# When is a sock not a sock? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [May 21, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657 "2012-05-21T21:44:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/1 "2012-05-21T21:44:33Z")
And the answer seems to be… depends whether we like him or not! Maybe this doesn’t deserve a new thread, but the other one is locked so here we are and here I ask, since when did the rule on socks stop being black and white? **Tubadiva** has decided that because\*\* A man with a Golden gun\*\* had good behaviour, that the rules do not apply to him. Sorry, but what? If there is one rule on that board that we all knew there was no room for doubt on it is the rule that you will be banned for having socks. So why does this guy get a pass? Dozens of posters have been banned for having socks, I would respectfully suggest that if this guy is to be treated differently, then many of those posters banned previously also be afforded the same opportunity. Or am I right, and there are different rules here for the more popular posters? ETA: Link [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15086729#post15086729](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15086729#post15086729) ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/2 "2012-05-21T21:50:51Z")
It does seem that something is afoot. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/3 "2012-05-21T21:53:18Z")
This one seems to be something of an anomaly, socks are usually recently banned posters or newly created to avoid troubles such as recent warnings. In other words, problem members. We have had a number of cases where someone forgot a long ago screen name and created a new account, they have usually been allowed to continue with the accounts merged. I don’t know **MWaGG’s** history under his previous screen names but he seems to have been a model poster since. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/4 "2012-05-21T21:56:25Z")
This is far from the first time someone has admitted to have had an account in the early years of the board and then come up with a new one. Merely having had another account does not a sock make: if he was not evading punishment nor using the accounts at the same time, I could see an argument he was not trying to deceive anyone. I’m also not entirely sure that, 10 years ago, the sock rule was so harsh. Wasn’t that even before there were permanent bannings? Why should he be punished by current rules for something he did 10 years ago? ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/5 "2012-05-21T22:04:39Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > This one seems to be something of an anomaly, socks are usually recently banned posters or newly created to avoid troubles such as recent warnings. In other words, problem members. > > We have had a number of cases where someone forgot a long ago screen name and created a new account, they have usually been allowed to continue with the accounts merged. > > I don’t know **MWaGG’s** history under his previous screen names but he seems to have been a model poster since. Heres my problem. How many times have the mods used the fact that a poster had older inactive accounts as a reason to ban somebody? How many times has an unpopular poster been banned the minute a mod found out there were older accounts linked to him or her? How many people have been banned for the mere existence of a decade old alternate account? What was different for them? ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/6 "2012-05-21T22:05:36Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > It does seem that something is afoot. I get jokes! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/7 "2012-05-21T22:06:24Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > Heres my problem. How many times have the mods used the fact that a poster had older inactive accounts as a reason to ban somebody? How many times has an unpopular poster been banned the minute a mod found out there were older accounts linked to him or her? > > How many people have been banned for the mere existence of a decade old alternate account? I don’t know. How many? ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/8 "2012-05-21T22:10:07Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I don’t know. How many? I have no way of accurately answering due to the SDMB policy of not announcing the reasons when a poster is banned for sock puppetry. As a mod do you have an opinion on the matter? ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/9 "2012-05-21T22:19:35Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > Heres my problem. How many times have the mods used the fact that a poster had older inactive accounts as a reason to ban somebody? How many times has an unpopular poster been banned the minute a mod found out there were older accounts linked to him or her? > > How many people have been banned for the mere existence of a decade old alternate account? > > What was different for them? > [@Miller](#): > > I don’t know. How many? > [@bucketybuck](#): > > I have no way of accurately answering due to the SDMB policy of not announcing the reasons when a poster is banned for sock puppetry. As a mod do you have an opinion on the matter? I would suggest that we’ve banned someone _just because they had an old inactive account_ about less than 1% of all banned posters(not counting spammers). edited to add---------we just don’t do that. They’re banned because they’re idiots, making trouble, socking, and we find out they had an old account when we go looking _because they’re a PITA_. We’re always looking for legitimate reasons to ban the stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/10 "2012-05-21T22:23:31Z")
In this case, tMWaGG was previously banned and then returned under his current account. That is a more serious offense than simply registered twice because you forgot your old login/password, or whatever. ## – EDIT: Or maybe he wasn’t, I can’t tell if his old socks were banned way back then or just now. That said, we’re not talking about the criminal justice system here. I don’t see anything wrong with the mods bending the rules if they feel like it, for someone who has been a well-behaved member of the community for the past 9 years. I mean, if a banned member from 5 years ago sent an email to the moderators saying “You know, I was an asshole back then, but I’ve grown up a lot, and I really value the SDMB and would like to be able to come back under a probationary period or something,” would anyone really have a problem with that? It’s not actually in the rules, but who cares? ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/11 "2012-05-21T22:26:35Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > I mean, if a banned member from 5 years ago sent an email to the moderators saying “You know, I was an asshole back then, but I’ve grown up a lot, and I really value the SDMB and would like to be able to come back under a probationary period or something,” would anyone really have a problem with that? It’s not actually in the rules, but who cares? I’m pretty sure that has happened. ETA: [Yup](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=171275). ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/12 "2012-05-21T22:43:39Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > That said, we’re not talking about the criminal justice system here. I don’t see anything wrong with the mods bending the rules if they feel like it, for someone who has been a well-behaved member of the community for the past 9 years. And I don’t necessarily disagree, I have stated many times my opinion that this is the mods playground and they should have whatever leeway they wish. However, it is my opinion that they should also be open about it, and I feel there is a question to be answered here. As Samclem notes, if a poster is a PITA, then generally the existence of second accounts will be used as a stick to ban them with. If they like the poster, then probably the poster will just get an email and the accounts merged. Is this not overly subjective? Pretty sure many would call me a PITA, if I had a second account would I be automatically banned while another poster is not? As I said, I was under the impression that having multiple accounts was an immediate banning offence. This seems not to be the case. Not to forget also, that in the linked thread, those were not forgotten accounts. The Man with the Golden gun was well aware of their existence. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/13 "2012-05-21T22:56:18Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > Pretty sure many would call me a PITA, if I had a second account would I be automatically banned while another poster is not? I think there’s only one way we can find out… ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/14 "2012-05-21T22:56:49Z")
I don’t see the need for more explanation. If you follow the rules, you will not be banned. That’s all anyone really needs to know. If you break the rules, you will be banned, but the mods are able to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Any further explanation or justification from the mods on what cases justify bending the rules will simply become _de facto_ additional rules in themselves, sort of defeating the purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/15 "2012-05-21T22:58:37Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > This is far from the first time someone has admitted to have had an account in the early years of the board and then come up with a new one. Merely having had another account does not a sock make: if he was not evading punishment nor using the accounts at the same time, I could see an argument he was not trying to deceive anyone. You are correct. Traditionally, it seems when a poster comes forward and says, hey I had a previous account but I forgot the password, username, email, whatever, the mods kindly merge them together, no prob, bob. That’s not what has happened here, though. Unless you think he made the airdisc account, wandered away, forgot critical login info, made the du hast account and then did the same thing until finally creating the MwaGG account. Having one old account seems understandable. Having 2 smacks of disingenuousness, at least. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/16 "2012-05-21T22:59:39Z")
He’s not banned? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/17 "2012-05-21T23:06:51Z")
The **du\_hast** screen name was already banned, I banned **airdisc** this afternoon. It’s important to remember that we don’t have the rules we have here to play “gotcha” with you. We have them because we think they help make the board the sort of place people would like to spend time at. We’d much rather have a poster active here, making posts and contributing to the board culture, then to have another poster with BANNED under his name. The “no socks” rule has a reputation as one of the hardest rules on the board, but that’s somewhat misleading. There’s a couple of different scenarios here. Generally, if we find out that a poster who hasn’t been on our radar before has multiple accounts, we don’t insta-ban them. We contact them to see what’s up, and if they’ve got a reasonable explanation, we usually just merge up the accounts and leave them with whichever screen name they prefer. In this case, TMwtGG specifically asked to have his posting priviledges rescinded, so I went ahead and did that - perhaps a bit precipitously, hence **Tuba** ’s correction. Often, when we have a poster who appears to be trolling, and we find out that they had a sock account. That’s taken as confirmation that their new account is, in fact, a troll, and not an earnest idiot. Rarely, it turns out that the troll account was created by a poster who was otherwise in good standing. Since we’re banning users, and not screen names, both accounts get the axe. In situations like that, I believe we’d usually announce the reason - although I can’t recall any examples of it happening off the top of my head. Lastly, we have habitual returnees. You may recall reading about [David Mabus](http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/17/montreal-cops-make-arrest_n_929662.html), who was a frequent sock puppeteer on the SDMB. There’s only a very small handful of people who fall into this category, but they represent the overwhelming majority of banned sock puppets. In some cases, literally thousands of them. 90% of the time, when you see that someone’s sock had been banned with no discussion, it’s because it’s yet another SN from one of about five or six known head-cases. We try to make this place as unattractive as possible for those types, and since they seem to crave attention, we don’t discuss the specifics of their bannings publicly. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/18 "2012-05-21T23:16:16Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I’m also not entirely sure that, 10 years ago, the sock rule was so harsh. It was. Look, it’s easy to look it up and see what happened. He posted as **Du\_hast** from March '01 - April '02. He posted as **airdisc** from April '02 - March '03. He has been posting as **The Man With The Golden Gun** since April of '03 unabated. There have been load of times that someone has admitted to such a thing publicly, and, I imagine, even more privately where the accounts were merged and not banned. It’s not a big deal. Of course, that’s not what happened. The poster in question asked to be banned. All that **Tuba** was offering was a sabbatical instead of a ban which is also something that has happened many times. I don’t recall the two things ever happening together but individually, they’ve happened a lot. It’s totally reasonable in my opinion. ETA: Miller got in an outstanding answer while I was typing this. ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/19 "2012-05-21T23:18:20Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > The **du\_hast** screen name was already banned, I banned **airdisc** this afternoon. > > It’s important to remember that we don’t have the rules we have here to play “gotcha” with you. We have them because we think they help make the board the sort of place people would like to spend time at. We’d much rather have a poster active here, making posts and contributing to the board culture, then to have another poster with BANNED under his name. > > The “no socks” rule has a reputation as one of the hardest rules on the board, but that’s somewhat misleading. There’s a couple of different scenarios here. > > Generally, if we find out that a poster who hasn’t been on our radar before has multiple accounts, we don’t insta-ban them. We contact them to see what’s up, and if they’ve got a reasonable explanation, we usually just merge up the accounts and leave them with whichever screen name they prefer. In this case, TMwtGG specifically asked to have his posting priviledges rescinded, so I went ahead and did that - perhaps a bit precipitously, hence **Tuba** ’s correction. > > Often, when we have a poster who appears to be trolling, and we find out that they had a sock account. That’s taken as confirmation that their new account is, in fact, a troll, and not an earnest idiot. Rarely, it turns out that the troll account was created by a poster who was otherwise in good standing. Since we’re banning users, and not screen names, both accounts get the axe. In situations like that, I believe we’d usually announce the reason - although I can’t recall any examples of it happening off the top of my head. > > Lastly, we have habitual returnees. You may recall reading about [David Mabus](http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/17/montreal-cops-make-arrest_n_929662.html), who was a frequent sock puppeteer on the SDMB. There’s only a very small handful of people who fall into this category, but they represent the overwhelming majority of banned sock puppets. In some cases, literally thousands of them. 90% of the time, when you see that someone’s sock had been banned with no discussion, it’s because it’s yet another SN from one of about five or six known head-cases. We try to make this place as unattractive as possible for those types, and since they seem to crave attention, we don’t discuss the specifics of their bannings publicly. Thank you for the reply. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/20 "2012-05-22T00:19:34Z")
I’m guessing the most socks award would fall to **mark serlin** – who claimed that his doctor insisted he post here, because it was good for him. Or something like that. It was pretty funny. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657.md?page=2)