TheRPGSite

The case: Anthrobot and Johnny have the same IP address. Johnny only seems to post to either agree with Anthrobot or to attack people who've attacked Anthrobot.

Yet "johnny" refuses to admit that he's a sockpuppet of Anthrobots, and offers nothing but gobbledeygook to defend himself ("you bet i'm a different person, i kick his ass in Tae-Kwon Do"; ok, sure that proves it... :rolleyes: )

So now I'm in a dilemma. I'm virtually certain that they're the same guy, and I'm pissed off that he refuses to admit it. The only consequence of Anthrobot admitting to me that he had a sockpuppet would have been that the sockpuppet would be taken away.  But now, he's lied to me.

I'm pissed off.

So here's the deal, Anthro: You either admit to the Johnny sockpuppet, or you (or "johnny") offer me some kind of incontrovertible proof that you are two different people, or you both get fucking banned for intentionally lying to the Admin about a Site issue.

Think hard about this, do you really want to beat out Nox, James, and everybody else to be the first real person EVER banned from theRPGsite? What a fucking waste that would be; before all of this, I even dug your posts.

I have labelled this thread "public consultation" in case anyone here wants to really advocate hard for the defence either of Anthrobot personally, or the precedent I'm setting here that lying to the Admins about admin issues (specifically sockpuppet accounts) will get you banned.  Feel free to post your opinions, unlike other sites we encourage advocacy here, and I want my decisions to be questioned/considered by all.

(again, if Anthro had just admitted he was Johnny, there's no way I'd have ever banned him)

RPGPundit

I would give him/them the chance to 'fess up here first. If he doesn't, the very next time he enters a thread simply to piss on Jimbob and add nothing to the thread, ban his arse.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo here's the deal, Anthro: You either admit to the Johnny sockpuppet, or you (or "johnny") offer me some kind of incontrovertible proof that you are two different people, or you both get fucking banned for intentionally lying to the Admin about a Site issue.

Whilst i agree with the sentiment I don't think you could ban either parties (assuming they are separate individuals - gotta love that benefit of the doubt!) for "intentionally lying".  You have no proof that either party has ever lied beyond your own suspicions.

However I am in full agreement that Anthro/Johnny need to prove they are in fact separate entities  - the fact that this hasn't been done yet doesn't bode well for either of them.  That, coupled with the previously stated forbidden nature of sockpuppets, would be reason enough to ban them.  

Hell, its your site - end of the day, you don't need a reason - but I'd warn you against allowing your emotion to cloud your judgement in this, or any, matter.

I agree. Multiple accounts without explanation ARE a worthy banning offence - on ANY forum.

- Q

I support the Pundit's line of reasoning on this matter.

I agree with banning IP addresses with multiple (sock puppet) accounts.

Here's the tool to use: Track all Duplicate IP Addresses via Admin CP (http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=91633).

Ban the sockpuppet, but not Anthro. End of story.

Quote from: JongWKBan the sockpuppet, but not Anthro. End of story.

And if he sock-puppets again?

- Q

Give all users with sock puppets 1 week to remove their extra accounts.  Then do a search to compare IP addresses.  Then send out "WTF" email. Then ban.

I guess I am the odd man out in this thread. I could care less if someone has twenty sockpuppets. Who cares? Well, obviously everyone else. ;) We have people who give advice on pedantry, support religious intolerance and use language that would make a trucker blush but heavens forbid they should lie. It just seems a bit out of proportion.

Now, if he is disrupting the forum then sure, ban him in a second. Sock puppets...meh. If he uses the sock puppet to attack with impugnity, disrupt threads and destroy good RPG discussion, THAT goes against the charter. Being truthful to the admin...maybe not so much.

However, I fully admit that I am in the minority and bow to the will of the community.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltWe have people who give advice on pedantry, support religious intolerance and use language that would make a trucker blush but heavens forbid they should lie.

Well Bill, I appreciate your considered tone on the matter, but you and I have discussed multiple accounts before and, I guess, agreed to disagree.

I'll still stand by: I can't see a reason for additional accounts other than foul play. And if a sock-puppeteer is called on that, and then refuses or neglects to respond in a way that satisfies the admin doing the calling...IP ban 'em.

I'm all for people spouting as much shit as they want and not getting banned for it, but when they make like We Are Legion, fuck 'em.

- Q

Its that sockpuppets do precisely that, they disrupt the forum.  Especially in the fairly classic way anthro was using it. Ie:

Poster 1: I think that the french are sodomites.
Poster 2: you're an idiot.
Poster 1's sockpuppet: I agree with Poster 1.
Poster 1's 2nd sockpuppet: Poster 2 is a slimy frog!

In other words, not only do you end up having idiots having lengthy conversations with themselves, but you end up in a situation where you can never be sure who is who, people get around ignore lists, people create (often obvious, but occasionally less obvious) false consensus about controversial issues, its all just basically an invitation to "cheat" at the Forum game by having multiple players.

finally, to my tech admins: Could you guys get that add-on for our Admin panel? That looks like it'd be something we could really use.

RPGPundit

Quote from: QuireWell Bill, I appreciate your considered tone on the matter, but you and I have discussed multiple accounts before and, I guess, agreed to disagree.

I'll still stand by: I can't see a reason for additional accounts other than foul play. And if a sock-puppeteer is called on that, and then refuses or neglects to respond in a way that satisfies the admin doing the calling...IP ban 'em.

I'm all for people spouting as much shit as they want and not getting banned for it, but when they make like We Are Legion, fuck 'em.

- Q

Oh, to be clear, I can see a use but in reality I just do not care. If they really want go through all the trouble of making a second or more account, keeping track of which they are posting with, I could care less. I guess what I am saying is, punish the action not the mechanism. If someone creates a second account to get around a banning...well, they are getting around a banning which seems the bigger issue. If someone creates a second account to get around an ignore list and they go and harass the person who ignored them...again, the bigger issue. If you just make a second account, whoopee for you. I made a second account called "socky" and joked with Clash. It was my one an only post. Should I be banned for it?

I await my official banning. ;) (Note: For those without a sense of humor I am typing with a humorous tone and not a snarky, righteous indignation tone).

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI made a second account called "socky" and joked with Clash. It was my one an only post. Should I be banned for it?

Nope, because you've already made it clear that it was for a laugh, not at least by calling the account 'socky'. It's more than evident that that is a joke.

Quote from: HinterWelt(Note: For those without a sense of humor I am typing with a humorous tone and not a snarky, righteous indignation tone).

FWIW, I can see that. :)

It's the 'being called on it' bit that is important. If there isn't a positive reason for doing it - or even, hell, if they can't MAKE UP a good reason for doing it -  then fuck 'em.

- Q

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.

Quote from: O'BorgSome people might like to have a different account for PbP games that matches their character name.

Well that makes sense. Yeah, I'll give you that one.

- Q

Don't expect him to publicly admit it's a sock puppet. Geek Pride is a strong thing, remember. It's only human.

Just ban the sockpuppet, and leave the original account alone.

And yes, give that week's notice and then wipe out all the duplicate accounts. When in doubt as to which account is the main and which the minor, assume the one with the higher postcount is the main one.

WTF?
There is no need to ban a uncovered sockpuppet!
The shame of having been caught with this act of utter ridiculousness should be used as punishment!

I again vouch for an Avatar of Shame instead of banning.

Those who ban sockpuppets, will ban people some day!

Quote from: SettembriniThose who ban sockpuppets, will ban people some day!

This is inevitable.  Some day someone who needs banning will register on the site.

Quote from: StuartThis is inevitable.  Some day someone who needs banning will register on the site.

And when this someone does register and the inevitable Public Consultation thread appears, you can bet your last dollar Sett will be there to defend the principle of free speech, regardless of whatever this person has done.

Regards,
David R

A person disrupts the site and provides nothing that adds to it, then I say he goes. Anyone who harms the forums more than he helps them does not belong here.

[Alan's Alt] You pussy! You lack wit wombat! You cat shucking moose. Ban them? What a wuss! You don't ban them, you eviscerate them. You skin them alive and dip them in salt. You give them a pepper suppository using a knobby gherkin. you make them watch Me and the Chimp. Ban them? You weakling.[/Alan's Alt]

(I think somebody needs his meds adjusted.)

Quote from: David RAnd when this someone does register and the inevitable Public Consultation thread appears, you can bet your last dollar Sett will be there to defend the principle of free speech, regardless of whatever this person has done.

Regards,
David R

Someone has to, or we'll lose our principles to something as base as reality.

Quote from: joewolzSomeone has to, or we'll lose our principles to something as base as reality.

I'm not entirely sure how to read this Joe. I can't tell if you're being funny or serious.

Regards,
David R

BTW, is the Avatar of Shame already in place?

Look:

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4656&page=15

I think the case is settled. He can post all he wants with this Avatar and enforced location.

Honestly, I don't think this - Avatar of shame- is the way to go, but if this case has been settled...:shrug:

Regards,
David R

As far as I know, he put that pic on himself; I certainly didn't give it to him, and if anyone else did, they didn't tell me about it.

RPGPundit

Here's my idea. Ban Johnny. Send him an email telling him that he can email one of you guys back to state his case. That'll force the issue, if 'Johnny' really gives a fuck. He should be able to prove it somehow if he really is somebody else.

Meanwhile, watch the forums and if a new guy sounding like Johnny or Anthrobot pops up on the same IP, you've got a pretty good case for banning the new one and keeping Johnny banned. Or even allowing them to exist and mocking the perpetrator (not that it stops Nox).

Long term, it doesn't do any harm and at worst it's an unjust quarantining. You can always unban Johnny, and Anthrobot gets to use his account. You're not banning, just running an experiment. Beating the forest to see what comes out.

Otherwise, just let it run its course and see what happens. Somebody's bound to get sick of logging in and logging out.

Maybe Johnny is Anthro's mate. Could be they just share a house and a connection. Though I guess you explored that avenue. EDIT: And I see you have. I can't see any reason not to take them/him/thim at their/his/this word.

I'm curious - have people been complaining about Johnny/Anthro disrupting the forum, or is it just something that pisses you off? I hadn't even noticed, but I am not the most prolific poster or ardent reader.

Ned

I don't think this is a problem in the least.

Sure Anthrobot's been acting like a tool recently, so what?  IL him and he'll calm down or he'll piss off.

I don't have a problem with his having a sockpuppet either, especially as now it's a commonly-held perception.

I think banning people for alt accounts is TBP received wisdom and it doesn't bother me in the least.  I say let people have sockpuppets and let the mayhem commence.

To me, this just smacks of herd mentality bullying.  Someone giving a frequent poster a hard time (even though he gives other people a hard time continuously and to the point of being banned from TBP for his snide tone) and people wanting to use force to shut him up.  This is the thin end of the wedge.

EDIT : Actually... come to think of it.  I've never had any problems with the people Pundit wants to ban.  Dominus Nox is a tool but, in truth, he doesn't impact on the atmosphere here as he's a known quantity.  All the others seem to have been people who have been rude to Pundit.

I strongly suggest that we leave them both be.

I don't really care either, but I thought I'd come up with an evil plan.

FIRST they came for the SOCK PUPPETS!!!

Another board I hang out on has communal sock puppets with names like "GOD" and "The Search Nazi" that people can log into if they want to make a point.

Sock puppetts really aren't an issue.  So someone spends time artificially manufacturing consent around his opinions.  So fucking what?  what do you care what other posters think?

Quote from: Mr. Analyticalwhat do you care what other posters think?

If you don't care -- then what's the point of posting at all?

I'm guessing Anthrobot isn't the only person using sockpuppets on this site...

Quote from: droogHere's my idea. Ban Johnny. Send him an email telling him that he can email one of you guys back to state his case. That'll force the issue, if 'Johnny' really gives a fuck. He should be able to prove it somehow if he really is somebody else.

Meanwhile, watch the forums and if a new guy sounding like Johnny or Anthrobot pops up on the same IP, you've got a pretty good case for banning the new one and keeping Johnny banned. Or even allowing them to exist and mocking the perpetrator (not that it stops Nox).

Long term, it doesn't do any harm and at worst it's an unjust quarantining. You can always unban Johnny, and Anthrobot gets to use his account. You're not banning, just running an experiment. Beating the forest to see what comes out.

Otherwise, just let it run its course and see what happens. Somebody's bound to get sick of logging in and logging out.

I agree with this.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalAnother board I hang out on has communal sock puppets with names like "GOD" and "The Search Nazi" that people can log into if they want to make a point.

That's hilarious. :haw:

Quote from: RPGPunditAs far as I know, he put that pic on himself; I certainly didn't give it to him, and if anyone else did, they didn't tell me about it.

Twasn't I.

Quote from: jrientsTwasn't I.

I didn't do it, I'm not even sure if i know how to do it.

I don't think we should ban Anthrobot. I do think we should publically mock and humiliate him for having a sock puppet.

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm pissed off.

This seems to be the root of everything right here. You're pissed. And a few others. But I have to ask so what? So what this guy rubs you wrong? So what? Sos this guy is a bit of a dick? So what?

Does dude pay the bills round here? Does dude make the majority of posts here? Do you have to reply to him? Do you have to ban him to ignore him?

You seem pretty damn eager to ban someone Pundit. Hell these public consultation threads are amongst the most active. That should say something to you.

Go easy man. You're the public face of this forum, like it or not. Stop making yourself look like an over eager twelve year old dude. This is just a forum, an internet forum. Not a god damned secret agency or a for profit business here.

Quote from: JongWKThat's hilarious. :haw:

Animal Ball has a couple like that too. No one use them though.

I don't know the two posters involved  well enough to say yay or nay either way .Neither one has made much of an impression on me....yet.

  Got an extreme dislike for sock puppets tho - they confuse things and muddy the waters.

 I say ban the sock puppet and warn the "original" not to do it again.

- E.W.C.

Its just the opposite, the last thing I want to have to do is ban anyone. Especially for something as stupid as this.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIts just the opposite, the last thing I want to have to do is ban anyone. Especially for something as stupid as this.

Technically, if you ban a sock puppet but not the original account, then you're not really banning "anyone".

He hasn't impacted my enjoyment of rpgsite.  I say let him be for now.

I am all for not banning him.  Hell, I'm more or less with Settembrini on these sorts of things.   Banning is the end of the line, the last possible step. Even the damn sock... puppet. Yeah, there is a picture of a sock, it's a puppet...

Is it annoying? Sure.

childish? certainly.

Disruptive? Not so much.  If you want to IL Anthrobot, you will want to IL johnny. Is it really that much work to smack another reader on your 'dumb ass' list?

Of course, I'm biased. I'm the one who started the entire 'are sockpuppets inherently bad' question on some other thread weeks ago.


If you honestly feel you have to do something... ban Johnny and leave it at that.  Shut down the sock puppets and the problem is fixed.

Ok. I've come to a decision. I can't allow sockpuppets on this forum. And if I do so now, with Anthrobot, that opens up the field for people who are under certain restrictions (like James) or people who would use sockpuppets for their own purposes to get around ignore lists, or to just generally disrupt the site in other ways, to end up having free reign.

As for the Johnny/Anthrobot case, had "johnny" been a different person, with a legitimate explanation for why they have the exact same IP, either he or Anthrobot would have given it by now. As it is, they both type the same, sound the same, and Johnny has only been backing up Anthrobot's posts.

Anthro isn't man enough to admit that? That's fine. The desire to be as absolutely lenient as possible, and because there was no precedent for it before, means I'm not going to ban him. This time.

But hear me now: There is NO sockpuppeting allowed on this forum.  The only conditions by which such a thing is allowed is if you ask me for permission to have a second account, beforehand. Sockpuppeting will be taken very seriously on here from here on in.

Anyone who had a sockpuppet as of now, this is the time to fess up in PM, let me know, and get out of the muppet business. Anyone who flagrantly violates this rule will face serious consequences.

RPGPundit

I think sockpuppets are OK if you've been banned for bullshit reasons, like what happens to people on the purple toilet or the andy hackard forums.

Sockpuppets for people who haven't been banned? Why? Just to gang up on someone (me, usually) or to support yourself?

I use SPs when I get bullshitbanned, like on andy hackard's forums, until I get sick of the motherfuckers running the forum and the motherfuckers on it and withdraw in disgust. Then I might keep one SP and use it rarely for rules questions, but that's about all.

Paul Crapman, a mod on the andy hackard forums, once had a thread that read "sockpuppets suck", to which I say "Bad mods suck, and make sockpuppets necessary."

BTW, banning sockpuppets is kinda futile as there's so much software and proxy sites that you can easily post from a different IP on the same computer.

Quote from: SpikeI am all for not banning him.

SPIKE'S BACK OMG SOMEONE GET THE POKEBALL

No, banning sockpuppets isn't futile, since people usually post in a certain way.  And what's more, sockpuppets are usually used for certain things. Its not hard to tell when someone is sockpuppeting.

I mean shit, usually the problem is if someone is being unreasonable in some way. If they aren't, they usually have no need of a sockpuppet; and if their sockpuppet doesn't join in the unreasonable behaviour, why did they create it? So inevitably, its rather easy to create the suspicion of sockpuppets.

RPGPundit

I think we should round up all the sockpuppets, and use them for medical experiments.

Personally, I think in this case, the behavior is it's own punishment.

I mean seriously, making a sockpuppet just to cheerlead yourself in a public message board is pretty goddamn sad.

Quote from: J ArcanePersonally, I think in this case, the behavior is it's own punishment.

I mean seriously, making a sockpuppet just to cheerlead yourself in a public message board is pretty goddamn sad.

I pretty much agree, but if Pundit wants to ban the sock I can't really say it's a travesty of justice that cries out to heaven, you know?  I sort of struggle to care.

Ban the sock, don't ban the sock, whatever.  It's fucking sad whatever action we take looking at it on Anthro's part and I don't know why he feels the need.  I routinely end up arguing stuff with JB, but it ends each time when the thread ends.  The trick to JB is to hold your own, no more and no less.  He posts a lot of valuable stuff, sometimes somewhat combatitively, take the good and stand up to anything you don't agree with and you're fine.

I don't think the case against sock-puppets has been made.

I fail to see why they're evil.  What's the problem if someone is so sad that they want to go to the extent of creating fictitious friends?  That really IS how the moderation started getting tighter at RPGnet.

I can't quite see why it's being done either. You could at least wait until we're all shouting "FFS, I can't stand it anymore ban the sock puppet!" The response in this thread seems to be more along the lines of "Sock puppet?"

And now everyone knows it's a sock, it seems even more pointless. Still, see you all at the bottom of the slippery slope holding the thick end of the wedge!

Ned

So then, Ned, what's you position on shills?  As in, guerilla marketing plants.

My position on shills: who cares?

EDIT: My more nuanced position on shills: If it becomes a problem, take action. If there's no problem, why take action?

Ned

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyMy position on shills: who cares?

EDIT: My more nuanced position on shills: If it becomes a problem, take action. If there's no problem, why take action?

Ned

So you're honestly not bothered by the idea that one's support of a product may be with less than honest intentions?  

It doesn't bother you for a board to descend into a situation where, like Evil Avatar, you half the time can't tell the honest opinions from the guys who're being paid to promote a product?

I'm a little incredulous, honestly, and find it hard to believe this is your position, unless you place far less significance on the trait of honesty than I do.

Rather than continue to beat around the bush though, I ask because the ultimate effect of both shills, and sockpuppets like Johnny/anthro is largely the same.

Quote from: J ArcaneSo you're honestly not bothered by the idea that one's support of a product may be with less than honest intentions?  

It doesn't bother you for a board to descend into a situation where, like Evil Avatar, you half the time can't tell the honest opinions from the guys who're being paid to promote a product?

I'm a little incredulous, honestly, and find it hard to believe this is your position, unless you place far less significance on the trait of honesty than I do.

Rather than continue to beat around the bush though, I ask because the ultimate effect of both shills, and sockpuppets like Johnny/anthro is largely the same.

I'm not here to be talked into buying something.

Ned

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyI'm not here to be talked into buying something.

Ned

So it wouldn't bother you in the least if tomorrow we found out that, say, droog isn't really an RQ fan, he's just being paid to promote it on the boards?

I've never known of shills being any more of a problem than non-financially motivated fanboys.  I've certainly never noticed shilling being a big problem here, there's certainly no groundswell of "Ban this filth!" sentiment towards either shills in particular or sock puppets in general.

It looks to me like people initially thought banning Anthro was a good idea, then the tide turned and people admitted that either they didn't care or didn't see why he should be banned.  Then Pundit re-enters the fray, gives no explanations for his thought processes and then posts an aggressive and heavy-handed by-law.

Frankly, it makes a bit of a sham of these "public consultation" threads if he's not even going to bother paying any attention to how people feel on a particular topic.

What difference would it make? He might be a seventeen foot tiger from Venus sent here by God to yank our chains, and I wouldn't know. I judge him by the content of his posts, just like everyone else. Paid or unpaid, he says what he says. Paid or unpaid, I read it and think "Good point!" or "Oh, shut up!" as required. Why would his being paid make a difference to that?

EDIT

Hey, let's extend this to socks, huh? Anthrobot posts something stupid. I read it and think "Boy, that was stupid." Johnny posts vigorously agreeing with Anthrobot. I read it and I think, "Hey, two stupids!" or now I think "There's that stupid sock puppet!"

What I DON'T think is "Blimey! Johnny agrees with Anthrobot? Maybe I was wrong! I should seriously go back and reconsider my reaction to Anthrobot's post! And while I'm at it, I think I'll pop down to the game shop and buy that Exalted Game that I Am A Shill was raving about in that thread about what a great game Exalted is!"

Ned

What fucking ever.

If you seriously don't understand the benefits of at least maintaining some semblance of fucking honesty on this board, then, frankly, fuck you.

I'm fine with the sockpuppet ban, I've explained why.  

I'm done.

Quite,  this isn't The New Yorker, it's a forum.  What do we care if people are getting paid to advocate certain positions?

If this was the kind of place that had personality cults and you had figures such as the likes of Steve D at TBP where a passing comment about something sends dozens of people to go and see shitty movies and single reviews can massively increase sales of indie titles then I think we'd have the right to be pissed off if it turned out that that person's influence was for sale but we don't have that kind of community.

Quote from: J ArcaneWhat fucking ever.

If you seriously don't understand the benefits of at least maintaining some semblance of fucking honesty on this board, then, frankly, fuck you.

I'm fine with the sockpuppet ban, I've explained why.  

I'm done.

Charming. I think it's a stupid idea and explained why and managed to do so without reverting to "fuck you": that means I win, doncha know.

Ned

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI don't think the case against sock-puppets has been made.

I fail to see why they're evil.  What's the problem if someone is so sad that they want to go to the extent of creating fictitious friends?  That really IS how the moderation started getting tighter at RPGnet.

At the most basic level, it is because posting on a forum is a Rhetorical game. Sockpuppeting is cheating at that game. I hate cheaters.

And yes, I could say blah blah blah about respecting ignore lists, and that'd be true too, or people escaping from bans, etc etc. (and they'd be true, too) But in the end, what really pisses me personally off is that; that its cheating.  That you score "points" here by having people agree with you and disagree with the other guy, and sockpuppets (along with a couple of other methods) are a "fake" way of scoring points. So that disgusts me.

Finally though, there's no GOOD reason for having a sockpuppet; and if there is, you can TELL THE ADMIN before you start sockpuppeting. If you have to hide what you're doing from the ADMIN, then you're probably doing something that's harmful to the site. Especially on this site, where free speech is not restricted, where you wouldn't need a sock to safely criticize someone, etc etc., odds are that the only reason you're going to have that sock is to be a shithead.

RPGPundit

I fail to see the relationship between shills and sock puppets anyway.  I could be receiving money to promote cetain views and could quite happily by viralling away without the need for a sock puppet.

A ban on sock puppets doesn't even begin to address the issue of shilling and the issue of shilling isn't a problem on these boards anyway.

Quote from: RPGPunditAt the most basic level, it is because posting on a forum is a Rhetorical game. Sockpuppeting is cheating at that game. I hate cheaters.

  You see conversations as something you can win and lose?

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyI can't quite see why it's being done either. You could at least wait until we're all shouting "FFS, I can't stand it anymore ban the sock puppet!" The response in this thread seems to be more along the lines of "Sock puppet?"

Because James already decided to get in on the fun and start posting with a sockpuppet to get around his Admin-imposed restrictions.
By the time people were saying "FFS ban the sockpuppet"; there'd be 20 of the fucking things, and it'd be much harder, and the site would have been seriously disrupted.

Because if people see Anthro isn't going to be punished for his one sockpuppet, what's to stop Joey McFucktard from making a dozen of the things, so he can pretend that other people agree with him about how Hindus are evil?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalQuite,  this isn't The New Yorker, it's a forum.  What do we care if people are getting paid to advocate certain positions?

Because if they don't tell you about it, they're actually being dishonest?

Of course, some groups here are dishonest every fucking time they breathe, so I guess they get less upset about things like liars and hypocrites than I do.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalYou see conversations as something you can win and lose?

I almost always win.

RPGPundit

I think we should ban personal attacks. Oh, it might not be a problem now, but before you know it the boards are gonna be over-run with people shouting "fuck you" at each other and blah blah blah.

Ned

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI fail to see the relationship between shills and sock puppets anyway.  I could be receiving money to promote cetain views and could quite happily by viralling away without the need for a sock puppet.

A ban on sock puppets doesn't even begin to address the issue of shilling and the issue of shilling isn't a problem on these boards anyway.

This being a small board with a lot of small-press games, the most common form of "shilling" will be if the designer of "Fantasy Heartbreaker X" were to start a thread about his game asking for "honest opinions", and then his Sockpuppet comes on to tell us all how "AMAZING" his game is.

Wait, actually, that's the second-most common form of shilling going on around here. The most common would be the dozens of Forge Swine who have come here for the sole and only purpose of trying to promote their Religion of Ron, and would love to administratively disrupt this site into oblivion if they could.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI almost always win.

Your criteria is that the person everyone agrees with wins ... and you think you almost always win.

So, just confirm this for me:  You believe that a large number of posters here agree with you most of the time.  Is that correct?

Quote from: RPGPunditBecause James already decided to get in on the fun and start posting with a sockpuppet to get around his Admin-imposed restrictions.
By the time people were saying "FFS ban the sockpuppet"; there'd be 20 of the fucking things, and it'd be much harder, and the site would have been seriously disrupted.

  Right... so there's one possible/probable sock puppet who is immediately recognised as a probably sock puppet.  Someone creates a second sock puppet to make a point and we go from this to averting a fictional apocalypse during which the entire forum becomes consumed by sock puppets.

  At the moment you're looking to legislate a non-existant problem in sweeping terms on the basis of a completely fictitious hypothetical situation.

  I still don't see what the problem is with people creating sock puppets.  The only way it could have been a problem is if the public consultation threads were democracies and you've made very clear from this particular one that they're not.

Quote from: RPGPunditI almost always win.

  ...and your mom thinks you're cool.

Quote from: RPGPunditBecause if people see Anthro isn't going to be punished for his one sockpuppet, what's to stop Joey McFucktard from making a dozen of the things, so he can pretend that other people agree with him about how Hindus are evil?

But I fear that all you may succeed in doing with this is goad people to do it in order just to spite you.  In the end, I think that public ridicule is much more effective than edicts from the mountain in curbing minor forms of unacceptable behavior.  This whole thing never struck me as rising to the level of importance demanding anything other than dismissive mockery.


TGA

Quote from: RPGPunditBecause if they don't tell you about it, they're actually being dishonest?

Of course, some groups here are dishonest every fucking time they breathe, so I guess they get less upset about things like liars and hypocrites than I do.

RPGPundit

Apparently.

Quote from: RPGPunditBecause if they don't tell you about it, they're actually being dishonest?

  So what?  it's a bloody forum.  My name isn't actually Mr. Jonathan Analytical, you know.  Besides which, how does this address people being dishonest?  I could be lying all the time about my tastes in games, what do you care?

Quote from: RPGPunditWait, actually, that's the second-most common form of shilling going on around here. The most common would be the dozens of Forge Swine who have come here for the sole and only purpose of trying to promote their Religion of Ron, and would love to administratively disrupt this site into oblivion if they could.

And you think there are people being paid money to do this?

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyI think we should ban personal attacks. Oh, it might not be a problem now, but before you know it the boards are gonna be over-run with people shouting "fuck you" at each other and blah blah blah.

Ned

That's a very different situation.  Incidentally, someone posting something that is ONLY a PA, in a thread not explicitly for that purpose, IS violating the rules of this site.

But whatever. You guys are creating a tornado in a bucket just to try to cause trouble for the site.  I'd say "If you don't like it, there's the door", but I get the feeling the whole reason you're here trying to cause trouble is BECAUSE you don't like this site. You would LOVE to see it drowned in sockpuppet accounts that make the site unmanageable, so that you could go back to the Forge or Storygames or RPG.net or whatever hole you emerged from to squeal about the "failure" of theRPGsite.

So pardon me if I value your opinion at slightly less than that of a turd floating down the River Plate.

RPGPundit

I win again!

Ned

This is rapidly moving out of "legislate the worst possible case scenario" and into "legislate Pundit's paranoid fantasies out of existence"

Quote from: TonyLBYour criteria is that the person everyone agrees with wins ... and you think you almost always win.

So, just confirm this for me:  You believe that a large number of posters here agree with you most of the time.  Is that correct?

I believe that a large amount of roleplayers agree with me in general. That's why this site exists.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalSo what?  it's a bloody forum.  My name isn't actually Mr. Jonathan Analytical, you know.  Besides which, how does this address people being dishonest?  I could be lying all the time about my tastes in games, what do you care?

Oh trust me, I know how much you lie, and I think you're pathetic for it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's a very different situation.  Incidentally, someone posting something that is ONLY a PA, in a thread not explicitly for that purpose, IS violating the rules of this site.

  Shall I start the Public Consultation regarding the banning of J Arcane or do you want to?

  For someone who has been excluded on the basis of silly moderation in the past AND who has been vocal in his desire to do things differently, you seem hell-bent on sending this forum down the path of tighter moderation in the face of opposition from its posters.

Quote from: RPGPunditI believe that a large amount of roleplayers agree with me in general.

That wasn't what I was asking.  Do you think that a large number of posters here agree with what you say in specific?

Quote from: RPGPunditOh trust me, I know how much you lie, and I think you're pathetic for it.

  You really are a silly little man.

Quote from: TonyLBAnd you think there are people being paid money to do this?

No, you're doing it entirely out of devotion to your religious movement. I guess that's a form of "spiritual" payment... its the same reason you Swine do anything related to RPGs: to feel better about yourselves for being such abject failures as human beings.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalShall I start the Public Consultation regarding the banning of J Arcane or do you want to?

  For someone who has been excluded on the basis of silly moderation in the past AND who has been vocal in his desire to do things differently, you seem hell-bent on sending this forum down the path of tighter moderation in the face of opposition from its posters.

No, YOU seem hell-bent on trying to turn an administrative issue into a way to score points for the Forge Swine by making it look like I'm being all authoritarian.

Authoritarian would be if I banned every one of you pathetic fuckers who are only on here to try to subvert or destroy the site. As long as I don't do that, as long as you guys can actively try your hardest to ruin this site and I keep trusting in the ability of the rest of the posters to stop you, this site isn't authoritarian.  Banning people's imaginary friends, all that does is make it a little harder for people like you to destroy this site.

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBThat wasn't what I was asking.  Do you think that a large number of posters here agree with what you say in specific?

Far more than agree with you.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI believe that a large amount of roleplayers agree with me in general. That's why this site exists.

RPGPundit

 I find your opinions on role playing games mostly agreeable , on other things I think you might be full of crap. BUT, this is a site about role playing games - not that other stuff. So, its not a big concern.

 In my earlier post where I said you should ban the sock puppet accounts ...I did mean after verification that they actually were sock puppet accounts.  Those things just create clutter in what are  otherwise good and interesting conversations.

- E.W.C.

Quote from: RPGPunditFar more than agree with you.

Wasn't what I was asking.  We can both be crackpots that nobody agrees with.  Do you think that a large number of posters here agree with what you say in specific?

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, you're doing it entirely out of devotion to your religious movement.

So ... people who are expressing their opinions because they believe them to be true are shills if those opinions differ from yours?

I do not think that the word "shill" means what you think it means.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, YOU seem hell-bent on trying to turn an administrative issue into a way to score points for the Forge Swine by making it look like I'm being all authoritarian.

  Seriously dude... you've lost it.  I don't even know if the Forge is still running, did they not close the forums?  I posted briefly on the Forge about 3 years ago when I picked up a long ban on TBP but I spent the entire time railing againt their theory.  I've spoken out a number of times both here and on TBP about how much of a cult I think the Forge is.

  You really have lost it if you think I'm a Forgite by any stretch of the imagination.  I seriously mean it... you're seeing enemies that aren't there.

  I had no agenda in posting to this thread other than to, as is my right as a poster here, add my oar to the matter of Anthro's banning.  If I'm calling you authoritarian it's because you're not listening and you're starting to legislate against things that aren't happening and now you're claiming Forge-based conspiracies.

  Dude... you're starting to scare me.

Quote from: TonyLBWasn't what I was asking.  We can both be crackpots that nobody agrees with.  Do you think that a large number of posters here agree with what you say in specific?

Yes, Tony. Otherwise, they'd be flocking to you to make a site, and this place would be the Forge or Storygames part III.

Face it, I'm taking down three of you with Rhetoric-fu at once right now. You're all pathetic.  That's why I don't need to worry about banning you all for being here only to subvert the site; the fact that you're all Swine who actually despise this place (see? your very reason for being here is dishonest!), want to do it harm, becomes irrelevant in light of your utter incompetence and inability to do anything to this place.

Read my lips, fucker: AS LONG AS I'M IN CHARGE, THIS PLACE WILL NEVER BE WHAT YOU WANT IT TO BE.

And why am I in charge? Because thousands of people have come to this site saying "thank god, someone is finally standing up to them".

RPGPundit

Quote from: TonyLBSo ... people who are expressing their opinions because they believe them to be true are shills if those opinions differ from yours?

I do not think that the word "shill" means what you think it means.

No, you're a shill because you're here only to promote the Forge and Forge Theory, and you're a saboteur because for the same reason you're trying to do as much harm as possible to this place and disrupt its smooth running.

Is that clear enough for you? Its not the "differing opinion", its the LYING ABOUT WHO YOU ARE AND WHY YOU'RE HERE.

RPGPundit

Right.

So, what exactly does Tony want this place to become Pundit?

Quote from: RPGPunditFace it, I'm taking down three of you with Rhetoric-fu at once right now.

No you're not, you're ranting and raving like Hitler in the bunker. You haven't taken down anyone - you've shot yourself in the foot a few times though.

Ned

Pundit:  Cool.  :win:  I was wondering whether that was how you saw things, and now I know.  Thanks for the clear answer.

I can keep playing this game, and beating you at it, for as long as you want, motherfuckers.

You BOTH would ideally want this place destroyed, so you could claim that people can't run themselves, and that there's no "serious" interest in making RPG fora about something other than Swine games.  

WE ALL KNOW THAT. Everyone knows why people like you, Tony, and Ned are here. You aren't fooling anyone, motherfuckers. And you're going to fail at what you're trying to do.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ned the Lonely DonkeyNo you're not, you're ranting and raving like Hitler in the bunker. You haven't taken down anyone - you've shot yourself in the foot a few times though.

Ned

No, but you guys sure have helped make your role and purpose on this site much clearer to the population at large, bitch.

RPGPundit

What a bizarre outburst! I used to think it was all an act, but maybe you ARE crazy.

Ned

I'll say this about The RPGSite over TBP.  When Cessna gets annoyed at you he generally ignores you or bans you but he never loses it and starts railing against an invisible conspiracy to destroy the forums.

What is up with you today Pundit, have you been drinking or something?

Oh yeah; I'm batshit insane. I have to be for creating a website that values free speech and lack of moderation so much that when I institute an administrative policy that EVERY OTHER LEGITIMATE FORUM has (ie. no sockpuppets), I allow vile little pieces of shit like the three of you to continue to try to use that as a pathetic tactic to insult me and subvert the site.  That's how much I value free speech: I allow you to exist.  And I have to be crazy to do so, knowing that the only reason you are here is to attack me personally and try to destroy this site in general. But I do it anyways, because, you know, freedom is more important, and I won't become like all of you are just to fight you.

Its insane enough to win, because Truth beats out slimy little worms spewing baseless poison every time.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI'll say this about The RPGSite over TBP.  When Cessna gets annoyed at you he generally ignores you or bans you but he never loses it and starts railing against an invisible conspiracy to destroy the forums.

What is up with you today Pundit, have you been drinking or something?

Its not invisible. You guys have all made it nicely visible on this thread.

I mean come on, how pathetic is this: Sock puppets? You're really going to try to bring down theRPGsite by claiming that I've turned into a fascist because I won't allow everyone to have 20 sock puppets? What's next, is the "Reply" function clearly a sign that I've sold out?

Pathetic.

RPGPundit

What's the difference between a legitimate forum and a non-legitimate forum?  is there some government body that we need to sign up to in order to gain legitimacy?

The point I was trying to raise is that at the moment, there is no problem with sock puppets.  In fact, it's not completely clear what the problem with sock puppets actually is, especially seeing as Anthro managed to completely sink his credibility on this site by creating a sock puppet.

I and a number of others point this out and you completely ignore the public consultation exercise and then start going mental when I call you on it and you've gone from merely being zealous in your desire to moderate to coming across like Hitler ranting and raving in his bunker about conspiracies and betrayals.

For someone who places such value of his "rhetoric-fu" you've fallen at the first hurdle of not having some kind of weird psychotic episode when people
disagree with you.

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean come on, how pathetic is this: Sock puppets? You're really going to try to bring down theRPGsite by claiming that I've turned into a fascist because I won't allow everyone to have 20 sock puppets?

  At the moment you're coming across as unhinged rather than a fascist.

  Having a system of Public Consultations and then not only ignoring them but accusing people that call you on it of being Forgite spies plotting to destroy the forums sounds to me like the type of behaviour you'd associate with Stalin before he signed a few death warrants.  How long did your finger hover over the ban button a few moments ago?

  If you're really devoted to doing things differently to TBP and The Forge then you'd take a look at the way public opinion was heading in this thread and stand down from the incredibly aggressive rules declaration you posted.

  I actually think that your reaction to this might be related to your having been sock puppeted by me and a few others back when you were refusing to register and be ignored at RPGnet.

  If there's a case against sock puppets then let it be made.  At the moment I'm getting non-sensical worse case scenarios, some unclear stuff about shills and a very distinct impression that you don't want to discuss this issue.  I don't think you're being rational here and your behaviour in this thread stands testament to this.

Go ask RPG.net, the Forge, ENworld, Wizards, SJ Games, and pretty well every other internet forum that actually functions, what the problem is with sock puppets.

The problem is clear to absolutely everyone but you, Analytical; except that I think its PATENTLY clear to you too, and you are simply lying because it is convenient to you to try to create trouble.

So come on, what next? Am I Hitler for not allowing people to post hard-core pornography on the site? What about for banning spambots? Is avatar-technology filled with the devil? What other nonsense are you going to spew in your desperate attempt to discredit this site, and the sorry reality of discrediting yourself?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalHaving a system of Public Consultations and then not only ignoring them but accusing people that call you on it of being Forgite spies plotting to destroy the forums sounds to me like the type of behaviour you'd associate with Stalin before he signed a few death warrants.  How long did your finger hover over the ban button a few moments ago?

No, see, the opinions of people who really matter, ie. the people who are here because they actually give a shit about this site, was counted. I was mad, and wanted to ban Anthrobot for refusing to come clean about having the sockpuppet, but the cooler heads of the site's legitimate honest posters prevailed, and I let go of that idea, and focused on what was really important, namely the sockpuppet problem.

Then come the subversives, late for the party at that, and try to pretend that theres some grand consensus for us not banning sockpuppets, like somehow doing that would make this site better, when all of internet forum history has demostrated that sockpuppetry is one of the biggest problems that can ruin a forum's readability, and use this whole issue as yet another part of their seemingly neverending crusade to try to undermine this site.

As for how often my finger hovered over the ban button? Never. I don't need to ban you show people how much of a spineless doubletalking filthbag you are.

QuoteIf you're really devoted to doing things differently to TBP and The Forge then you'd take a look at the way public opinion was heading in this thread and stand down from the incredibly aggressive rules declaration you posted.

Yes, right, "no sockpuppets" is "incredibly aggressive".  Right up there with such classic fascist themes as "no spambots" and "you're not allowed to post child porn on here"!

QuoteI actually think that your reaction to this might be related to your having been sock puppeted by me and a few others back when you were refusing to register and be ignored at RPGnet.

Holy shit, was that you?? Wow.. I'd forgotten who it was who'd done it, but now.. wow, it all sort of makes sense now. Here I hadn't figured out who you were, but you've been hating me, for all this looooooong time, you hated me so much you tried to fake being me to ruin my reputation, and you've kept nursing that hatred this whole time, to the point that now you're on here, trying to fuck up this site... jesus, you must be bitter.

QuoteIf there's a case against sock puppets then let it be made.  At the moment I'm getting non-sensical worse case scenarios, some unclear stuff about shills and a very distinct impression that you don't want to discuss this issue.  I don't think you're being rational here and your behaviour in this thread stands testament to this.

The discussion has been had, its been done. Name ONE fucking legitimate reason why there should be sockpuppets on here without prior knowledge of the Admins, ONE good use someone could possibly have for them, yet at the same time would have reason to hide it from the Admins?

That's the fucking argument right there, secret sockpuppets have no clear function that isn't meant to be disruptive of the site.

I mean JESUS FUCK, this is actually the most lax set of rules on sockpuppets on any gaming forum on the internet worth mentioning! I HAVEN'T EVEN SAID THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED.  If you have a reason to have one, and ask for permission from the Admin first, you can have one.



RPGPundit

I'm with Pundit here.  I can't think of a single rational reason for opposing a ban on sockpuppets that isn't malicious

Quote from: StumpydaveWhilst i agree with the sentiment I don't think you could ban either parties (assuming they are separate individuals - gotta love that benefit of the doubt!) for "intentionally lying".  You have no proof that either party has ever lied beyond your own suspicions.
Hell, its your site - end of the day, you don't need a reason - but I'd warn you against allowing your emotion to cloud your judgement in this, or any, matter.

Why should I reveal private information so that the likes of Jimknob can follow me around flaming/trolling and hounding me?:raise:
Pundit seems the kind of guy that lives in certainty of his delusions/beliefs. No evidence that I could present would change his mind. He will unfailingly listen to his lap poodle Jimknob's inconsistent ramblings.:rolleyes:
Stumpydave, you are damn right. Pundit doesn't need a reason to ban me or my brother. He's the mod. Jimknob acts like a mod but he ain't and that is sadder than spurious glove puppetry.
So go ahead Pundit and ban me. Prove that you are the narcissistic arsehole that I first thought you were!:D

If I'm arguing with you Pundit, it's for the same reasons that I once-upon-a-time argued with Cessna; because I'm a member of this community and I care about where it's heading.

I don't doubt that it's received wisdom that sock puppets are bad, I'm just not completely clear on why they are for the reasons discussed above.  I know for a fact that TBP used to be tolerant of alts.

As for discrediting my reputation, my reputation is pretty much dirt in RPG circles anyway.  
 
I'm also not clear on what it is that I'm supposed to be lying about.  I know that I'll frequently pick up an idea and see how far I can run with it but I don't think I've bullshitted anyone in this particular thread :-)

Well, go on, I'm waiting.

RPGPundit

Actually I'm not bitter towards you Pundit.  I actually felt bad about what I did at RPGnet as it was a joke that backfired somewhat spectacularly and looking back, I'm amased that I didn't get a permaban right there.  For what it's worth, I actually apologise about that.

I really don't have any ulterior motive towards you Pundit because I don't really take a huge interest in the goings on in RPG world.  Until Balbinus mentionned that you'd started up this new place with laxer moderation I hadn't thought about you in ages (largely because you weren't on RPGnet and  I hadn't been for over a year at that point either).  By and large I see you as a mildly amusing boob... a kind of walking charicature and agent provocateur and you know... good luck with that.

What we have here is a political disagreement over moderation policy.

Not a plot.

Not a conspiracy.

But a disagreement.

If someone can explain to me the problem, in principle, with sock puppets then I'll be happy but I don't think the case has been made and if this forum is going to proudly proclaim its lack of moderation then I think, out of principle, that a case should be made before any new rules are brought in.

See, what we have right here, with Mr. A, is actualyl fantastic example of how lenient to the point of lunacy Pundit is.

We've got a poster here who has publicly professed that he hates gamers, does little to nothing on the board but trash everything, and has in the past used a sockpuppet to slander the forum's administrator.

And yet he's not banned.  

Real fascism there.  

I also find it interesting that Mr. A claims not to see the potential negative effects of sockpuppeting, when, once again, he admits to having once used a sock puppet to slander the very admin of this website.

I mean sweet fuck.  I never took "Let not your left hand know what the right" is doing as literal . . .

Quote from: AnthrobotWhy should I reveal private information so that the likes of Jimknob can follow me around flaming/trolling and hounding me?:raise:
Pundit seems the kind of guy that lives in certainty of his delusions/beliefs. No evidence that I could present would change his mind. He will unfailingly listen to his lap poodle Jimknob's inconsistent ramblings.:rolleyes:
Stumpydave, you are damn right. Pundit doesn't need a reason to ban me or my brother. He's the mod. Jimknob acts like a mod but he ain't and that is sadder than spurious glove puppetry.
So go ahead Pundit and ban me. Prove that you are the narcissistic arsehole that I first thought you were!:D

My heart weeps for you. We will avenge your banning and bring justice upon Pundit and his reign of terror. Jimbob will also know the wrath of sockland and repent of his unclean ways. You will be the shinning light in our third-eye as the right hand of balance swings its great sword down and does honor upon God's great martyr.;)

Quote from: McrowMy heart weeps for you. We will avenge your banning and bring justice upon Pundit and his reign of terror. Jimbob will also know the wrath of sockland and repent of his unclean ways. You will be the shinning light in our third-eye as the right hand of balance swings its great sword down and does honor upon God's great martyr.;)

I hate Internet martyrs.

I didn't use a sockpuppet.

At the time, Pundit was posting as an NPC.  His style got a number of people riled and someone started a thread calling upon him to register so that he could be added to people's ignore lists.  After a while, someone (it was never established who publically), started posting in Pundit's style but expressing more and more outlandish opinions.  What I did was take the joke too far and have the NPC Pundit say something horrid.  I then thought better of it and logged back in to edit the reply to say it was me but by that time the mods had locked on it was too late.

If you want someone to speak about why we shouldn't have unregistered posting, I'll fight your corner.  If you want someone to speak in favour of why pretending to be someone else, even for the purposes of a joke, is a bad idea, I'll also fight your corner.

But that's as unrelated to shills as sock puppets are.  And by the way, I don't have any sock puppets and you can check the IP logs if you want proof of that.

I can clearly see what J Arcane just said...

yet I have to agree that the Pundit has gone a little frothy at the mouth here. Ban the sockpuppet if you like, won't affect me either way.  Though Anthro made weak allusion that Johnny is actually his brother, whatever.

But for Doug's sake, don't get into screaming ranting rages about how you are whupping everyone with your rhetorical-fu, and how these conspiracies to bring you down and and and....

First of all, declaring you win in a debate/rhetorical match is meaningless posturing.  Second, you lose points with your audience when you go entirely wacko on us...

See, I step away from the thread for  a good night sleep and what happens? I'm late to the real show...

QuoteI actually think that your reaction to this might be related to your having been sock puppeted by me and a few others back when you were refusing to register and be ignored at RPGnet.

I'm just usin' your words, not mine.

Fair enough, but it wasn't really a sock puppeting that was a poor choice of words on my part.  It was more short-term identity theft if anything.  I just think that this whole area's a touchy subject for Pundit because clearly, he's not looking at it rationally.

I don't see what the big deal is. Anthro can continue to post, sockpuppets are not allowed...how the hell is freedom of speech in any real danger? What is the big deal?

Mr.A, I don't know the episode where you used a sockpuppet at tBP, but surely you get that this kind of nonsense (using sockpuppets) is disruptive to the site.

Regards,
David R

It's unrelated to the stunt I pulled at TBP.

My point is one of principle.  I'm not speaking out in favour of sock puppets.  I'm speaking out against the rush to legislate and solve problems that aren't even there.

I'm in favour of the existing system continuing.  If someone is out of hand, stick up a PC thread and judge it on a case by case basis.  TBP is an example of what happens once you start worrying about rules and regulations.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI'm in favour of the existing system continuing.  If someone is out of hand, stick up a PC thread and judge it on a case by case basis.  TBP is an example of what happens once you start worrying about rules and regulations.

So, you are sayin' that Anthro's alleged sockpuppet should be banned/deleted but the Pundit should not make a ruling on sockpuppets.

Regards,
David R

If you want my nuanced opinion...

I think that the sock puppet doesn't enter into it.  From my point of view, there's no problem with sock puppets, the problem's with Anthro letting his dislike of JimBob roam freely over a number of different threads.  In fact, he's currently off being a dick in another thread right now.

Should we ban him?  I'm not sure but I think there's more and more of a case for it with each passing post in which he's a prick.

But yes... in the short of it, I think that the relationship between a community and its administrators is best served by the current structure than by a rigid set of rules.

Anthro's a prick therefore there's a case for banning him.  Once you get into rules then you have to tailor the rules to rule out the right kind of behaviour and if you don't then those loosely words rules hang around for someone else to fall foul of.

I'm sure this is boring but it's at the root of my unease over this.  I'm happier with a democracy than a constitutional republic :-)

Mr.A I get what you are saying. But for me, there would be an issue if Pundit was going to ban Anthro for being a prick. I have no problem with Pundit legislating the manner (in this case sockpuppets) in which folks express their prickishness.

Regards,
David R

@Pundit:

Banning a Sockpuppet is stupid. Because the cheating already is impossible once you know it.

So for god´s sake, let the rhetorical game not be waged purely by internet personae, but by, you know :

fucking arguments!

It doesn´t matter who makes the argument. it´s merits aren´t improved if somebody sockpuppets to back them up. Once disclosed it takes away all credibility from the puppeteer as well as let him look foolish.

So:
uncover the socks, and put them into shame mode, buit doen´t ban them.

Socks are only "dangerous" if they aren´t uncovered AND you are concerned with who makes which argument more than about the actual argument.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalActually I'm not bitter towards you Pundit.  I actually felt bad about what I did at RPGnet as it was a joke that backfired somewhat spectacularly and looking back, I'm amased that I didn't get a permaban right there.  For what it's worth, I actually apologise about that.

I really don't have any ulterior motive towards you Pundit because I don't really take a huge interest in the goings on in RPG world.  Until Balbinus mentionned that you'd started up this new place with laxer moderation I hadn't thought about you in ages (largely because you weren't on RPGnet and  I hadn't been for over a year at that point either).  By and large I see you as a mildly amusing boob... a kind of walking charicature and agent provocateur and you know... good luck with that.

What we have here is a political disagreement over moderation policy.

Not a plot.

Not a conspiracy.

But a disagreement.

If someone can explain to me the problem, in principle, with sock puppets then I'll be happy but I don't think the case has been made and if this forum is going to proudly proclaim its lack of moderation then I think, out of principle, that a case should be made before any new rules are brought in.

For the record, I accept your apology; I believe I accepted it way back when it happened.

Now, I challenged you; tell me one legitimate use for someone having a (secret from the Admins) sockpuppet.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SpikeI can clearly see what J Arcane just said...

yet I have to agree that the Pundit has gone a little frothy at the mouth here. Ban the sockpuppet if you like, won't affect me either way.  Though Anthro made weak allusion that Johnny is actually his brother, whatever.

Only after I had suggested it on another thread. Too little, too late.

Could it be theoretically possible that Anthro and Johnny both decided just to be argumentative and give no good reason for days for the apparent sockpuppet? Sure, but if that's the case, well, tough for them.  When an issue like this comes up, it is clearly serious enough that multiple PMs are sent, and not one but two threads are started on the subject, and you are given days to give a good explanation, and you choose not to, then frankly you deserve what's coming to you.

RPGPundit

I endorse post #76 by Ned the Lonely Donkey.

However, I also dislike boring people and phonies. That's two strikes against AnthroJohnny right there. -> banz0r

I think the Pundit made a reasonable decision here.  Like he said - it's not uncommon for forums to disallow sockpuppets.

Quote from: RPGPunditOnly after I had suggested it on another thread. Too little, too late.

Could it be theoretically possible that Anthro and Johnny both decided just to be argumentative and give no good reason for days for the apparent sockpuppet? Sure, but if that's the case, well, tough for them.  When an issue like this comes up, it is clearly serious enough that multiple PMs are sent, and not one but two threads are started on the subject, and you are given days to give a good explanation, and you choose not to, then frankly you deserve what's coming to you.

RPGPundit

I could stress the Weak portion of 'weak allusion' if that would clear it up. ;)

I'm not at all arguing that Anthro/Johnny are in the right. I'm saying when you get into multipage arguements where you are essentially shounting, ranting and raving and chewing the scenery, especially when your 'opponents' are presenting more reasoned sounding comments... not to suggest right.... then you  look like a loon. Not a rhetorical winner, a loon.  

That was my point with that post.

Not one of them presented a single "reasoned sounding comment": Not one of them gave any reason why this site should allow spambots. What they did was several pages of attacking for attacking's sake, in the hopes of creating controversy and resistance to a policy that every other sane messageboard applies, just to try to wreck havoc with this site. Not surprising that I'd get a little mad.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNot one of them presented a single "reasoned sounding comment": Not one of them gave any reason why this site should allow spambots. What they did was several pages of attacking for attacking's sake, in the hopes of creating controversy and resistance to a policy that every other sane messageboard applies, just to try to wreck havoc with this site. Not surprising that I'd get a little mad.

RPGPundit

You sound reasonable only if you apply blinkers that bias you not to see Jimknobz attacking for attackings sake, and being a complete hypocrite.Ban me if you like. But think of how many personae I may have slipped past your shallow gaze. You will never really be certain that anyone attacking Jimknobz or you is really me or one of my brood. Now doesn't that make you paranoid? Pundit?:raise:

:pundit:

Quote from: RPGPunditNot surprising that I'd get a little mad.RPGPundit

Pundit, you just made my day. thank you and goodbye. I've gained some cash from your little statement.:D :D :D :D :haw: :D :D :haw:
For the record my name is Legion.:raise::D

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI endorse post #76 by Ned the Lonely Donkey.

However, I also dislike boring people and phonies. That's two strikes against Jimknobz and Pierce Invalidus right there. -> banz0r

:p

Anthro, did you bother to read the "conclusions" to this issue? You are not going to be banned. "Johnny" was banned, of course.

I actually liked your posts a lot before all of this happened. I hope maybe you'll be able to put all this behind you, take a couple of deep breaths regarding Jimbob (IL him if you think you really can't look at one of his posts without getting ranty), and get back to being the valuable member of the site that I felt you were.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNot one of them presented a single "reasoned sounding comment": Not one of them gave any reason why this site should allow spambots. What they did was several pages of attacking for attacking's sake, in the hopes of creating controversy and resistance to a policy that every other sane messageboard applies, just to try to wreck havoc with this site. Not surprising that I'd get a little mad.

  Actually some of us post from work and some of us have private lives.

  I do have a reason for why sock puppets are a good thing but it's kind of unconventional.  If you read JG Ballard's Cocaine Nights or Supercannes you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about.  Essentially, I think that every community benefits from a rogue element.  I think that people using sock puppets whether for the purposes of a short term joke or a rant or a period of taking on a different persona for a while benefits both individual members of a community and the community as a whole.

  RPGnet for example, has both developed standards that lots of people don't want to comply with but they've also essentially shut out many of the more memorable and amusing loonies that made the place a little more interesting.

  For example, you completely losing it this afternoon was one of the most entertaining and memorable things to have happened on this site since I've arrived.  It adds spice to proceedings, makes it interesting.  

  But mainly, I think that as a matter of government whether in the real world or the online world, you're better off not legislating unless you're absolutely forced to.

Mr A is currently playing DnD, has played Runequest, Savage Worlds, Te Deum, a fair bit of CoC.

He is in no way a Forgeite.

Ned plays a fair bit of DnD, has also to my knowledge played CoC and a bit of Unisystem.  Likewise.

Both these are guys I have gamed with or do game with, as are a few others here off and on and from time to time.  None of them are Forgeites.

Though to be honest I'd happily roll a few dice with any of the Forgey guys too, whatever.

Anyway, if those guys disagree it's just because they disagree, it's not some bizarre internet conspiracy.  Tony is one of the most reasonable and honest posters I know, if he disagrees then likewise.

Of course, I am paid to say all this by Ron Edwards, who posts here as... oops, almost gave it away...

Wow, I just came across this thread from the stickie post and am trying to catch up.  Three big questions:

1) "who are under certain restrictions (like James)". Um, "restrictions"? Huh?
2) When did Settembrini join the super secret Forge/RPGnet/Illuminati conspiracy to sink theRPGsite and why wasn't a copy of the secret memo circulated to me?
3) Is #2 why I basically agree with Settembrini's post? :raise: ;)

I don't know. Just give Johnny and Anthro Avatars that say "A member of Anthro's tightly knit [wool] family", or a "sharing an IP" and let him/his brother post with the Johnny account. Same with any other accounts sharing IPs. Socks only have power when they are unknown and even if unknown only if you care about some sort of bullshit popularity contest and think numbers make you right. I know that's why you care Pundit but you lose. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)

Well I guess if you make a habit of banning people it could be an issue? But that isn't happening here, is it? What's the ban numbers now? If you are handing out "certain restrictions" anyway to a select group (I am curious how big that group is) just top those restrictions up with one more restriction of not being able to share an IP under any circumstances (I'd hope such are rare and they did something really, really shitty to earn it). *shrug*

Done and done. Earth shaking calamity that never existed is successfully averted.

Quote from: BalbinusOf course, I am paid to say all this by Ron Edwards, who posts here as... oops, almost gave it away...

Well since it's already been hinted at (thank you very much Balbinus)...I am Ron Edwards. I now demand a sub forum of my own, I also think we should shut down the theory section, make droog a mod....

All the best,
Uncle Ron

Wow I guess I am pretty thick skinned, because I could care less if some choad decides to register 600 accounts to discuss how worthless I am. If he wants to put that much effort into it, hey I'm flattered.

But all this is turning out to be is a big circle jerk, and for what? Ya'll niggahs ain't about shee-it.

Quote from: David RWell since it's already been hinted at (thank you very much Balbinus)...I am Ron Edwards. I now demand a sub forum of my own, I also think we should shut down the theory section, make droog a mod....

All the best,
Uncle Ron

As Ron's brother, Prof. Cornfed, I fully confer my agreement!

We already have "rogue elements" on this forum. We have three basic types of people here,

• People who post about rpgs
• People who post insane shit
• People who a little of both.

Generally on forums, the second kind of guy gets banned. Here, not. We are most fond of the first type of poster, they're most useful. We're ambivalent about the last type - see for example Dominus Nox.

Mr. Analytical keeps asking what is wrong "in principle" with sockpuppets. There is nothing wrong in principle with sockpuppets, but there is a lot wrong in practice with it. We are discussing here not abstruse philosophy, but "how to moderate a forum", which is practice, not principle.

In practice sockpuppets are bad because,

• They bloat the membership numbers of the forum, so we don't have a true idea of how many contributing members we have.
• Which gives other forums a basis for mocking the forum. "Sure they have 1,000 members, but 800 of them are sockpuppets!"
• By acting as a shield that a regular poster can attack another from behind, or post insane shit, they encourage attacks and insane shit. Though probably we don't want to ban attacks and insane shit, probably we don't want to encourage it.
  
• They give the illusion of a consensus in the discussion, "hey, most of them are saying X in that thread," when in fact there is none. So you don't get to find out what people actually think, defeating the purpose of a forum.
• Combining the encouragement of attacks and insane shit with the illusion of consensus, what you get is that people come to look at the forum and say, "wooah, nothing but attacks and insane shit there!" So the most polite and sane people don't join the forum.

This is absolutely a freedom of speech issue. But freedom of speech is not simply the absence of all restraints; for it to have any meaning, a place of discussion must be uncluttered, so that people actually have a chance to speak. That's why in parliament when a guy gets up to speak, if anyone interrupts him a lot, the Speaker of the House tells them to shut the fuck up. Likewise, a person here can say what they want - but just from one account, because multiple accounts contribute to an atmosphere in the place which is detrimental to the free exercise of our speech.

I do not think you can in all seriousness claim RPGPundit is some kind of fascist for banning sockpuppets. Consider seriously the sorts of things posted in this forum. Hell, just consider this thread. Can you imagine this thread being started at any other forum? Would the mods consult the members at rpg.net, or story-games, or the Forge, or ENWorld? If, during those consultations whcih would never hapen, the members threw personal abuse at the mods, as Mr. Anaytical and others have at RPGPundit, what would happen then?

Enjoy your freedom here, but not in such a way as to piss on that of others. Constant attacks and insane shit, combined with sockpuppeting, does not contribute to an atmosphere of free and open discussion. Don't be a cocksmock. Talk about rpgs, and just from one account.

Quote from: blakkieAs Ron's brother, Prof. Cornfed, I fully confer my agreement!

Say aren't you supposed to be home, makin' the koolaid...

Trying to make you better gamers,
Uncle Ron

Quote from: JimBobOzMr. Analytical keeps asking what is wrong "in principle" with sockpuppets. There is nothing wrong in principle with sockpuppets, but there is a lot wrong in practice with it. We are discussing here not abstruse philosophy, but "how to moderate a forum", which is practice, not principle.

In practice sockpuppets are bad because,

• They bloat the membership numbers of the forum, so we don't have a true idea of how many contributing members we have.
• Which gives other forums a basis for mocking the forum. "Sure they have 1,000 members, but 800 of them are sockpuppets!"
• By acting as a shield that a regular poster can attack another from behind, or post insane shit, they encourage attacks and insane shit. Though probably we don't want to ban attacks and insane shit, probably we don't want to encourage it.
  
• They give the illusion of a consensus in the discussion, "hey, most of them are saying X in that thread," when in fact there is none. So you don't get to find out what people actually think, defeating the purpose of a forum.
• Combining the encouragement of attacks and insane shit with the illusion of consensus, what you get is that people come to look at the forum and say, "wooah, nothing but attacks and insane shit there!" So the most polite and sane people don't join the forum.

  The whole point is that this debate is principle.  In practice we have two sock puppets, both of them known and one of them was only created to make a point.  In PRACTICE we don't have a sock puppet problem. That's part of my point, and for someone who thinks that running a forum is about practice rather than principle, I fail to remember you saying that when the people on here were calling the mods over at RPGnet fascists on your behalf.

  A community whether it's online or not needs to be governed in line with certain principles.  Those principles inform all the practical judgements you're looking to make.  I just wanted us to be clear about what principles were moving us to curtail freedoms here... even if it's an unimportant and essentially worthless freedom.  I remind the group that the sock puppet issue is the one that brought NPC posting on RPGnet to an end and, as such, is one of the historical rubicons that TBP had to cross to get to its current degenerate state.

  As for your practical objections to sock puppets :

1 - A) who cares what exact number of posters we have?  B) If someone contributes 50 posts through each of two accounts, why is that less valuable than one account that contributes 100?

2 - If people post insane shit, we deal with it.  Are you seriously suggesting pre-emptive rule enforcement?  that really is TBP-speak.  What's next, passive-agressive trolling?

3 - As has been formulated by m'learned friends previously, why does it matter if different personalities appear to agree with a certain idea?  surely it should be the quality of argument that people should be looking to read?  if someone makes 2 good points through each of 2 accounts, why is that a problem compared to his making 2 through 1 account?

4 - Well I don't agree with your second or your third argument so I'm not going to buy into any argument that uses them as assumptions but why should you care what other people think about a forum?


If people start pulling shit through sock puppets, you deal with the person pulling the shit.  To legislate the means through which people might pull shit is short-sighted, needlessly legalistic and a waste of time.

EDIT : Besides which JimBob you're not a bloody mod here so stop telling us all what to do!

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThe whole point is that this debate is principle. In practice we have two sock puppets, both of them known and one of them was only created to make a point. In PRACTICE we don't have a sock puppet problem.

Well... two that are very obvious.

To know how many there are for sure the admin staff would need to:
* Check IP addresses for matches
* Check IP addresses for anonymous proxies

I think someone alluded to anonymous proxies being a way around IP bans and sock puppet restrictions...

More vbulletin add-ons that might be helpful:

Multiple account login detector (AE Detector) (http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=107566)
"If someone logged into more than one account, you get a PM letting you know that your site was being accessed from multiple accounts."

Proxy to Real IP Conversion (http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=120082)
"This hack makes the forum always use the members real ip when a proxy is detected, meaning that all existing ip functions should continue to work, basically ignoring the proxy server (other than recording it's presence). "

Check Proxy RBL on New User Registration (http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=131852)
"Compares the IP address of the person registering with the Realtime Block List(s) of your choice."

Banned users (and sockpuppeteers) often get around IP bans by simply using an open proxy - of which there are thousands - to get around the IP ban. Very few legitimate users slow their surfing by using an anonymous proxy.

The mind boggles... it really does.  This place boasts and preens over its lack of moderation and someone appears, is unpleasant to a guy who's quite unpleasant in his own right and now we're not only bringing in sweeping new laws but new technologies to enforce them too.

If you guys want to go down this route then fine but that route really is not compatible with the principles of low-moderation and grown-up responsibility that you've so gleefully been beating RPGnet over the head with.

We've even had a virtual witch-hunt for non-existant sexism, and that's without mentionning Pundit showing real bona fide signs of having some kind of mental health problem.

All I'm saying is think it through... we have NO sock puppet problem.

"No need to look in the trunk officer -- nothing to see in there." :D

Quote from: Stuart"No need to look in the trunk officer -- nothing to see in there." :D

  Oh so I'm only saying this because I have a sock puppet?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThe whole point is that this debate is principle.

No. You want to talk about principles. Just aboute everyone else wants to talk about practice - "what should we do about Anthrobot/Johnny? What should we do about sockpuppets?"

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIn PRACTICE we don't have a sock puppet problem. That's part of my point, and for someone who thinks that running a forum is about practice rather than principle, I fail to remember you saying that when the people on here were calling the mods over at RPGnet fascists on your behalf.

We don't have a sock puppet problem anymore than we have a "guy posting hardcore pr0n" problem; nonetheless, we have guidelines for dealing with. "Nip it in the bud", and all that - deal with problems when they're small, and they'll never get big.

Actually, regarding rpg.net, I have often talked about practice over principle. For example, at the time of my banning, in my letter to rpg.net and therpgsite (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=47159&postcount=224), which Cessna was kind enough to publish in the rpg.net thread about my banning,

Quote from: JimBobOz[...]

It's time to close the threads discussing my banning.

I am deeply-touched, and surprised, that my banning should be cared about or even noticed by so many users of these sites. Of course I don't feel I should have been banned, but the moderators act in the way they feel is best for the site as a whole. This is shaped by the reports, PMs and emails they get from us, the users of the site. The mods and admins are not your adversaries, they act according to what you tell them. So if I or anyone else am banned, it's because a lot of users wanted it that way. They respect the wishes of the users of the site, and I think we should, too.

Certainly everyone should continue to discuss the moderation, to PM and email moderators and admins about it. But from the forwarded parts of the Trouble Tickets thread discussing my banning, it seems that the discussion is generating more acrimony than insight. Like any other thread which is more nasty than helpful, it should be shut down.

[...]

I am disappointed to hear that some users are talking of leaving rpg.net, or scaling back their participation, because of this moderator decision. What you are forgetting is that a forum is nothing more than the sum of the posts to it. A forum is not the moderators, it is not the rules, it's not even the colour scheme - it's your posts to it, the conversations you have. You make a forum good by posting funny, interesting or informative replies to threads, and by making your own threads which will start such conversations. [...]

Now, I did not mention principles or practice specifically, because it wasn't an issue which had come up. But you see a consistent line of thought from then to now; you see that I'm not calling anyone a fascist. On the contrary, by saying that the moderators of rpg.net are giving the posters what they ask for (by reports, discussion, complaints, etc), I'm saying that the moderators of rpg.net are very democratic.

A forum needs to be dealt with in practice. That I complained about being banned does not mean that I suddenly think "in practice" is bad. It simply means that the rpg.net moderators and I disagree about what is "good practice". I think that having someone who posts a lot about rpgs and stimulates rpg discussion and asks for people's rpg ideas is a good thing on an rpg forum, even if that person is sometimes abrasive; they disagree.

Quote from: Mr. Analytical1 - A) who cares what exact number of posters we have?

A number of people here do - they consider the number of active posters to be a measure of the success of the place. Also, it's a fact that people are attracted to crowds - if we're known to have 100 active posters it's easier for us to get more active posters than if we're known to have 10 active posters. And ultimately, we want lots of active posters, otherwise the place fizzles, or becomes yet another forum online which is just about one guy and a few of his buddies shooting shit, like gamecraft or animallball. We want it to be "therpgsite", not "RPGPundit and a few of his online buddies."  

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalB) If someone contributes 50 posts through each of two accounts, why is that less valuable than one account that contributes 100?

It's not. However, in practice no-one will have sockpuppets and post interesting and fun stuff through both of them. If they choose to have a sockpuppet, ninety-nine times out of a hundred it's so they can stir shit with at least one of them. Again, we may not ban stirring shit, but I don't think we want to encourage it. We want this to be therpgsite, not WWFStyleSmackTalkSite.

Quote from: Mr. Analytical2 - If people post insane shit, we deal with it.  Are you seriously suggesting pre-emptive rule enforcement?  that really is TBP-speak.  What's next, passive-agressive trolling?

As I've said before, for a guy calling himself "Mr. Analytical", you have rather poor reading comprehension. I did not suggest that we have "pre-emptive rule enforcement," that we ban people for posting insane shit. I suggested that we not encourage them to post insane shit. But of course I already said that.

Quote from: Mr. Analytical3 - As has been formulated by m'learned friends previously, why does it matter if different personalities appear to agree with a certain idea?  surely it should be the quality of argument that people should be looking to read?  if someone makes 2 good points through each of 2 accounts, why is that a problem compared to his making 2 through 1 account?

Because a perception of consensus actually discourages dissent. That's why we don't get hordes of Cheetoists storming The Forge to argue with them, or hordes of Forgers storming therpgsite to argue with us (whatever RPGPundit's rants, we only have a few Forgers here, it's not a significant number). People just aren't that interested in going to some place where everyone will have this consensus against everything they think.

Whereas a big lively discussion will encourage more lively discussion.

It'd be nice if quality of comment were more important than quantity, but speaking practically, most people don't read every post down to the last word. You don't. Most people scan, and when a thread hits about a hundred posts, almost no-one will read the whole thing, and even if they do read the whole thing, they won't remember it all, they'll just get an overall impression. So if one guy has six accounts all posting in support of each-other, the reader will get the overall impression that people in that thread think so-and-so.

Also, even though it's just words on a screen, no-one likes being tag-teamed. If you post to a thread and ten people post to say you're wrong, you're less likely to post to that thread again. You just give up on that topic for the moment. Of course you may be tough and manly and impervious to argument and peer pressure, but most of us aren't. If there are a heap of people dog-piling us in some thread, we get discouraged and go away.

If it's going to be a dog-pile, let it be a dog-pile of actual posters, not Random Geek And His Imaginary Friends. Let it be actual human beings talking to us.

Quote from: Mr. Analytical4 - Well I don't agree with your second or your third argument so I'm not going to buy into any argument that uses them as assumptions but why should you care what other people think about a forum?

Because their perception of the forum determines whether or not they join it. There's quantity and quality.

You need a certain quantity of posters to have a self-sustaining forum, or as I said, it fizzles out into an online hangout for some guy and his online buddies, like gamecraft and animalball (to name two places with entirely different tones). It fails in the primary purpose of a forum - a place to go to express and hear a wide range of different ideas.

And then there's quality - if the forum has a reputation as being like X, then it will attract more posters who wish to post in style X. It becomes self-reinforcing. So for example sjgames got a few right-wing posters in its General Chatter forum; it then got a reputation as a place for right-wing posters, which attracted more right-wing posters and put off left-wing posters, which meant that it really is a hangout for right-wingers. It's a positive feedback loop.

So if therpgsite gets a reputation as being a place where people do nothing but attack one another and post insane shit, then it actually will become that place. Which would be a pity.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIf people start pulling shit through sock puppets, you deal with the person pulling the shit.  To legislate the means through which people might pull shit is short-sighted, needlessly legalistic and a waste of time.

No. Because a certain amount of shit-pulling is allowed here. Anthrobot is allowed to call me a "dunny-licker" if he wants to. He just has to have the balls to do it through his original account, rather than creating a whole swag of sock-puppets to do it through.

The only purpose of a sock-puppet is to stir shit. It's been previously said that if a poster comes to therpgsite with no other purpose than to stir shit - if they post nothing about rpgs - then they'll be banned. RPGPundit wanted to ban Anthrobot and his sockpuppets. The person actually insulted by Anthrobot, me, said that we should only knock over his sockpuppets.

It's not fascism, it's not crossing any rubicons. rpg.net is not a fascist dictatorship, either. It's just a badly-run democracy. This is a mediocrely-run democracy, which I consider an improvement.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThis place boasts and preens over its lack of moderation...

It's not that this place has no moderation, it's that this place has intelligent moderation.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalWe've even had a virtual witch-hunt for non-existant sexism, and that's without mentionning Pundit showing real bona fide signs of having some kind of mental health problem.

If there is no sexism here, then where are the female gamers posting here? Even rpg.net has female gamers posting on it, and those guys have got h4wt chixxorz cosplay threads and everything.

As to RPGPundit's mental health problems, I say again that we should leave psychoanalysis to qualified people who actually meet people in person. "I read his internet posts" is not a recognised mental health diagnostic.

Quote from: mythusmageIt's not that this place has no moderation, it's that this place has intelligent moderation.

That's true.

Despite his name, Mr. Analytical is failing to grasp the difference between prescriptive moderation, and proscriptive moderation. He confuses a need to minimise proscriptive moderation with "no moderation at all." Prescriptive moderation is, in this case, "post about rpgs, and just from one account." Proscriptive would be, "no personal attacks, no group attacks, don't backtalk the mods," etc.

A site with no moderation would be lame and stupid. If he thinks differently, Mr. Analytical should start one and give it a go and see what happens. A site with more prescriptive and less proscriptive moderation is a good thing. As I've said, over time it's likely to evolve into more proscription, but whether it's inevitable or necessary I'm not sure - I doubt it. I think it's likely to become more proscriptive as a forum grows in membership, but not certain or necessary.

Quote from: JimBobOzA number of people here do

  Ah... the voice of the silent majority.

  All of the problems you list (and frankly I don't think a lot of them are problems) are completely separate from the issue of sock puppets.  Banning sock puppets will no more protect this community from going in the directions you suggest than not banning sock puppets and dealing with people being arseholes on a case by case basis.

  But I'm actually tired of debating this.  I had all of these debates at RPGnet and people didn't agree with me then either.  I came into this thread just to express an opinion and I've been insulted and ranted at by a man who not only sees conversations as competitions but thinks that people who disagree with him are spies sent to destroy him.  I've been called a liar and accused of having sock puppets of my own (though quite who that might be I don't know).

  In all honesty, I've really had enough.

Quote from: JimBobOzNo. You want to talk about principles. Just aboute everyone else wants to talk about practice - "what should we do about Anthrobot/Johnny? What should we do about sockpuppets?"

...and principle has no place in practice!

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalAh... the voice of the silent majority.

Again you fail to be "analytical". I did not say "a majority", silent or otherwise. I said, "a number of people." I didn't offer an opinion as to whether they were a majority, a minority, a unanimity, just "a number" - by implication, a significant number.  

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalAll of the problems you list (and frankly I don't think a lot of them are problems) are completely separate from the issue of sock puppets. Banning sock puppets will no more protect this community from going in the directions you suggest than not banning sock puppets and dealing with people being arseholes on a case by case basis.

The problems I listed are not confined to sock-puppets, but sock-puppets are a part of these problems and contribute to them.

Of course no single action is going to make a forum go this way or that. But we're not talking about "every single thing which we can do to make therpgsite be like so-and-so," we're just talking about sockpuppets. If you confine your comments to the actual issue under discussion you will find these discussions aren't so long and painful. Stick to the point.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI came into this thread just to express an opinion and I've been insulted and ranted at by a man who not only sees conversations as competitions but thinks that people who disagree with him are spies sent to destroy him.  I've been called a liar and accused of having sock puppets of my own (though quite who that might be I don't know).

:hissyfit:
I believe you support anyone being able to say whatever they want? You can't really say that anyone should be able to say whatever they want, and then complain when someone says something insulting and untrue. You got exactly what you wanted.

For my part, I don't believe in unrestricted freedom of speech, not in the world in general, and certainly not on a forum devoted to a particular topic. But I believe the consensus at therpgsite is pretty much in favour of unrestricted freedom of speech. So, you reap what you sow, mate. Quit whining.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIn all honesty, I've really had enough.

Bye-bye, honourable sir.
:bow:

Uh, Jim? That "Pundit" quote... shouldn't it be Mr. A's?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalActually some of us post from work and some of us have private lives.

  I do have a reason for why sock puppets are a good thing but it's kind of unconventional.  If you read JG Ballard's Cocaine Nights or Supercannes you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about.  Essentially, I think that every community benefits from a rogue element.  I think that people using sock puppets whether for the purposes of a short term joke or a rant or a period of taking on a different persona for a while benefits both individual members of a community and the community as a whole.

  RPGnet for example, has both developed standards that lots of people don't want to comply with but they've also essentially shut out many of the more memorable and amusing loonies that made the place a little more interesting.

You know, that might be a great argument for why a heavily-moderated place like RPG.net could allow sockpuppets (of course,that would also kind of defeat the point of the people who want it heavily-moderated).

TheRPGsite, on the other hand, is extremely lightly moderated. You're allowed to post all kinds of nonsense here, attack me, attack the site, whatever; all without fear of reprisal. As long as you don't actually make a monumental personal effort to disrupt dozens of threads, you don't even stand a chance of being noted much less sanctioned. So the need for sockpuppets that you're talking about is rendered moot.

RPGPundit

Quote from: blakkieWow, I just came across this thread from the stickie post and am trying to catch up.  Three big questions:

1) "who are under certain restrictions (like James)". Um, "restrictions"? Huh?

Because of his inability to read one of my posts without having to write up a less-than-witty insult about it every single time, James has me forcibly on his ignore list.  
If James has a sockpuppet, he gets around that specific sanction.

Quote2) When did Settembrini join the super secret Forge/RPGnet/Illuminati conspiracy to sink theRPGsite and why wasn't a copy of the secret memo circulated to me?
3) Is #2 why I basically agree with Settembrini's post? :raise: ;)

Settembrini isn't at issue here. He's allowed to play devil's advocate on this issue, because he's a constructive poster who's here for good motives. That's why if Settembrini tells me something is worrying him about these things, even if in the end I disagree with him, I will take what he's saying very seriously, because I know he's not here just to try to harm this site.
Others, who's only contributions are to constantly try to infuse threads with either Forge theories, or criticisms of myself or others here, just to try to subvert the site, will not be taken seriously when they say shit, because they're always taking the same position, with ulterior motives.

QuoteWell I guess if you make a habit of banning people it could be an issue? But that isn't happening here, is it? What's the ban numbers now?

The ban number of actual real posters in these six or so months of operation is still 0.  Only spambots and sockpuppets have been banned thus far.

QuoteIf you are handing out "certain restrictions" anyway to a select group (I am curious how big that group is)

That "group", as of this date, is 1 person. No one else has been given such restrictions.

RPGPundit

Quote from: JongWKUh, Jim? That "Pundit" quote... shouldn't it be Mr. A's?

Me stoopid. Me fix it up.

Just for the record, since I've posted my "conclusions" about this issue, I've had a couple of people come forward in PMs to let me know about sockpuppets they have. None of them were particularly egregious at this time in their posting, and I appreciate their coming forward and letting me know, and giving up said sockpuppets.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditJust for the record, since I've posted my "conclusions" about this issue, I've had a couple of people come forward in PMs to let me know about sockpuppets they have. None of them were particularly egregious at this time in their posting, and I appreciate their coming forward and letting me know, and giving up said sockpuppets.

RPGPundit

Could you let us know the names of the puppets which will no longer be participating on the site?  (That wouldn't let us identify the people behind the puppets...)

Quote from: StuartCould you let us know the names of the puppets which will no longer be participating on the site?  (That wouldn't let us identify the people behind the puppets...)

I am not shy, I had a sockpuppet called Socky. He made on post here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=61376&postcount=12). I reported him to Pundit and he has since, I assume, been banned.

Think of me what you will.

Bill

The way I see it, I don't want to keep lingering on this, much less inviting people to play guessing games. If people want to come forward and admit the sockpuppets they had, that's fine. But if not, I had said they could PM me for a reason.  So no, I'm not going to be naming any names on here.

RPGPundit

QuoteSettembrini isn't at issue here. He's allowed to play devil's advocate on this issue, because he's a constructive poster who's here for good motives.

So says your tinfoil hat of motive detection! :pundit:

Quote from: RPGPunditBecause of his inability to read one of my posts without having to write up a less-than-witty insult about it every single time, James has me forcibly on his ignore list.  
If James has a sockpuppet, he gets around that specific sanction.

Or if he views logged out and copy-pastes. :rolleyes: OMG he's been saying bad things about you! Lots of them! Over and over! :bawling: :confused: Of course you couldn't possibly ignore him.... :chickenshit:

Quote...much less inviting people to play guessing games.

Then don't [pretend to] have a Public Consultation. :rolleyes: Just carry on with the Glorious Revolution! :melodramatic:

That'd be all from me too. I'll let you get in the last word here about how this board is being overrun with people that want to destroy it (proving it by having the same opinion as Sett?) and how people just can't insult the people in charge too much. Lest you start forcing Ignores on me too because you just can't take the heat of someone pointing out that you're just another fuckwit bully pretending to be the opposite.

Have fun winning!,
Prof. Cornfed

IMO Pundit made the right decision. I don't think this is a freedom of speech issue. This will be good for the site and it's members. We should now get back to talking about religion and whether d20 is the best system around :D

Regards,
David R

Quote from: blakkieSo says your tinfoil hat of motive detection! :pundit:

Yeah, that and, you know, the facts in evidence of what you and others have been doing since you got here.

RPGPundit

My vote for possibly most ironic quote - given this entire discussion:

Quote from: AnthrobotJimBob brought up the subject of women gamers in a post sarcastically castigating some posters. It set me wondering how many female players/ GMs there are using this site?
Do you GM or play (or both)?
Please lets have no sock puppet posters pretending to be women.

Wow, I'm so torn.  I pretty much agree with JimBobOz on most every point.

(1) Banning sock puppets is a non-issue.  Seriously, I have never been on a forum where free use of alts is a privilege granted to users, nor have I ever been on a site where banning non-approved alts has generated any drama whatsoever.

It's one of the basic rules of any forum I've ever visited.  I can't name one off the top of my head where sock puppets wouldn't lead to a quick disciplining or banning.  I have no idea why people are getting up in arms about it, except maybe because...

(2) Even with that said, holy shit - Pundit looks paranoid and batshit crazy on this thread.  Like tinfoil-hat material.

(Even moreso than usual, I mean.)

-O

Quote from: BalbinusBan the sock, don't ban the sock, whatever.  It's fucking sad whatever action we take looking at it on Anthro's part and I don't know why he feels the need.

Anthro doesn't mind.I'm distracting him.

Love and kisses

Jan:p :D

Quote from: HinterWeltI am not shy, I had a sockpuppet called Socky. He made on post here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=61376&postcount=12). I reported him to Pundit and he has since, I assume, been banned.

Think of me what you will.

Bill

He wasn't banned! I took him out behind the barn and cap-hammered him. the evil beast! :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHe wasn't banned! I took him out behind the barn and cap-hammered him. the evil beast! :D

-clash

Socky...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

You Bastard!!!
(http://www.hinterwelt.com/images/socky.gif)

If sock puppets are against the rules here, then not fessing up to 'em is really fucking stupid.  Especially with the leeway the Site Admin's given.

How fucking hard is it to abide by the rules here?  It's like an anarchist commune, for fuck's sake.

QuoteIt's like an anarchist commune, for fuck's sake

Maybe a bit more like a Kibbuz?

With all us fundamentalists & idealists and neutral by-standers?

FIRST They came for the SOCK PUPPETS!





* did I already make this joke?

Doesn´t matter. Senseless repetition of beliefs is what fundamentalism is all about!

Free Speech, I say!
Even for Sock puppets!

Who watches the sock puppet watchers?

Quote from: SettembriniWho watches the sock puppet watchers?

See, now I'm imagining this little sock-puppet with a hand (made by someone sticking their pinky finger through a hole in the hand, one presumes) that in turn has a smaller sock puppet on it.  With a magnifying glass.

Is it just me?

Maybe a movie?

I use many alt accounts, sometimes on the same board. This is usualyl to represent different sides of my personality or to help put forward different ideas for discussion. I never, ever use my alts to "talk" to each other or support each other... that's kind-of creepy. To me what I do (and I don't do it here) is more like roleplaying with several different characters.

However, I back Pundit on this for the simple reason that the guy lied to him and didn't fess up to it. Also if Pundit doesn't want alts on his board, then there you have it... no alts.

Quote from: SettembriniMaybe a bit more like a Kibbuz?

With all us fundamentalists & idealists and neutral by-standers?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnthro, did you bother to read the "conclusions" to this issue? You are not going to be banned. "Johnny" was banned, of course.

I actually liked your posts a lot before all of this happened. I hope maybe you'll be able to put all this behind you, take a couple of deep breaths regarding Jimbob (IL him if you think you really can't look at one of his posts without getting ranty), and get back to being the valuable member of the site that I felt you were.

RPGPundit

My apologies Pundit.If you are reasonable, I will be too. I don't feel like contributing to your fora as JimKnob will distort my words when he fails to find any other shit on me. Besides I'm busy with several hobbies and don't get much time on the net any more. As to 'fessing up. My brother is as real as you are Pundit and is definately not a sock puppet. JimKnob might not like that but he is just a dunny fly from down under anyway.:D
Happy gaming.;)