That thread’s also discussing a specific case, and is at least as much about what kind of financial/housing aid the person in question ought to be eligible for. I don’t think it’s a good thread for discussing MAID in general; it’s rather an edge case, and involves issues not relevant for most people desiring the option of MAID.
Would the moderators be willing to send copies of posts from the cornfielded thread back to the authors upon request, so that they may repost them in a new thread on the subject?
It’s in our glossary of SDMB terms: Beginner's Guide to Glossary of Terms on Straight Dope Message Boards
Sure, I’ll do that for you. I will only copy your posts back to you though. I’m not going to copy the entire thread.
Send me a PM if you are interested.
To be fair, I only added that back in May.
Huh. I thought that one had been there a while.
Don’t need it this time — I still had the thread open on a different computer so I already snagged my posts. But next time, yes, this is good insurance and I’m appreciative of the offer.
Fwiw, it’s a word i have only seen here, it took me a while to “get” it, and i still kinda dislike it, since it carries the implicit assumption that all uses of multiple IDs are engaged in sock-puppeting. I think of a sock puppet as a very specific type of trolling, that involves two IDs simultaneously on the site supporting each other. The vast majority of our “trocks” aren’t that, they are just a banned troll trying to start posting again under a new name.
But it’s standard SDMB jargon.
One of the interesting things I learned as an SDMB mod were the sheer number of people who basically make it their full-time job to troll this website. It made me feel better about how I was spending my time.
That’s not the usage I’ve seen on other boards. Usually, “sock puppet” is any alternate account. Most of the time they’re made to evade a ban.
The term may have originated because of the behavior you described, but I’ve seen the term used more broadly for at least the past 20 years.
Here is how Norton defines it.
This is probably going to get shot down as unworkable or wrong headed, but in cases when a sock starts a thread that results in a compelling discussion, is there some way that a poster could “adopt” the thread - the sock’s post would be cornfielded, but the OP would appear (with a note) under somebody else’s name. That way, we don’t lose the good points that are raised and/or rebutted. Just a random thought.
If you mean just taking the OP as-is verbatim, and putting someone else’s name on it, that would raise all sorts of problems (if it’s even technically doable, which I don’t know). If you mean someone just writing their own post to serve as an OP, not quite so bad, but I can still see potential issues (like people refuting arguments that aren’t actually being made any more).
Yes, but with a disclaimer, akin to:
This OP is “adopting” this post to keep this discussion alive, as we’ve deemed it worthwhile to preserve. The OP does not necessarily endorse this post, but is adopting it to provide context for the text that follows. Whoever actually wrote this OP has been sent to the fields, never to return.
Or maybe I’m making it too complicated:
Can’t we just excise the OP’s name, but leave the text (and only when it proves a good discussion, as decided by the mods).
That’s still rewarding a trock by letting their post stand.
If the discussion is a good one, start a new thread on the same subject.