Double Identities- Multiple Usernames
Marya wrote: .but haven't heard any reason from you as to why an individual would want multiple IDs on a Forum other than you think it is their right. Where are the benefits for the Forum? There can be plenty of negatives.
POL now has two main forums G&TT and Matters. Matters should be protected from multi users and multi ID’s.
Last time I looked POL had 283 users who have registered but not posted on any forum. A large proportion of those people have registered using either their full names, part of their real name or an abbreviation from which they could potentially be identified. Why did they do that? In the main it is because at the time they joined they did not understand how forums work and the significance of an anonymous user name. Anonymity is even more significant in a fairly tight-knit community forum.
A few months after I joined POL I had a conversation with Diana Cairns who uses dccairns as he on-board name. She told me that as a noticeboard novice she had not appreciated why one may wish to be anonymous and somewhat regretted having used her own name from the outset. She felt disadvantaged when debating with an unknown or unknowns. This is totally understandable. Particularly when debates get fierce and one can feel personally vulnerable. (I know from experience)
If the likes of Lawrence Marshall, Maureen Child, Sheila From Findlays, Bruce Kidd, Julian Grant, Betty Windsor, Ruth Bonar and many many others had “funâ€
Porty wrote:Marya wrote: .but haven't heard any reason from you as to why an individual would want multiple IDs on a Forum other than you think it is their right. Where are the benefits for the Forum? There can be plenty of negatives.
POL now has two main forums G&TT and Matters. Matters should be protected from multi users and multi ID’s.
Last time I looked POL had 283 users who have registered but not posted on any forum. A large proportion of those people have registered using either their full names, part of their real name or an abbreviation from which they could potentially be identified. Why did they do that? In the main it is because at the time they joined they did not understand how forums work and the significance of an anonymous user name. Anonymity is even more significant in a fairly tight-knit community forum.
A few months after I joined POL I had a conversation with Diana Cairns who uses dccairns as he on-board name. She told me that as a noticeboard novice she had not appreciated why one may wish to be anonymous and somewhat regretted having used her own name from the outset. She felt disadvantaged when debating with an unknown or unknowns. This is totally understandable. Particularly when debates get fierce and one can feel personally vulnerable. (I know from experience)
If the likes of Lawrence Marshall, Maureen Child, Sheila From Findlays, Bruce Kidd, Julian Grant, Betty Windsor, Ruth Bonar and many many others had “funâ€
No, the IP address was not banned, the user Cleopas/Messalina was banned. We may have a situation where two users post from the same household i.e. Marya and Homer. Suppose Marya loses it one day and tells one of our top 10 posters that he'll soon be wearing his family jewels as earrings. Would it be fair to ban the hapless Homer too?Porty wrote:The Cleo/Messy situation proves that ruling against multiple ID's does not prevent abuse. In reality it was the IP address thar was banned.Marya wrote:The most obvious reason for banning multiple IDs is to stop someone who has been banned under one user name from just carrying on posting under another.
Porty wrote:If the likes of Lawrence Marshall, Maureen Child, Sheila From Findlays, Bruce Kidd, Julian Grant, Betty Windsor, Ruth Bonar and many many others had “funâ€
www.porty.org.uk
Obvioulsy not. So let me get this straight, Cleopas/Messy's IP address is not banned, correct? So if a new member registers from that IP address with a different email address there will no problem?Marya wrote:No, the IP address was not banned, the user Cleopas/Messalina was banned. We may have a situation where two users post from the same household i.e. Marya and Homer. Suppose Marya loses it one day and tells one of our top 10 posters that he'll soon be wearing his family jewels as earrings. Would it be fair to ban the hapless Homer too?Porty wrote:The Cleo/Messy situation proves that ruling against multiple ID's does not prevent abuse. In reality it was the IP address thar was banned.Marya wrote:The most obvious reason for banning multiple IDs is to stop someone who has been banned under one user name from just carrying on posting under another.
So do you know who Cleopas is in real life?Marya wrote:No problem so long as we get to see his/her passport firstPorty wrote:Obvioulsy not. So let me get this straight, Cleopas/Messy's IP address is not banned, correct? So if a new member registers from that IP address with a different email address there will no problem?
Anyway you digress. What is the purpose ogf the double ID rule and can you give us an example of how it has benefitted the forum?
Last edited by Porty on 12 Jan 2007, 12:36, edited 1 time in total.
Porty
An IP address isn't always static - it can be reassigned. Banning an IP address could mean that the next time Cleo turns off his modem and Joe Honest from Joppa turns his on and gets it, he can't access the forum. Unlikely but it could happen.
As far as I understood it, the multiple ID rule came about after Bob posted as Moi. This rule change was worded not to ban multiple IDs but to require permission from the admin/mod team, wasn't it?
So I would see its purpose as enabling the forum as a whole to coherently deal with malicious subterfuge if someone tried it on in the future - whether they were an admin, mod or normal user.
Setting the precedent of having a different set of rules applying in Matters but not G&TT might prove unworkable - threads can be moved from one to the other, for example.
An IP address isn't always static - it can be reassigned. Banning an IP address could mean that the next time Cleo turns off his modem and Joe Honest from Joppa turns his on and gets it, he can't access the forum. Unlikely but it could happen.
As far as I understood it, the multiple ID rule came about after Bob posted as Moi. This rule change was worded not to ban multiple IDs but to require permission from the admin/mod team, wasn't it?
So I would see its purpose as enabling the forum as a whole to coherently deal with malicious subterfuge if someone tried it on in the future - whether they were an admin, mod or normal user.
Setting the precedent of having a different set of rules applying in Matters but not G&TT might prove unworkable - threads can be moved from one to the other, for example.
So it seems to me banning is ineffectual in sine-die terms. Cleo and Messy are banned, we dont' know who they are, if we did know who they were this time around they could join again using a different name and the same IP address and we could not be sure it was them/him or her. Not looking for confrotation here but do you agree that banning someone may be totally ineffective?Dadaist wrote: Porty
An IP address isn't always static - it can be reassigned. Banning an IP address could mean that the next time Cleo turns off his modem and Joe Honest from Joppa turns his on and gets it, he can't access the forum. Unlikely but it could happen.
Yes I think so. All i'm saying is lets relax it to no permission required. The ruction caused by Moi was totally blown out of proportion and as a result the forum rules get tighter. Moi wasn't in breach of any rule at the time. So one person moans and everyone else's freedom gets a little more restricted. As a regular, loyal and generally well behaved forum user; doesn't that annoy you?Dadaist wrote: As far as I understood it, the multiple ID rule came about after Bob posted as Moi. This rule change was worded not to ban multiple IDs but to require permission from the admin/mod team, wasn't it?
The forum is already enabled for such an event. The multpile ID rule did nothing to stop Messy. So your percieved purpose is erroneous my freind.Dadaist wrote: So I would see its purpose as enabling the forum as a whole to coherently deal with malicious subterfuge if someone tried it on in the future - whether they were an admin, mod or normal user.
Accepted but I was thinking of a commonsense approach . The odd misplaced post wouldn't matter but a debate involving say Rex and Dave Connelly would initiallybe moderated by an off-board warning.Dadaist wrote:"Setting the precedent of having a different set of rules applying in Matters but not G&TT might prove unworkable - threads can be moved from one to the other, for example.
I guess what really irks me about all of this is that by and large the default here on POL is good behaviour. The only role I can see for the double ID rule is so that people can be banned for having Double ID's and even that depends on which way the wind blows or how a couple of people are feeling.
Someone could say the same about driving.Porty wrote:So it seems to me banning is ineffectual in sine-die terms. Cleo and Messy are banned, we dont' know who they are, if we did know who they were this time around they could join again using a different name and the same IP address and we could not be sure it was them/him or her. Not looking for confrotation here but do you agree that banning someone may be totally ineffective?Dadaist wrote: Porty
An IP address isn't always static - it can be reassigned. Banning an IP address could mean that the next time Cleo turns off his modem and Joe Honest from Joppa turns his on and gets it, he can't access the forum. Unlikely but it could happen.
Malicious subterfuge annoys me more.Porty wrote:Yes I think so. All i'm saying is lets relax it to no permission required. The ruction caused by Moi was totally blown out of proportion and as a result the forum rules get tighter. Moi wasn't in breach of any rule at the time. So one person moans and everyone else's freedom gets a little more restricted. As a regular, loyal and generally well behaved forum user; doesn't that annoy you?Dadaist wrote: As far as I understood it, the multiple ID rule came about after Bob posted as Moi. This rule change was worded not to ban multiple IDs but to require permission from the admin/mod team, wasn't it?
Moi was stopped in his tracks once outed. No moderator or admin has since repeated his antics. Rules aren't just for mods and admins to inflict on us.Porty wrote:The forum is already enabled for such an event. The multpile ID rule did nothing to stop Messy. So your percieved purpose is erroneous my freind.Dadaist wrote: So I would see its purpose as enabling the forum as a whole to coherently deal with malicious subterfuge if someone tried it on in the future - whether they were an admin, mod or normal user.
Curious. You want someone who argues with themselves to be warned only if their subject matter is local.Porty wrote:Accepted but I was thinking of a commonsense approach . The odd misplaced post wouldn't matter but a debate involving say Rex and Dave Connelly would initiallybe moderated by an off-board warning.Dadaist wrote:"Setting the precedent of having a different set of rules applying in Matters but not G&TT might prove unworkable - threads can be moved from one to the other, for example.
The rule came about as a reaction to how one of those "couple" of people acted towards their members.I guess what really irks me about all of this is that by and large the default here on POL is good behaviour. The only role I can see for the double ID rule is so that people can be banned for having Double ID's and even that depends on which way the wind blows or how a couple of people are feeling.
To be more specific, I want a warning if self-debate goes on in the Matters forum. I feel that as we are a forum serving the Portobello Community the Matters forum requires intergrity.Dadaist wrote: Curious. You want someone who argues with themselves to be warned only if their subject matter is local.
Having said that if a heated debate about say; the Iraq War, broke out in G&TT and there was self-debate manipulation then I would expect that to be moderated too.
I am totally serious about this. Much of the flak and the ammunition from those that want to bring POL down is derived from it being part-anonymous part-real names. The mods, Bob etc are accused of allowing anonymous "attacks". Everyone who has registerd using a name that could identify them should be allowed an an anonymous ID too.
People who register in the future having lurked for a while will know this and be able to register with the name of their choice.Porty wrote: The mods, Bob etc are accused of allowing anonymous "attacks". Everyone who has registerd using a name that could identify them should be allowed an an anonymous ID too.
Under the current rules, there's nothing stopping people who registered in the past sending an email to the mods asking for an anonymous ID.
Yes but why not make it easy and invite them to en-masse. We should be encouraging new customers not making the go through hoops toe gain access.Dadaist wrote:Porty wrote: The mods, Bob etc are accused of allowing anonymous "attacks". Everyone who has registerd using a name that could identify them should be allowed an an anonymous ID too.I wouldn't bet on it.Dadaist wrote:[ People who register in the future having lurked for a while will know this and be able to register with the name of their choice.
Dadaist wrote:[ Under the current rules, there's nothing stopping people who registered in the past sending an email to the mods asking for an anonymous ID.
BTT. The mods haven't come up with a benefit of the Double ID rule yet, although they have been asked. Can you give us an example?
Dear all. I tried to get a second anonymous identity a few weeks ago and I was told that it was not allowed. Posting under my own name is not really a problem for me and I can't really remember why I wanted another name. It would seem a bit bizzare, not to mention naughty, for someone with two identities to start up a pro / anti argument in the hope that others would join in. Actually, on second thoughts, that would be rather sad. I think I'll just stick with being me for the moment. At least if I offend anyone they know where to find me.
Prom cycling for all.
Well you offended me with all that nonsense you posted on Bob's Fan Club thread earlier.tom nimmo wrote: At least if I offend anyone they know where to find me.
You really should learn to read through a thread properly before you go shouting your mouth off in public about something you haven't understood properly in the first place.
tom nimmo wrote:Dear all. I tried to get a second anonymous identity a few weeks ago and I was told that it was not allowed. Posting under my own name is not really a problem for me and I can't really remember why I wanted another name. It would seem a bit bizzare, not to mention naughty, for someone with two identities to start up a pro / anti argument in the hope that others would join in. Actually, on second thoughts, that would be rather sad. I think I'll just stick with being me for the moment. At least if I offend anyone they know where to find me.
There would have been no problem re-registering so long as you had deactivated your other account first Tom . We have other users who have done precisely that.
Your second registration was denied as it would put you in breach of our rule on multiple IDs.
As posting under your own name is not a problem for you I am curious as to why you wanted to register another name. Once you remember, I'd be interested in the answer
www.porty.org.uk
It was probably to say something that really annoyed me so I could then argue with myself. God, that is so sad when I see it in print. Anyway, ta for the info. At the time I was actually going to stop posting as Tom Nimmo coz he was getting me into all sorts of trouble but I didn't realise that I had to de-activate myself first. If I am ever able to make my mind up about anything I will probably let you know. But, then again, maybe not
Prom cycling for all.
