalker who knows their posting history) be able to post here without their posting history visible. Note: I did point out that people grow over time, and therefore hinted at the idea that while we can read over what they said in the past, it might not be what they are like today.
