When is a sock not a sock?

About This Message Board
81

That guy is never coming back? Really? I did not know that!

Where have I claimed I wanted the mods to explain anything? Much less “forced” the issue. Do you think I am performing some sort of candlelight vigal at home right now or making up protest signs? My basic stance has been that somebody (either this poster or some other poster in the future) should not be able to totally and purposely ignore the rules and get away with it absolutely scott free (baring of course some extenuating circumstances which I do not thing are the case here). And what the heck is “strict” about that? Strict IMO would be “ahhh a fracking sock! A sock is a sock is a sock so away with you forevar!” I’d just like some semblance of fairness. As in someone’s banned and they have the family jewels to just stay away for a few years and take their punishment and can then ask to be let back in on a very tight trial basis. Sneaking right back and laying low long enough to not get any punishment just smacks to me of “I am above the rules”. And apparently some mods are inclined to reward that sort of behavior.

Again. I am very much a spirit of the law sorta guy. Frack, I am a psuedo sock myself (free 90? day trail, years go by…yah! now I can be a guest for free!..and yes I told the mods about it). And I am sure I have “technically” violated other important rules in the past. Do you actually think I am argueing to have myself banned for life?

So, yeah, I guess if your definition of “absolute punishement” means something like “dude, you knowingly and continously broke the rules, both in spirit and letter so ,we like ,ya know need to actually punish you somehow” then yeah I guess I am for “absolute punishment” :rolleyes:

82

I am not going to argue with you about this.

83

And for Christ’s sakes, calm the fuck down.

84

Pot, meet kettle

85

I know you’re just posting hypotheticals, but this one is clearly pointing to golden gun, but it’s not quite accurate. According to the mods, he was banned, sneaked back in right way, abandoned 2nd account for a third, was good for nearly a decade, then owned up and had accounts 2 & 3 banned.

86

So he was only banned once (initially) but had TWO socks.

Thanks for clearing that up I guess?

87

I must’ve missed something. (Well, probably rather a lot.) But where was the “warm welcome back” part? Didn’t he get instabanned after the revelation? Once the circumstances were known there was some discussion about maybe being lenient accounting for good behavior, but that’s hardly a “warm welcome back.”

To me, as a board admin myself who’s given more than a few second and third chances, the difference between your two examples is pretty simple. Many people get banned and then do the “can I please come back, I promise promise promise I’ll be good, seriously, for reals this time!” song and dance. In my experience, and apparently in the SDMB admins’ experience as well, the vast majority of the time, reinstating a bannee’s account might result in some chastened behavior for a little while, but almost inevitably s/he ends up displaying exactly the same jerkish behavior that got him/her banned in the first place. Lots of recidivism, in other words. So such promises don’t fill them with confidence.

Man with the Golden Gun did indeed skip that step, but he showed that he had changed hsi behavior, for nearly a decade. And then he owned up to it, himself – no one made him come forward.

If an escaped prisoner did that? Yeah, he’d probably be put back in prison to serve his remaining time, with a little extra for escaping. But, as we all know, this isn’t a prison, and the bannees here are generally just asshats, not actual criminals. (Uh, with one or two exceptions.) So since actions speak louder than words, many an admin is willing to consider a reformed person’s case worthy of a slap on the wrist, or a suspension, rather than a ban. This might be even more true considering Golden Gun wasn’t caught, he came forward.

I think some flexibility is absolutely warranted in certain cases, and this is one of them. (Or it would have been if Golden Gun hadn’t preferred to keep his account out of commission.)

88

Flexibility is warranted; it’s simply amusing to some of us on the sidelines to see them offering the flexibility to someone who is adamant about not wanting it. It demonstrates their willingness to work with people without them having to follow through.

89

Well, they didn’t know he was ‘adamant about not wanting it.’ You make it sound as if this were some kind of intentional offer they knew would be refused so they could look good. It was just as likely that he’d have said “yeah, let me take a sabbatical.”

Rushing to judgment is a total scum tell, btw. :wink:

90

Would his name be a palindrome, maybe?

91

I don’t think so (and if its a joke I’d like it explained cause I always like a good joke). I don’t recall the posters name.

This was a ways back. Maybe a long ways back because I’ve been lurking here from nearly day one. These are the facts as I remember them. The poster was a generally well behaved fellow. In college, so most likely on the younger side. He has some problems in school that had potential for serious legal problems. So he created a sock to ask specifically about this issue and get some advice. And he did that because he didn’t want somebody from his school putting 2 and 2 together and figuring out who he was. Yeah, he created a sock. But I don’t think thats the sort reason socks are generally considered bad things. Stuff like getting around a ban, arguing with yourself for fun, getting to be both Dr. Jekyll and Mr . Hyde when the mood suits you, engaging in a bit of low level trolling and button pushing. Misleading people as to who you are. That sorta thing IMO.

So, he got discovered as a sock and was banned. And, IIRC he created another sock awhile later (maybe even years later) specifically to plead his case to be allowed to come back. And IIRC the answer was nope a sock is a sock is a sock and thats it.

And, IMO if THAT guy can’t be allowed back, I don’t see why some who just created a sock to get around a banning so he could keep posting should.

Of course I could be misrembering all this because its been awhile.

92

I don’t remember this situation. Could it have happened? Maybe. We used to be much more hardass about a lot of things in the past.

There may have been other circumstances around that poster as well, including a history of warnings, for example – if we were dealing with someone who had been a problem child in the past we would not be so likely to welcome him back.

93

I believe the poster is referring to Otto, who made the mistake of criticizing Ed on one of Ed’s off days (I don’t remember for sure, but I don’t think he even broke any actual rules). He was suspended and then sealed his own fate by socking up to complain about the suspension. He was not a problem poster before, $20 non withstanding.

I still think you are being ridiculous about this particular case, but I recognize that crap like what happened to Otto (and jarbabyj is another name that comes to mind) is part of the reason that some people are a little :rolleyes: about Tuba’s sudden surge of generosity towards The Man With The Golden Gun.

94

It’s worse. There were about a half dozen people that disagreed with Ed and got banned.

A few days later, he admitted he was wrong, and invited all of them back. Everyone except Otto.

95

IIRC, we would have invited Otto back too but he instead went and got two socks, came back to the board, and kept giving us grief under those sock names.

We’re also talking someone with at least a dozen warnings and a ton of last chances. A TON.

Not much else left to do at that point.

96

This is NOT a opportunity to rehash another old banning, by the way – start a new thread for that one.