# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/21 "2012-05-22T00:44:42Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > 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. “Don’t be a jerk”. Why do you have to twist yourselves into pretzels trying to find a “legitimate” reason, when you have a perfectly good one as your number one rule? Frankly, it sums up one of the biggest issues many people have with the modding here. It’s not that it’s arbitrary–all modding is subjective. It’s the stupid pretense that it’s _not_. You (not you in particular Sam) want to ban someone for being a dick, then _just do it_! Don’t look for a microscopic excuse or make up a rule out of thin air–_that’s_ what I find frustrating. PS–unless his old socks were troublemakers, IIRC a number of other posters who’ve come clean and said “I had ancient socks back in the day” and gotten off. ---
**Author:** ![cards](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@cards](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cards)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/22 "2012-05-22T00:53:25Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > offense Why do I see this word coming up more and more often on the dope? ---
**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 22, 2012, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/23 "2012-05-22T00:58:33Z")
I’m going to guess confirmation bias. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/24 "2012-05-22T01:40:02Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. Eh, he was one of the more prolific serial socks, but he pales in comparison to the massively parallel ones. There was one that was referred to as the Bay Area Troll (or BAT for short), who would literally make dozens of new accounts per day. Both of those were pretty early in the board’s history, though. I expect that both of them have been surpassed in the more than a decade since then. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/25 "2012-05-22T01:54:35Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > **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? Because **Tubadiva** isn’t [Inspector Javert](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_Javert)? ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/26 "2012-05-22T02:12:16Z")
> [@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. > > 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? One of his accounts was banned for its behavior. The second, apparently, he chose to abandon because he didn’t want it associated with him. So it’s not as though the general rules here would recommend he be allowed to return. But, of course, he has redeemed himself with his weird, halfway psychotic attacks on me, so when he comes back, he will be welcome. [QUOTE=samclem] 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). [/QUOTE] The question, though, is about people whose misbehavior was such that they earned a banning under their original account. Isn’t it? What are the circumstances that have earned him another chance after being enough of a jerk to get banned before? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Dord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3be4f8/32.png) [@The\_Dord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Dord)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/27 "2012-05-22T02:18:39Z")
> [@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. The link was an interesting read! Thank you! ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/28 "2012-05-22T02:39:20Z")
He had a short history in the early days of being a jerk and he got banned for it. He had nine years of good behavior … even as he was committing another offense of being here after being banned. Yeah, that’s bad. But I think the nine years of good behavior – nine years with not one single infraction, not even a note – that counts for something. Or should, anyway. You can choose to think otherwise … that bad is bad and no one should get another bite of the apple. But do you really want us to be that hardass on everything all the time? ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/29 "2012-05-22T02:47:28Z")
> [@TubaDiva](#): > > But do you really want us to be that hardass on everything all the time? I’m not that hung-up on the specifics, I just am surprised that there’s not a bit of selectivity involved in deciding who deserves another chance to earn a banning. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/30 "2012-05-22T02:50:43Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Having 2 smacks of disingenuousness, at least. [Carelessness,](http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/oscarwilde128390.html) even. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/31 "2012-05-22T03:42:37Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Both of those were pretty early in the board’s history, though. I expect that both of them have been surpassed in the more than a decade since then. Dont Fight the Hypothetical? ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/32 "2012-05-22T03:53:13Z")
There are statues of limitations for slightly more serious crimes out there. He cant even post with what was offered, talk about much ado. Otara ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/33 "2012-05-22T04:02:37Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > I’m not that hung-up on the specifics, I just am surprised that there’s not a bit of selectivity involved in deciding who deserves another chance to earn a banning. > [@mister\_nyx](#): > > [Carelessness,](http://www.brainyquoteom/quotes/quotes/o/oscarwilde128390.html) even. Well, it’s not so black and white, some things. We tend to look at little deeper, delve into the situations. Wasn’t always so discerning – for example, we used to be so tough that anyone that collected three warnings was automatically banned. “Three strikes and you’re out!” we would say. Aren’t you glad we don’t do that anymore? ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/34 "2012-05-22T04:03:55Z")
> [@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? I first joined using my real name as my user name but soon decided maybe that was not a good idea after all and then did the **Siam Sam** account. Dunno what tipped them off, but after a while I was denied access to the Board. Banned, I guess you could call it. When I e-mailed Admin to ask why, I was told they’d found my earlier account. After explaining the situation, they let me back in, changing my original posts to the **Siam Sam** name. So multiple accounts do happen for innocent reasons and are dealt with reasonably. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/35 "2012-05-22T04:20:18Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > I first joined using my real name as my user name but soon decided maybe that was not a good idea after all and then did the **Siam Sam** account. Dunno what tipped them off, but after a while I was denied access to the Board. Banned, I guess you could call it. When I e-mailed Admin to ask why, I was told they’d found my earlier account. After explaining the situation, they let me back in, changing my original posts to the **Siam Sam** name. So multiple accounts do happen for innocent reasons and are dealt with reasonably. How many of your earlier accounts had been banned before you signed up with your current username, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![splatterpunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3be4f8/32.png) [@splatterpunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/splatterpunk)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/36 "2012-05-22T04:42:20Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > I’m not that hung-up on the specifics, I just am surprised that there’s not a bit of selectivity involved in deciding who deserves another chance to earn a banning. Sounds to me like you _are_ hung-up on the specifics. And you ask a lot of weird questions for a newbie. Did you once take $20 from a friend of yours? You know, as a joke? ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Gay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ab097/32.png) [@Enola\_Gay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Gay)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/37 "2012-05-22T05:13:59Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > (snip) > That said, we’re not talking about the criminal justice system here. FFS, even judges in the criminal system are allowed discretion. I don’t understand why having a flexible approach to situations is seen as such a negative by so many on this board and I really hope TPTB don’t start imposing mandatory minimums. There are enough rules already. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/38 "2012-05-22T05:19:11Z")
> [@splatterpunk](#): > > Sounds to me like you _are_ hung-up on the specifics. And you ask a lot of weird questions for a newbie. > > Did you once take $20 from a friend of yours? You know, as a joke? That would be ironic, since it was [Otto’s creation of a sock account](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=483391) to protest his banning that kept it from being downgraded to a suspension. He’s a good example of how the past rules against sock puppeteering were sometimes applied a bit too inflexibly. Relaxing said rules as circumstances warrant makes more sense, and is a good move by the mods, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/39 "2012-05-22T05:31:55Z")
> [@splatterpunk](#): > > Sounds to me like you _are_ hung-up on the specifics. And you ask a lot of weird questions for a newbie. > > Did you once take $20 from a friend of yours? You know, as a joke? What? Uh, no? Okay, seriously, is this one of you people’s “jokes”? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657/40 "2012-05-22T06:04:27Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > What? Uh, no? > > Okay, seriously, is this one of you people’s “jokes”? [TropicThunder] What do you mean “you people”? [/TropicThunder] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-is-a-sock-not-a-sock/622657.md?page=3)