Banned. Sneaks back in right away. Banned again. Sneaks in again right away and gets to enjoy nearly a decade of actively participating on the SDMB. Reveals deception and gets a warm “welcome back” (though they never really left).
Person B:
Banned. Doesn’t sneak back in as a sock. Eventually, after a long period of time, may email for a second chance. May or may not ever get a “you seem like you have changed, we will give you another chance, so welcome back” (and behave yourself).
Person A got away with bad behaviour(and EXTRA bad behaviour compared with B on top of that) without any real punishment. Person B certainly did NOT get away without any punishment. That doesn’t sit well with me.
I think a strict NO SOCKS, its an unforgivable sin and deserves a perma ban is a bit much. And I think permanent bans are a bit much as well (three to five years perhaps?). But to fluant the rules and not get some sorta punishment irks me.
Why yes, I am bugged, irked and my seat is uncomfortable.
I’m sure there are people in category A that never admit it as well. If you are and do, then you should be gone (why admit it otherwise?). But I don’t think that people should go out of their way to hunt them down.
If socks aren’t allowed, specifically when they post at the same time, why does Cecil Adams / Ed Zotti get to do it? He’s literally talking about himself in that thread and posting with both names.
Let me add a slight correction to that description:
Banned. Sneaks back in right away. Banned again. Sneaks in again right away, but behaves within the rules and does not repeat any of the bad behaviors that got him banned in the first place, and gets to enjoy nearly a decade of actively participating on the SDMB. Reveals deception and gets a warm “welcome back” (though they never really left).
And the difference is that Person A established a record of good behavior to be judged by, whereas Person B has not, so is trying to convince the mods/admins that his attitude has changed without solid evidence to prove it. Thus, has to be judged on things like the appearance of sincerity, etc.
But Person A did get some punishment, he got two accounts banned. And the first banning was for actual behavior, not just socking. The fact that the third account didn’t get detected is because the third account actually behaved well.
If Person A had been doing all his good behavior under that one account, and simultaneously posting his bad behavior under sock accounts, then yes, it would be grounds for immediate permaban. But because he had ceased his socking and ceased his bad behavior, he did through unofficial channels what has been allowed through official channels before - corrected his behavior, returned as a valuable contributor.
How about roughly as long as it would take before someone who did NOT sneak back in would be allowed to come back because they swore they had changed? (which is signficantly longer than a week I suspect) Or perhaps about half that since they did actually behave themselves while they were here against the rules.
That’s why I said “good behavior” rather than “followed the rules”. Yes, he was explicitly violating the one rule about multiple accounts, but otherwise had changed his behavior and was complying with the rules.
But by coming back he has escaped the exact punishment a banning is supposed to do, not being allowed to come back. Or are you saying that having to post under a different name and actually behave yourself is a form of punishment in itself?
The way some people complain, it seems like good behavior must be a punishment.
I wouldn’t argue some sort of punishment could be warranted. I’m just arguing why reconsidering the instaban in this case makes some rational sense. Not that the poster in question is interested.
It seems to me that the risk TubaDiva took in offering to allow The Man with the Golden Gun to remain because of 9 years of good behavior is clear: it sends the message that all you have to do to avoid a ban is to behave well for about a decade.
If that were allowed to become the rule, imagine – we’d have all sorts of people behaving well for decades, and there wouldn’t be a damned thing we could do about it!
I have my own serious issues with the administration of the board but for reals, this is a non-issue. The poster is not coming back. Do you have a flower to smell or a dog to walk or anything to do but post about this?
Yeah, THAT poster is gone (and it sounds like them being gone is probably in their own best interest..internet addiction or some such I suppose) but the general issue/debate resulting from that poster is still out there. As the the OP asks “when is a sock not a sock?”, and I think that is a reasonable question, and from that its not a stretch to ask when should a well behaved returning sock be allowed back and under what circumstances?
Bill, you know as well as I do that no laws here are written in stone. And it shouldn’t be. A sock is a sock and always will be a sock, but the punishment is going to be administered on a sliding scale. Even judges in actual courts of law do that. Quit trying to force the mods to define absolute punishments for infractions.
I’d really like to know where you got that impression. In particular from my posts here in this thread. I am VERY much a spirit of the law, not the letter of the law person.
In the past I have argued for long term but not permanent bans. Temporary supsensions for posters obviously going through a bad time and going the suicide by mod route. And, on the other hand, banning or suspension, or even just a freaking couple week time out for posters being raging jerks but technically not violating the rules.
Heck, for that matter I can think of one definite sock that I think should be welcomed back with open arms by now, even though they certainly violated the “no socks EVAR” rule.
Those are snippets from three separate posts by you. I don’t know how to take all that, we both knowing full well that the poster is banned and not coming back, other than that you want the mods to explain to you some kind of strict policy that doesn’t exist.
