PDA

View Full Version : So why can't you keep the multiple offenders out?



BigDon
2007-Apr-08, 01:35 AM
That Spock, Yul, etc dipstick and others like him seem to be making a paper tiger out of the threat of banishment. And the only reason you catch him, it seems, is because he obsesively harps on the same subjects and doesn't change his writting style. And I'm sure his ISP doesn't give two hoots as long as he pays his bill.

So, how do we fix this?

After getting used to posting here I absolutely hated the weeks banning I got for misbehaving some months back. Now it seems all I had to do was sign up again, change my name to something clever like NotBigDon, don't mention furniture moving anymore (and stop over-using parentheses) and I would have been okay.

You got to send a hit team after this guy. (Or a legal team)

01101001
2007-Apr-08, 02:50 AM
So, how do we fix this?

Just a point: management may not want to discuss what they do, can do, have done, in these cases. While their methods are evidently unsuccessful at stopping some persistent offenders, what we don't know -- what others may not know -- may be successful at deterring some.

I did recently urge offline to some that the articles of sick (typo... but I think I'll leave it) puppets should be more vanishment-worthy. Delete their articles, I say, or cover them up with a standard notice against sock-puppetry. If there was more of a downside to repeat offenders, like their efforts going for naught, maybe they'd give up sooner, or at least be less persistent. I really am bothered seeing sock puppets banned while seeing their words preserved regardless.

Now, that erasure process may make replies to puppets, done by earnest posters, of less value. Would earnest responders mind that much? Would it help? Hurt? Make any sense?

Serenitude
2007-Apr-08, 05:29 AM
Just a point: management may not want to discuss what they do, can do, have done, in these cases. While their methods are evidently unsuccessful at stopping some persistent offenders, what we don't know -- what others may not know -- may be successful at deterring some.

That's pretty much it. Like spam, for every one you see, there are 20 you don't. And that one, we really rely on the community to help us catch. But talking about what we do to maintain vigilance can only lead to hints and tricks to get around it. Let it be known, however, that there is constant discussion on this very subject, and much work done behind the scenes.

(There's a reason mods become less active in the community when they become mods - it isn't elitism, it's work ;) )

Fraser
2007-Apr-08, 07:25 PM
I'm fine to delete puppetry posts. I'm happy to waste their time and effort. We often do it when we catch the puppets early. You just don't see the posts arrive or disappear. If a puppet is below the radar for many weeks, it's harder to catch them in the act, but we'll keep on looking for ways to spot them early.

We certainly don't condone sock puppets. Once you're banned, and then resort to sock puppetry, you're banished for eternity. If you want to spend your time trying to figure out ways to get on the board, that's a pretty sad way to live your life.

BigDon
2007-Apr-09, 02:43 AM
Good answers all.

For some reason, Fraser, the last paragragh in your reply had me laughing out loud.

Okay, I'll submerge again until I can think up another pseudo-problem.

BD

ad hominem
2007-Apr-11, 06:17 PM
That Spock, Yul, etc dipstick and others like him seem to be making a paper tiger out of the threat of banishment. And the only reason you catch him, it seems, is because he obsesively harps on the same subjects and doesn't change his writting style. And I'm sure his ISP doesn't give two hoots as long as he pays his bill.

So, how do we fix this?

After getting used to posting here I absolutely hated the weeks banning I got for misbehaving some months back. Now it seems all I had to do was sign up again, change my name to something clever like NotBigDon, don't mention furniture moving anymore (and stop over-using parentheses) and I would have been okay.

You got to send a hit team after this guy. (Or a legal team)

most people here are sock puppets although you are unique the others are all puppets of hub'

i do not like him he has punctuation in his name

01101001
2007-Apr-11, 06:22 PM
he has punctuation in his name

Psst. Don't look, but there is punctuation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation) in your name, too.


Punctuation is everything in written language other than the actual letters, including [...] inter-word spaces [...].

Roy Batty
2007-Apr-11, 06:23 PM
most people here are sock puppets although you are unique the others are all puppets of hub'

i do not like him he has punctuation in his name
Eh, you might want to re-think that assertion! As far as I know hub' hardly posts here very much anymore & if so always under the same/similar name. Or is there some subtle joke I'm missing?:think:

ad hominem
2007-Apr-11, 06:58 PM
Psst. Don't look, but there is punctuation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation) in your name, too.

okay i will not look

Thanatos
2007-Apr-12, 07:49 AM
Phil Collins' "One More Night" captured the essence of sockpuppet syndrome.

Grashtel
2007-Apr-15, 03:43 PM
That Spock, Yul, etc dipstick and others like him seem to be making a paper tiger out of the threat of banishment. And the only reason you catch him, it seems, is because he obsesively harps on the same subjects and doesn't change his writting style. And I'm sure his ISP doesn't give two hoots as long as he pays his bill.

So, how do we fix this?

After getting used to posting here I absolutely hated the weeks banning I got for misbehaving some months back. Now it seems all I had to do was sign up again, change my name to something clever like NotBigDon, don't mention furniture moving anymore (and stop over-using parentheses) and I would have been okay.

You got to send a hit team after this guy. (Or a legal team)
The problem is that there simply isn't any really effective way of stopping sock puppets that wouldn't cause far more problems for legitimate users than it was worth. If you are really interested I could go through a couple of possible methods and their problems.

Thanatos
2007-Apr-19, 09:54 AM
I find it convenient to ignore pleas for attention. I could care less, but it wouldn't be easy.

Pinemarten
2007-Apr-21, 01:36 PM
I did recently urge offline to some that the articles of sick (typo... but I think I'll leave it) puppets should be more vanishment-worthy. Delete their articles, I say, or cover them up with a standard notice against sock-puppetry. If there was more of a downside to repeat offenders, like their efforts going for naught, maybe they'd give up sooner, or at least be less persistent. I really am bothered seeing sock puppets banned while seeing their words preserved regardless.

Now, that erasure process may make replies to puppets, done by earnest posters, of less value. Would earnest responders mind that much? Would it help? Hurt? Make any sense?


This scares me.
I will use the term 'book burning'.
Suppose we legally destroy all copies of Mein Kemph?

Gillianren
2007-Apr-21, 06:18 PM
This scares me.
I will use the term 'book burning'.
Suppose we legally destroy all copies of Mein Kemph?

First, you mean "Mein Kampf."

Second, it is not at all the same. These people absolutely have the right to go elsewhere and post to their black little hearts' content--until and unless they're banned there, of course! However, Phil and Fraser are not at all obligated to pay for it, which of course they are doing.

Now, I'm not sure I approve of it simply for board continuity reasons, but it's not quite the same as destroying all access to an idea. It's not even truly declining access to it here, because these people have already had their chance to convince us and had a meltdown instead. It's taking away people's posts after they have been forbidden to post for various rule violations, a rule I am quite fond of as it keeps certain people who shall remain nameless ('cause I don't want to violate the "be nice" rule) away.

Pinemarten
2007-Apr-21, 07:22 PM
I think you misunderstood my point.

I saw an historical movie recently where the guy with the big stick told the the guy with the little stick that if he didn't get out of the way he would 'remove his memory from history'.

The little guy lost the fight and died.

His friends carried on, beat up the big guy, and he went crying home.

I guess he never 'removed his memory' because they seemed to find enough to make the movie.

History has always claimed any winner to be the 'good guy' because historians are usually servants to the state in power.

My point is that history cannot be decided in the present; but as much information as possible should be left to the historians of the future so they can make a rational decision as to what happened to us.

An errant post may be 'the wing of the butterfly' that landed on the 12th monkey to eventually cause the downfall of the 5th Latvian Empire.

Sorry for the earlier spelling error. Someone burnt my German dictionary so it it was My Struggle to translate from memory.

Maksutov
2007-Apr-21, 08:27 PM
As Justice Holmes pointed out, freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

The rules for freedom of speech thus depend on the venue. This venue is owned by the admins. They have defined sockpuppetry as unacceptable and disruptive to the environment they wish to maintain. Posts by banned persons who have broken the rules by re-registering are illegitimate and need to be deleted.

Thus the BAUT rules, as with those for a theater, restrict, for good reasons, an "anything goes" freedom of speech situation.

Pinemarten
2007-Apr-21, 10:03 PM
I apologize.

I thought it was suggested that ALL posts by the 'bad guy' be deleted, not just the final allegedly questionable one.

I agree that a single post by a 'one hit wonder' should be deleted, but any that mess up the context of the thread may cause future historians to believe that we make less sense than we actually do.

HenrikOlsen
2007-Apr-21, 10:16 PM
There has been one case (which I think is the one Gillianren alluded to), where all posts(400+) by a member where removed from view.
This was a banned member who managed to stay undetected with a sockpuppet for quite a while.
My guess is that the posts where removed from view so there'd be less temptation to try again.

Pinemarten
2007-Apr-21, 10:38 PM
I feel that decision may be wrong in my point of view.

I agree this board is not 'publicly controlled' but that may not give the managers(?) the right to delete or edit certain content.

If I had hired an artist to paint a portrait in 1601, with my oils, canvas, property, and time; I would have every right to legally burn it if I didn't like it.
I would also have the right to paint a pink pony in the middle of it.
One is deletion, the the other is editing.

These scenarios probably happened more than once.

This board flows.

Disrupting the 'flow' may have future effects that we may not be worthy to judge at this point in history.

HenrikOlsen
2007-Apr-21, 10:46 PM
The decision was, if I'm right about the cause, taken specifically with the future of the board in mind.
Coming back without express permission just can not be allowed, and keeping the posts around would be an incentive to others to try the same stunt.

Incidentally you should note that I'm not writing this as a moderator but solely as a member.
As I knew the person involved I have deliberately avoided reading the moderator discussion about the case, so I have only guesses about the reasons for the action.

Back in moderator mode, we're skirting close to discussing a moderator decision in a way that's against the common interpretation of Rule 17, last paragraph.

Pinemarten
2007-Apr-21, 11:08 PM
I congratulate you on the ability to wear more than one 'hat' and change them as necessary.

I have had the misfortune of of wearing more than one hat myself. Once it was with family, and that was the most disconcerting.

I will start a new thread that is more viable.

Pinemarten
2007-Apr-22, 12:17 AM
New thread here.
http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=972814&postcount=1

Doodler
2007-Apr-22, 03:58 PM
most people here are sock puppets although you are unique the others are all puppets of hub'

i do not like him he has punctuation in his name

Talk about your flying leaps off the deep end... What the heck grounds do you have for THAT gem?:mad:

BigDon
2007-Apr-22, 07:55 PM
Talk about your flying leaps off the deep end... What the heck grounds do you have for THAT gem?:mad:

Yo Dood, even *I* got that that was a joke.