Go to Amazon.com. Click on Today’s Deals. Go to the bottom of the page. Read any Customer Discussion. Marvel at how offensive, insulting, and derailing some of the posters are. Notice that several unpleasant posters have nothing better to do than be obscene and offensive all day and all night. Notice the high “U sux!!11LOL!!” representation in these discussions. Try complaining by using the “abuse” button–Amazon claims that these boards are moderated. Notice that nothing happens. Sure, the comment might be hidden one click away if a high enough proportion of posters complain, but the comments are still there. That’s what I don’t want to see happen here.
The one time I’ve really lost my shit here has been over a poster being allowed to do exactly that - made a big, fat stinking mess, and then was allowed to change her name to try to get away from the stink she made. I still don’t think that was right.
My husband is on a message board that is owned and moderated by one woman and her cronies - I tried it but left due to the incredibly uneven moderating. Really, people who think this board is bad need to try some other places, and come back here, thanking the gods of the internet that this place exists - for all its imperfections, this is still a good place to hang out.
If it’s the board I’m thinking of, I hear ya. But that place did allow someone to jettison their old identity for pretty much the reasons I outlined. Their stalker knew their online ID, and knew their posts.
Ah, interesting distinction. So are you wanting to revisit the rules which allow people to be called socks/trolls in the Pit? I seem to remember a lengthy discussion when this was first allowed (I thought it was a little over a year ago right before I joined), but I can’t seem to find it.
I think there were good points on both sides in that argument. What would be the benefit from your point of view?
I remember that. Just imagine if the poster was able to create a whole new identity without the ability to search the poster’s past posts. I think that’s far worse. Especially if, for example, some people know about it, but you don’t.
I agree. Or better (worse) yet, go to a message board with no rules and ostensibly no moderation and you’ll see that all intellectual discussion ceases. It gets totally drowned out by all the noise.
Hang on a second, wasn’t that poster just granted a name change? The posts remained, but it was a stealth name change, and it was found out by someone looking over their old posts? (I pre-emptively concede that I could be badly brainfarting here…) The most recent banee’s name change wasn’t as stealthy as the other one, but maybe I’m not recalling all the details of that incident?
Seems like a pretty damn stupid rule. I don’t think the idea that disallowing buying a new account somehow preserves “community” holds very well.
For one, most people don’t have the money or desire to pony up $45 to maintain a tripartitite identity; obviously, members in good standing would typically buy a new membership for some reason, not just willy-nilly whenever they feel like it.
Second of all, whenever I see a post that seems particularly laudable, it’s almost guaranteed to be by somebody I don’t recognize. Most of the forum members who I recognize by name and by presence are so because they’re freaking insufferable. Insightful, interesting posts are nearly always from people previously unknown to me.
fatgail was one of the few members that I checked off as my mind as having made specifically above-average posts. It’s too bad she is no longer allowed to post here.
Tripartitite? (Did you mean tripartite?) Where do you get that? She had one account previously, on that account she got a name change. Then her membership lapsed, and years later she made a sock rather than come back and keep her post history. Three names, two accounts, and only one account she paid for because someone else paid for this most recent identity’s membership I do believe. (If she paid when the board went pay to post? Don’t remember.)
No, I actually meant tripartitite; in some dialects the infix --ti-- is used as an intensifier. So what I meant was tripartite, but even more.
I wasn’t referring to fatgail’s specific situation, I was referring to the fact that allowing multiple accounts by one person won’t cause people to suddenly buy five hundred usernames.
You don’t know the nature of some of the trolls that continue to re-visit here then I guess. You must not have been paying attention. Some have been back more than once, paying each time for a new account.
Yeah, but the salient issue doesn’t seem to be whether or not someone comes back; it’s whether or not they’re in good standing. I don’t object to banned members not being able to return.
Ever hear the saying “If you let a camel stick its nose in the tent, soon the rest of the camel will follow”? Otherwise phrased as “Give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile!”. Point being, if the rule were stricken, then as another poster already pointed out, that would be a way for the trolls to also skate by. Making the rule be “Paying members can have more than one ID, but if you are banned you can’t come back.” wouldn’t work out well. Some people might decide they want to make a “backup” ID, (or more than one) make trouble, get banned, and come back. (Not to mention the temptation some might feel to then make a sock to be a choir of praise for their posts, or a “foil” to argue against in order to push their agenda.) The rule needs to be simple, and one that can leave no room for abuse.
I think all the drama happened before I joined, why did **JarBaby ** want to hide her past? Was she being stalked? Did she pull some really stupid and embarrassing stunt in a thread?
She seemed like a nice poster, why not just post under her board rules abiding name change TinyHam?
If it was something that shouldn’t be posted, perhaps someone could PM me?
Jim
She wanted to hide her past because she was super bitchy and proud of it, for quite a good period. To be honest, I’ve been quite surprised about how gutless she has been these last couple of times trying to hide her identity. Doesn’t quite jibe with the ballbuster of yore.
Continuing with the honest, I think the mods should make an exception and let her restart her little ham account. Her sock accounts weren’t malicious in any way, in fact they were ridiculously honest outside of the initial “lie” - that’s why she was so easily spotted.
While the andrewt’s and Badtz’s of the Dope may cry some unholy foul, I think most Dopers would accept a “prodigal son” type exemption for well liked members. Especially if it’s mostly done in the open.
Yeah, I agree. The problem with being a regular member of any community is that anonymity is not anonymity after a while. Even if you are very careful with your real life details to avoid being phished out (and most people aren’t) your anonymous handle still becomes known and recognised. It carries reputation which you may want to protect. You may want to meet up in real life with other members. You may be happy for them to share your recipes and political questions; you may not be comfortable for them to know that you have a groin rash.
So why should one, as a paying member, have less privileges than someone who hasn’t paid and can sign up a totally unknown name to ask a particularly personal question?
So I have always thought it was justifiable for a known poster to create a sock account to ask a personal sexual question, for example. I haven’t done it - neither wanted to nor needed to. But I think it would be fair enough. As for emailing a mod: they know our REAL names from our subscription/credit card details. They are people too. And they have been known to majorly cross the line - in terms of offline actions - in the past. So I have to say I wouldn’t trust them any more than the average anonymous member.
What CarnalK said.
Just for fun, I’ll mention that I have socks on some other message boards, openly. They’re rather fun and silly, when not abused.
No, we don’t. We, mods and administrators, don’t know your real name anymore than we know if you’re an extremely clever dog.
I only know what your email address is.
Some people don’t care what reputation their “user name” earns. Fine, some people don’t care much about their own personal reputations as well. But discarding your reputation like a pair of old socks is not the same thing.
People stop responding to you? Change your identity! People catch you lying? Change your identity! One of the reasons this board is different is that it does not allow multiple identities. You are invested in the words you post. Perhaps not much, but at least to the extent that your user name remaining yours, and your posting history remaining yours as well.
I am Triskadecamus. It is not my real name, but no one else is Triskadecamus, and everyone who knows that name gets to make their judgments based on what I have posted here, and what I have posted in other places under that cyber handle. Therefore I am careful what I post. I care about my reputation, and I consider your reputation when I read, or decide not to read your posts.
Tris
So don’t meet anyone in real life. Or if you do, save your embarrassing personal questions for real life friends who you feel comfortable asking. Or ask a doctor. Or ask on some other board where nobody knows who you are. Hell, these days message boards get so specialized that you can find a forum for practically anything.
These wonderfully advantageous guest privileges you’re talking about are only good for thirty days. And if you ask something you don’t want people knowing during that time, I guess you might as well not sign up at all.
You may have something approaching a point, but the no-socks rule is a bit of a trade-off. You give up a tiny bit of anonymity in exchange for good moderation that keeps out a lot of trolls that would have otherwise slipped through. In eight years, I can’t say that I’ve ever wished I had a sock, so it seems like a pretty good trade, IMHO.
She kind of already had that chance and blew it, didn’t she? Instead of offsetting her bitchiness by acting nice for a long enough time for people to forgive and forget, she decided to take a shortcut that she knew was against the rules - not just that, but she screwed some generous Doper out of $15 that she could have doubtlessly afforded. Gotta say that I’m having a tough time mustering up any sympathy here.
I think it’s really clear from this thread that I do not take this board as seriously as some, or most, Dopers. For some, there’s a lot of things bound up in this place that I simply reject.
Good moderation is a red herring. I have little issue with most moderator decisions on this board.
Actually, I wouldn’t.
a) No moderating decisions on this board should be about popularity or lack thereof. I think the current mods are pretty good about this, despite the regular claims that Mod X has a wild hair up his ass about Poster B – in general, I don’t see it.
b) If it’s done in the open, as in a name change (which may or may not be ballyhooed publicly, according to the wishes of the person granted the name change), it is, by definition, not the creation and deployment of a sock.