I support the Pundits "fess up or get banned" stance.

Another option would be to ban the sockpuppet by user name. If another pops up with the same IP ban the IP, then there will be no anthrobot or his puppets.

For what it is worth, I agree in principle with Bill in that I don't think that having a sockpuppet account is in itself disruptive.  In fact, I recall recent discussions about how some game designers might feel the need to have a separate "private" and "public" persona. Banning multiple accounts outright will have an impact on the availability of this option.

In this particular case, however, there is the practical matter of if someone uses a sock to actually disrupt the site, then it is hard to put them your Ignore List, which is one of the site's most important tools for maintaining quality discussion.  It is also a tool based on a user's decision about what kind of site they enjoy...presumably one without the user in question...while allowing the users who annoy them to continue to interact with those that they don't annoy.  To subvert this decision is worthy of action.

In the end, I would counsel that an outright ban on multiple accounts be very carefully considered.  It may have unintended consequences and will make for more work for the admin staff if you intend to have the ban apply equally and fairly.  If Johnny really is Anthrobot, then the disruptive behavior is enough to warrant action, even without the sockpuppet issue.


TGA

Quote from: The Good AssyrianIn fact, I recall recent discussions about how some game designers might feel the need to have a separate "private" and "public" persona.

So they can act respectable with their "public" persona, and then act like an ass with the sock puppet and trash talk other users?  I'd rather they choose their words more carefully.

Folks: Why ban a sockpuppett?

This is theRPGSite!

We have Avatars of Shame and stuff like this.

I vote for making it totally clear via a fitting Avatar, that one account is a sockpuppet.

My intial reaction is to Ban the Motherfucker.

However, I'm in a bad mood.

If I think about it logically, I agree with Pundit that Anthro-Johnny should really think about why s/he has a sockpuppet.  If there's a legitimate reason, like a company who wants to have a separate identity (which I support and know that many do not) then sockpuppets should be allowed.   Perhpas it would be better to treat sockpuppets as either a bannable offense, a case-by-case thing, or allowable.

This is a good "Public Consultation" Pundit, thanks for letting us weigh in on something that overtly directs future policiy.  

Give Anthrobot a second chance if he 'fesses up.  If sockpuppets = ban, then those who have them should be allowed to remove them before the rule goes  into effect.

Quote from: StuartSo they can act respectable with their "public" persona, and then act like an ass with the sock puppet and trash talk other users?  I'd rather they choose their words more carefully.

Not necessarily.  I am not in a position to have my family's livelihood potentially impacted by interactions on a Internet forum, particularly one with a Wild West character.  In that situation I don't think that I personally would opt for two personas, but I could see some people liking the option of having a separate account where they could "let their hair down" and openly challenge people's ideas without possible PR (and therefore sales) impact.


TGA

Quote from: The Good AssyrianI could see some people liking the option of having a separate account where they could "let their hair down" and openly challenge people's ideas without possible PR (and therefore sales) impact.

I'm not sure if I articulated this on the 'pro' v. 'nutjob' accounts thread you referred to earlier, Good Assyrian, but I would like to say that I'd have a lot more respect for an 'industry professional' who 'let their hair down' publicly, than I would have for one I consequently found out had created an additional account to do so.

- Q

Quote from: QuireI'm not sure if I articulated this on the 'pro' v. 'nutjob' accounts thread you referred to earlier, Good Assyrian, but I would like to say that I'd have a lot more respect for an 'industry professional' who 'let their hair down' publicly, than I would have for one I consequently found out had created an additional account to do so.

I don't disagree with you.  But it doesn't necessarily follow that the practice would be wrong, by which I mean disruptive to productive communication.  I am just pointing out that banning multiple accounts, if done, may have additional impact on how some people use the site.  I just think that it needs to be carefully considered, particularly when in this case the problem is disruptive behavior, of which the sockpuppet is only a symptom.


TGA

Quote from: The Good AssyrianFor what it is worth, I agree in principle with Bill in that I don't think that having a sockpuppet account is in itself disruptive.  In fact, I recall recent discussions about how some game designers might feel the need to have a separate "private" and "public" persona. Banning multiple accounts outright will have an impact on the availability of this option.

Regarding that, it again becomes a case of intentional deception toward the Admins.  If someone here wanted to or had made a sockpuppet for some reason, and told me about it, assuming said reason was legitimate I wouldn't have a problem with that.

If, on the other hand, what you had was:

Game Designer X: I wrote the Suchandsuch game.
Poster 1: That game sucks.
Game Designer X's sockpuppet: I love that game. It has changed my life forever.
Game Designer X's Other Sockpuppet: Poster 1 you don't understand that game. it is the best game ever. you are obviously a retard.

Then game designer x would be out the door.
For the interest of integrity, I would think that absolutely anyone who wanted a second account here in order to keep seperate his job from his private posting (and I've yet to see anyone who really cares that much) would want to make sure the Admins knew exactly what he was doing. Otherwise, it would be very easy to accuse him of very cheap tricks.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPunditRegarding that, it again becomes a case of intentional deception toward the Admins.  If someone here wanted to or had made a sockpuppet for some reason, and told me about it, assuming said reason was legitimate I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Fair enough.  As long as the policy is clear and well-thought out (and I think that these Public Consultation threads are a wonderful way to do that), then I have no problem with the course of action that you are considering.  In the absence of proof that they were separate individuals I personally would ban the sock first and then ban the IP if the problem recurs.


TGA

Quote from: RPGPunditRegarding that, it again becomes a case of intentional deception toward the Admins. If someone here wanted to or had made a sockpuppet for some reason, and told me about it, assuming said reason was legitimate I wouldn't have a problem with that.

What would be a legitimate reason?  I can't think of one aside from site admin duties.

A prank.

He/They have been given to opportunity to explain whats going on. Give them a week then ban the IP. This way you are not technically banning the poster just the specific IP, he will still be able to post from work or an internet cafe.

I think you are doing the right thing. As much as I like Anthro's posts, creating a sockpuppet (if he did it) just to attack another poster should be a bannable offense - unless he admits to it, and does not do it again. A one time warning if you like.

It's stuff like this, that gives the site a bad rep, and discourages would be users from giving this place a try. Very immature, if Anthro really did this. Pity, he was a good balance to some of the noxious stuff on this forum. Guess I'm biased. (Damn, will there ever be a Public Consultation thread where I'm not?)

Regards,
David R

I'm very, very leery of banning folks just because an IP address matches - not when I don't know that the IP address doesnt relate to a proxy or gateway, and therefore may not indicate guilt. No offence to you Pundy or your backroom boffins, but if you've asked, chances are you don't know.


However if parties who have taken a more intense interest in the posting styles of Antro and Jonny are confident they are one and the same (regardless of IP) then using a sockpuppet to support your own stance is IMO, a low tactic and worthy of punishment upto and including bannination.

Quote from: StuartWhat would be a legitimate reason?  I can't think of one aside from site admin duties.

Some people might like to have a different account for PbP games that matches their character name.