Alternate/"sock puppet" accounts are NOT allowed

[malkusm]

.




7/2013 Note- please see the "Policies on Multiple Accounts" for updated details:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989-Usage-Guidelines





[Note: The forum announcement is temporary; this thread is permanent. Thus, the thread.]

Anyone caught posting on an alternate, or "sock puppet" account (i.e. using two accounts at once), will be banned for doing so (both on their original and alternate accounts). This includes using a new account if your old account is banned.

First offense: Two-week ban for main account, permanent ban for all alternate accounts.
Second offense: Permanent ban of all user accounts. (This includes using a new account if your account is temporarily banned.)

Thanks,

-Matt

P.S. - Yes, this includes Matt Collins.





7/2013 Note- please see the "Policies on Multiple Accounts" for updated details:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1989-Usage-Guidelines





.

[eduardo89]

What about kludge/kluge?

[malkusm]

Kludge's old account has been inactive since 12/30/2011. AFAIK Kluge is a shared Kludge-and-amy account since amy lost the login to her old account.

But yes, this will be universally enforced, and does apply to Kluge.

[Aratus]

i am going
to miss ZZ!
fair is fair.

[ryanmkeisling]

[Note: The forum announcement is temporary; this thread is permanent. Thus, the thread.]

Anyone caught posting on an alternate, or "sock puppet" account (i.e. using two accounts at once), will be banned for doing so (both on their original and alternate accounts). This includes using a new account if your old account is banned.

First offense: Two-week ban for main account, permanent ban for all alternate accounts.
Second offense: Permanent ban of all user accounts. (This includes using a new account if your account is temporarily banned.)

Thanks,

-Matt

P.S. - Yes, this includes Matt Collins.

Finally, RPF becomes reality based and not a toy for the cowardly and schizophrenic. +rep

[heavenlyboy34]

Looks like Roy L and his sock puppet are doomed. :D

[eduardo89]

Looks like Roy L and his sock puppet are doomed. :D

JohnLVT was already banned.

[Supernaut]

Just go ahead and ban everyone but the mods, and then let them start banning each other until there is only one mod left. And then let that mod commit seppuku.

[eduardo89]

Just go ahead and ban everyone but the mods, and then let them start banning each other until there is only one mod left. And then let that mod commit seppuku.

It's coming. The banocaust will happen one day.

[heavenlyboy34]

It's coming. The banocaust will happen one day. I lol'ed :D

[heavenlyboy34]

JohnLVT was already banned. oic. Wasn't there another one? Roy's threads and the threads he hijacked became too tiresome for me too watch carefully.

[RickyJ]

You can't know if someone has more than one account if they are using different IPs. It is impossible to enforce this rule for those that know how to use proxies or have more than one IP.

[Bruno]

Just go ahead and ban everyone but the mods, and then let them start banning each other until there is only one mod left. And then let that mod commit seppuku.

I saw that movie, it wasn't as entertaining as it sounds.

[specsaregood]

damn, and I was just starting to get some major rep on my alt account. oh well, its about damn time.

[eduardo89]

You can't know if someone has more than one account if they are using different IPs. It is impossible to enforce this rule for those that know how to use proxies or have more than one IP.

How do you think Fire11 is able to come back every other week or so?

[trey4sports]

i dont have a second account nor would i want one, but c'mon, there is absolutely no way to stop someone from creating a second account.

[malkusm]

How do you think Fire11 is able to come back every other week or so?

Why do you think he gets banned every time?


i dont have a second account nor would i want one, but c'mon, there is absolutely no way to stop someone from creating a second account.

Stop someone? No. Ban them for doing so after the fact? Perfectly capable of doing that.

[Nirvikalpa]

Just go ahead and ban everyone but the mods, and then let them start banning each other until there is only one mod left. And then let that mod commit seppuku.

Thank you, Justinjj1.


You can't know if someone has more than one account if they are using different IPs. It is impossible to enforce this rule for those that know how to use proxies or have more than one IP.

We're quite aware. Those in question seem to not care that we know and even like to parade it around.

[eduardo89]

What if two people live together, thus sharing an IP address, have their own account on RPF?

[Noble Savage]

and if you don't eat your meat you can't have any pudding!

[malkusm]

What if two people live together, thus sharing an IP address, have their own account on RPF?

Do you have nothing better to do than to come up with hypothetical situations that might make the rule ambiguous?

amy31416 and Kludge are two different people, and it's very clear that they're two different people. There are other examples.

If we have evidence that an individual is using multiple accounts, these rules will apply.

[eduardo89]

I wasn't talking about Amy and Kludge. I'm talking about my brother and me. We're flatmates and both want to post here.

[malkusm]

Allow me to add, that the only reason that Matt Collins was given license to add a "sock puppet" account was because he asked JoshLowry directly, because he was hired by the campaign and wanted to be able to post anonymously. Not only was he unable to post anonymously, but he was also unable to avoid trolling while using the alternate account.

Knowing this was a problem, but realizing that Matt Collins was an example that made it seem ok to have "sock puppet" accounts, we decided to make the announcement and apply the rule on a go-forward basis, so that they were clear in advance of any action being taken.

And, as I've stated elsewhere, there is no legitimate reason for anyone to be using an alternate account other than (1) rep whoring, (2) circumventing a ban, (3) trolling anonymously.

[eduardo89]

Not only was he unable to post anonymously, but he was also unable to avoid trolling while using the alternate accounts.

Fixed.

[specsaregood]

And, as I've stated elsewhere, there is no legitimate reason for anyone to be using an alternate account other than (1) rep whoring, (2) circumventing a ban, (3) trolling anonymously.

So those are legitimate reasons?

[eduardo89]

And, as I've stated elsewhere, there is no legitimate reason for anyone to be using an alternate account other than (1) rep whoring, (2) circumventing a ban, (3) trolling anonymously.

There you have it, do not create fake accounts unless you plan on


Rep whoring
Circumventing a ban
Trolling anonymously

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Well be forewarned, I have had multiple past accounts, but never at the same time.

I always lose the damn password. I know I should write it down but I rely on autosave which has failed (obviously).

Mod, I would ask for you not to reveal my old accounts.

[eduardo89]

Well be forewarned, I have had multiple past accounts, but never at the same time.

I always lose the damn password. I know I should write it down but I rely on autosave which has failed (obviously).

Mod, I would ask for you not to reveal my old accounts.

You know you can get the password emailed to you?

[malkusm]

There you have it, do not create fake accounts unless you plan on


Rep whoring
Circumventing a ban
Trolling anonymously



So those are legitimate reasons?

Yes, those are legitimate reasons for alt-account users to be banned.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well be forewarned, I have had multiple past accounts, but never at the same time.

I always lose the damn password. I know I should write it down but I rely on autosave which has failed (obviously).

Mod, I would ask for you not to reveal my old accounts.
Suspicious behavior. Reported.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

You know you can get the password emailed to you?

Here's the thing, I set up email accounts for the purpose of the forum accounts only and never bothered to remember those passwords either.

After learning my lesson a couple of times, I am happy to say I have both my account and email passwords.

[eduardo89]

Yes, those are legitimate reasons for alt-account users to be banned.

Thank you for clearing that up.

[Noble Savage]

I think it's normal for young guys to rep themselves.

[heavenlyboy34]

I think it's normal for young guys to rep themselves. Excessive repping may cause blindness. ;)

[Noble Savage]

and using a sock puppet to do it might give ya athletes root

[eduardo89]

and using a sock puppet to do it might give ya athletes root

Sadly my evil anonymous (although it had the same name as this account) sock puppet account count give reps :( if not I'd have been repping myself all night long, until it hurt.



Wow, I'm unbanned a year later :)

[trey4sports]

see something - say something.

Report suspicious sock-puppet behavior, folks.

[eduardo89]

see something - say something.

Report suspicious sock-puppet behavior, folks.

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Janet%2BNapolitano%2BLaunches%2BNew%2BSee%2BSometh ing%2BjgcA6rzZ-SHl.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Janet%2BNapolitano%2BLaunches%2BNew%2BSee%2BSometh ing%2BjgcA6rzZ-SHl.jpg

God that is so fucking creepy.

[Danke]

And, as I've stated elsewhere, there is no legitimate reason for anyone to be using an alternate account other than (1) rep whoring, (2) circumventing a ban, (3) trolling anonymously.

One could come in handy with the "New Posts" function.

[specsaregood]

JohnLVT was already banned.

And now so have you? Interesting. Do we now find out that 90% of the members are fake? I knew it!

[Kluge]

And now so have you? Interesting. Do we now find out that 90% of the members are fake? I knew it!

Hope Eduardo wasn't perma-banned. I notice Collins isn't, despite being the 2nd biggest offender of the rule next to Fire11.

[specsaregood]

Hope Eduardo wasn't perma-banned. I notice Collins isn't, despite being the 2nd biggest offender of the rule next to Fire11.
I'm onto you. You aren't real. You are a doctorate student's project in the field of A.I.

[Kluge]

I'm onto you. You aren't real. You are a doctorate student's project in the field of A.I.

Beep.

[Noble Savage]

If it wasn't for rep whores, sock puppets and trolls this place would be as boring as politics

[Phil]

Eduardo banned? :(

[specsaregood]

Eduardo banned? :(
Yeah, we have no more tolerance for silly canuckixcans telling us how to live our life.

[fisharmor]

And now so have you? Interesting. Do we now find out that 90% of the members are fake? I knew it!

It WOULD explain low vote totals.

[jmdrake]

It's coming. The banocaust will happen one day.

Yep. Especially considering eduardo just got banned. :( :mad: This is getting stupid.

[jmdrake]

How do you think Fire11 is able to come back every other week or so?


Why do you think he gets banned every time?

Because he's dumb enough to keep posting links to his same silly website.

[jmdrake]

What if two people live together, thus sharing an IP address, have their own account on RPF?


Do you have nothing better to do than to come up with hypothetical situations that might make the rule ambiguous?

amy31416 and Kludge are two different people, and it's very clear that they're two different people. There are other examples.

If we have evidence that an individual is using multiple accounts, these rules will apply.

It ain't just a "hypothetical". Lots of people operated behind firewalls that make multiple accounts look like they have the same IP address. Think of anybody logged in to a university account for example.

[specsaregood]

Yep. Especially considering eduardo just got banned. :( :mad: This is getting stupid.

he was posting with an obvious sockpuppet account last night.

[jmdrake]

What if two people live together, thus sharing an IP address, have their own account on RPF?


Allow me to add, that the only reason that Matt Collins was given license to add a "sock puppet" account was because he asked JoshLowry directly, because he was hired by the campaign and wanted to be able to post anonymously. Not only was he unable to post anonymously, but he was also unable to avoid trolling while using the alternate account.

Knowing this was a problem, but realizing that Matt Collins was an example that made it seem ok to have "sock puppet" accounts, we decided to make the announcement and apply the rule on a go-forward basis, so that they were clear in advance of any action being taken.

And, as I've stated elsewhere, there is no legitimate reason for anyone to be using an alternate account other than (1) rep whoring, (2) circumventing a ban, (3) trolling anonymously.


So those are legitimate reasons?


Yes, those are legitimate reasons for alt-account users to be banned.

Poor logic and even poorer use of the English language. Someone might go for an alt account because they realize it was a mistake to use their real name instead of some anonymous nick name like the overwhelming majority of people here. Some folks are total pricks sometimes, but it's "okay" because they know that nobody who Google's these threads 10 years from know will have a clue who "RonPaulAssKicker" is. So someone might want the freedom to act like the rest of the anonymous horde here. Unless you consider typical behavior "trolling".......

As far at the use of English, your construction was "these are legitimate reasons for sock puppet accounts". What you meant was "There are no legitimate reasons for sock puppet accounts. The only reason people get them are for ....... and those are reasons for bans anyway". Sorry to go all "MelissaW" on you, but somebody has to. ;)

[Travlyr]

Yep. Especially considering eduardo just got banned. :( :mad: This is getting stupid.

It is an exercise in power. It is a demonstration on how power works. It doesn't take much power to be powerful. This is why taking over the GOP won't deliver freedom. The people in power will make sure of it.


"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from either class." - Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

[V3n]

he was posting with an obvious sockpuppet account last night.

If I read that thread correctly, it sounded like he admitted it and said he'd stop once he was told it wasn't kosher.
I may have missed something if he did something beyond that.

[specsaregood]

Can't please everyone. I applaud the mods finally putting this in the site rules, officially.

[LibertyEagle]

I think this is great to get rid of the multiple accounts and the rule should have been put in place long ago.

[jmdrake]

I've just read over eduardo's recent posts. I haven't seen anything outside of the rules at all or anything negative at all except for mild criticism of policy in this thread. If that's why he was banned then that's pretty sad.

[Travlyr]

I have never been a moderator and would not want to be. Help me understand. Why are sock puppets bad? It seems dynamic to me.

[Phil]

he was posting with an obvious sockpuppet account last night.
Can you link me to that thread? Just curious and I want to see it.

[jmdrake]

Can you link me to that thread? Just curious and I want to see it.

^This

[specsaregood]

Can you link me to that thread? Just curious and I want to see it.

^This
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?41293-eduardo

[Noble Savage]

The world is a sick place and there is no better medicine than laughter. I'm doing a shot for that Eddy fella he makes me laugh with and at him. I mean him repping himself with a note of what a handsome gentleman he was is classic! I can imagine standing in front of the mirror doing the same thing. This is some great stuff for my studies on egotisticalization.

[Travlyr]

I have never been a moderator and would not want to be. Help me understand. Why are sock puppets bad? It seems dynamic to me.
Honest question. Not rhetorical. Help me understand. Why are sock puppets bad?

[jmdrake]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?41293-eduardo

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at. I was expecting a link to the "sock puppet posted" thread. You just gave me a link to his member page.

Edit: I clicked on the recent visitor messages to see if that was the "evidence" you were alluding to. All that I saw was Danke asking for his email address. Which reminds me. I'd like it to. He posted a question to me in a +rep that he gave me a while back and I'd been meaning to get back with him on it. :( Seriously, mods should let banned members post one final message leaving a forwarding address. This place is starting to suck.

[specsaregood]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at. I was expecting a link to the "sock puppet posted" thread. You just gave me a link to his member page.

Uhm, that is the sockpuppet account. you can get all of that account's posts from that page.

[angelatc]

So those are legitimate reasons?

Leave Nikki alone! Grammar cop. LOL!

[brandon]

Trav,

In some cases they can make it seem like an idea has much more support and backing than it does. For example the "vote flipping" threads seem to be just one or two guys with 10 accounts talking to themselves, so it add a degree of legitimacy to something that it really shouldn't have.


I can see good reasons for having sock puppets though. I always was fine the the Collins sock puppet among others. I think the rule should only be circumstantially enforced.

[angelatc]

Trav,

In some cases they can make it seem like an idea has much more support and backing then it does. For example the "vote flipping" threads seem to be just one or two guys with 10 accounts talking to themselves, so it add a degree of legitimacy to something that it really shouldn't have.


The inverse is true also. One person with three accounts trolling a new thread about an idea they disagree with can entirely derail it.

[Phil]

Well, the next two weeks are going to be extremely boring without Eduardo.

[jmdrake]

Uhm, that is the sockpuppet account. you can get all of that account's posts from that page.

Okay. I "see" know. They were both named "eduardo". Typically a sockpuppet account is to hide your identity and look like two different people. Looks like he made this account as a form of civil disobedience. Especially seeing the join date:

Join Date
04-05-2012

Last Activity
Today 12:55 AM

Blog Entries
0


Anyway, as I said in another thread I long for the days of mod free forums. Sometime when I have time I'll post a brief history of moderation on Internet discussion days from the "good/bad" old days of USENET where moderation was basically impossible to today. It's interesting (and a bit sad) that on a forum dedicated to libertarianism someone hasn't come up with a way to deal with issues of trolling/spam/flamewars etc without going to a hierarchy. I know, I know it's "private property". But it would be nice if this kind of private property was used as an experiment on how to have a vibrant self-organizing self-moderating community. I hear about things like the "Free State Project" or worse "Libertarian floating islands". As it stands there's no way I'd get on one of those things because I'm afraid the benevolent dictator (excuse me "private property owner") would exercise his "right" to throw me overboard whenever he saw fit.

[specsaregood]

Okay. I "see" know. They were both named "eduardo". Typically a sockpuppet account is to hide your identity and look like two different people. Looks like he made this account as a form of civil disobedience. Especially seeing the join date:


Well I did say it was "obvious".

he was posting with an obvious sockpuppet account last night.
:) I'm sure he was just funning around.

[bluesc]

The inverse is true also. One person with three accounts trolling a new thread about an idea they disagree with can entirely derail it.

Brandon knows all about derailing vote flipping threads because he disagrees with it.

[Phil]

Okay. I "see" know. They were both named "eduardo". Typically a sockpuppet account is to hide your identity and look like two different people. Looks like he made this account as a form of civil disobedience. Especially seeing the join date:

Join Date
04-052012


Last Activity
Today 12:55 AM

Blog Entries
0


Anyway, as I said in another thread I long for the days of mod free forums. Sometime when I have time I'll post a brief history of moderation on Internet discussion days from the "good/bad" old days of USENET where moderation was basically impossible to today. It's interesting (and a bit sad) that on a forum dedicated to libertarianism someone hasn't come up with a way to deal with issues of trolling/spam/flamewars etc without going to a hierarchy. I know, I know it's "private property". But it would be nice if this kind of private property was used as an experiment on how to have a vibrant self-organizing self-moderating community. I hear about things like the "Free State Project" or worse "Libertarian floating islands". As it stands there's no way I'd get on one of those things because I'm afraid the benevolent dictator (excuse me "private property owner") would exercise his "right" to throw me overboard whenever he saw fit.
+rep

[Danke]

All that I saw was Danke asking for his email address. Which reminds me. I'd like it to.

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?6186-Danke

[Phil]

Well I did say it was "obvious".

:) I'm sure he was just funning around.
No fun allowed.

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/9/91168/2005719-no_fun_allowed.jpg

[Noble Savage]

trolls sock puppets and rep whores dont scare me half as much as knowing a mod can look in on my rep conversations

[Danke]

trolls sock puppets and rep whores dont scare me half as much as knowing a mod can look in on my rep conversations

And PMs. Best to use email.

[Phil]

And PMs. Best to use email.
Sheesh, really? Big brother is watching..

[donnay]

I can't believe Eduardo is banned again. Sheesh.

[MRoCkEd]

I've just read over eduardo's recent posts. I haven't seen anything outside of the rules at all or anything negative at all except for mild criticism of policy in this thread. If that's why he was banned then that's pretty sad.
Eduardo was banned for an innapropriate post that was not related to the subject of alternate accounts. His (and Collins') alternate accounts were banned because of the new rule.

[Keith and stuff]

I hear about things like the "Free State Project" or worse "Libertarian floating islands". As it stands there's no way I'd get on one of those things because I'm afraid the benevolent dictator (excuse me "private property owner") would exercise his "right" to throw me overboard whenever he saw fit.

The Free State Project is about the state of New Hampshire. There is no benevolent dictator in New Hampshire. No one may remove you from the state. No need to worry :cool:

[tfurrh]

Shari Lewis (http://image2.findagrave.com/photos/2006/189/7971_115246530185.jpg) would be SCREWED.

[jmdrake]

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?6186-Danke

Thanks: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Danke again.

[Brian4Liberty]

Eduardo was banned for an innapropriate post that was not related to the subject of alternate accounts.

Let me guess! Was it about women or gays?

[jmdrake]

The Free State Project is about the state of New Hampshire. There is no benevolent dictator in New Hampshire. No one may remove you from the state. No need to worry :cool:

Yeah. But once all of the roads around my house become privatized the "toll trolls" can tell me I know longer have the right to travel. So then instead of being kicked out of the state I'll become locked in. But I guess as long as the FSP declares that no property owner can declare ownership of airspace I'll still be okay.

http://www.blessthisstuff.com/imagens/stuff/img_autogyro_gyrocopter_4.jpg

[V3n]

Eduardo was banned for an innapropriate post that was not related to the subject of alternate accounts. His (and Collins') alternate accounts were banned because of the new rule.

Thank you for the clarification.

[Anti Federalist]

Okay. I "see" know. They were both named "eduardo". Typically a sockpuppet account is to hide your identity and look like two different people. Looks like he made this account as a form of civil disobedience. Especially seeing the join date:

Join Date
04-05-2012

Last Activity
Today 12:55 AM

Blog Entries
0


Anyway, as I said in another thread I long for the days of mod free forums. Sometime when I have time I'll post a brief history of moderation on Internet discussion days from the "good/bad" old days of USENET where moderation was basically impossible to today. It's interesting (and a bit sad) that on a forum dedicated to libertarianism someone hasn't come up with a way to deal with issues of trolling/spam/flamewars etc without going to a hierarchy. I know, I know it's "private property". But it would be nice if this kind of private property was used as an experiment on how to have a vibrant self-organizing self-moderating community. I hear about things like the "Free State Project" or worse "Libertarian floating islands". As it stands there's no way I'd get on one of those things because I'm afraid the benevolent dictator (excuse me "private property owner") would exercise his "right" to throw me overboard whenever he saw fit.

+rep

[kathy88]

Brandon knows all about derailing vote flipping threads because he disagrees with it.

And if I'm not mistaken got banned for activity in those threads.

[Nirvikalpa]

Then leave. Honestly, no one is stopping you from leaving. Create your own forums, and see how fast that goes. But no, just sit here and bitch, bitch, bitch, and feel special because the same few keep quoting you, repping you, and agreeing.

I'm not trying to be a bitch here (or maybe I rather am), but you do not have all-seeing eyes on the forum, and can not see the reported PM messages or the reported reputation.

[Nirvikalpa]

Leave Nikki alone! Grammar cop. LOL!

Last time I checked, malkusm and I are two different people.

[Dr.3D]

Now I guess there is an explanation for those who wished to have their accounts deleted. Perhaps they didn't want to use their old account anymore and decided to make a new account to use instead.

Seems to me like if the old account doesn't get used anymore, the new account would be fine to have.

[MelissaWV]

Just go ahead and ban everyone but the mods, and then let them start banning each other until there is only one mod left. And then let that mod commit seppuku.


It is an exercise in power. It is a demonstration on how power works. It doesn't take much power to be powerful. This is why taking over the GOP won't deliver freedom. The people in power will make sure of it.

Yes, that is obviously the same as banning people who have multiple accounts in order to avoid bans, pat themselves on the back, and disrupt the forums. It is obviously the same as having a political forum without posts that put forth that marriage is a license to have sex with your wife whenever you want, whether or not she agrees (what some might call "rape"). It is definitely the same as trying to keep a forum dedicated to the Mission Statement's ideas from turning into a porn-posting, faptastic corner of the internet where calling for the deaths of Government agents or cheering when they're killed is the latest fashion.


Yep. Especially considering eduardo just got banned. :( :mad: This is getting stupid.

THAT is your benchmark? A guy who was telling us just recently how Christian he was, shortly before he started personally insulting people and talking about the aforementioned contract that entitles a spouse to sex regardless of current consent?


Poor logic and even poorer use of the English language. Someone might go for an alt account because they realize it was a mistake to use their real name instead of some anonymous nick name like the overwhelming majority of people here. Some folks are total pricks sometimes, but it's "okay" because they know that nobody who Google's these threads 10 years from know will have a clue who "RonPaulAssKicker" is. So someone might want the freedom to act like the rest of the anonymous horde here. Unless you consider typical behavior "trolling".......


If it was a mistake to use their real name, then they will create an alt account and stop using the first one, perhaps even asking that it be deleted. Or they will ask the mods for a name change. That's not a sock puppet account. These accounts are being used simultaneously, often in the same threads to appear as if more people agree or disagree with something than really do. There are rules against self-bumping threads too much, but this gets around those. There are rules on every forum and chatroom with mods, and I've never been in one where ban-evasion was okay. I've also never seen one that encouraged people using multiple accounts to give themselves a louder "voice."


If I read that thread correctly, it sounded like he admitted it and said he'd stop once he was told it wasn't kosher.
I may have missed something if he did something beyond that.

No, he said he'd stop using his old account when it got enough rep bars. Curiously, he used both at the same time even during the thread he said that. If he had used an account, abandoned it, and then started using a totally different one and never going back to the old one (or deleting it), then it would not have caused such an issue.


Honest question. Not rhetorical. Help me understand. Why are sock puppets bad?

Ban evasion. Self-bumping. Self-agreement. Flooding. Cross-rep. Misdirection (much easier when you seem to have many people agreeing with you). Bumping a lot of old threads up so that current threads are no longer new, and old contraversial threads garner more posts and attention than urgent, time-sensitive things.

I could think of more, I'm sure :)


I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at. I was expecting a link to the "sock puppet posted" thread. You just gave me a link to his member page.

Edit: I clicked on the recent visitor messages to see if that was the "evidence" you were alluding to. All that I saw was Danke asking for his email address. Which reminds me. I'd like it to. He posted a question to me in a +rep that he gave me a while back and I'd been meaning to get back with him on it. :( Seriously, mods should let banned members post one final message leaving a forwarding address. This place is starting to suck.

If you don't already have someone's information, then that does suck. As the mods have said repeatedly, though, eduardo's main account was banned for a week. Heck, it's part over already. This place IS starting to suck bigtime, but it's not because the mods are on some authoritarian banning spree. It is because people do not take the time to realize there really are rules when you walk into someone's house, and some folks are upset that someone was seen out the door for crapping in the ficus in the corner.

[NikolayaRadchenkova]

THAT is your benchmark? A guy who was telling us just recently how Christian he was, shortly before he started personally insulting people and talking about the aforementioned contract that entitles a spouse to sex regardless of current consent?

I'm going to repost this here because I don't think you saw it in the other thread. I'm not sure about the insulting people, I haven't read through all his posts, but he didn't insult anyone in the thread you're talking about (although he did tell you to "chill the **** out) and he was obviously not talking about or condoning rape if you look at the earlier posts where he talked about suing for monetary compensation, not for forced sex as you allude to.


I'm pretty sure what eduardo89 was referring to is that a marriage contract has the implicit expectation of sex between the spouses who entered into the contract and that failure to "put out" would be sufficient grounds for the affected partner to sue for dissolution of the marriage on the basis of breach of contract.

I looked at his other comment with regards to suing for breach of contract for a girl not having sex on a date after the guy pays for everything, and although I don't think that would be sufficient grounds to win in court, he did make a valid point, even though he was clearly joking. In our current society, it is almost a tacit contract that there is an expectation of sexual favors when a man takes a woman out and pays for her. I'm not saying its right, I completely disagree with such promiscuous behavior and expectations, but that is the state of our society, particularly in more liberal urban areas.


-------------------

I agree with the rule against anonymous second accounts. There's no real point to them except to disrupt the forums. I've seen it happen in another forum I used to post on and it just gets silly.



If you don't already have someone's information, then that does suck.

I'm new here and I haven't made friends yet (and I hope not to get banned hehe) but in any case, I'd like to make friends and if you want you can add me on Facebook :) the link to my page is in my forum profile

[CaptainAmerica]

[Note: The forum announcement is temporary; this thread is permanent. Thus, the thread.]

Anyone caught posting on an alternate, or "sock puppet" account (i.e. using two accounts at once), will be banned for doing so (both on their original and alternate accounts). This includes using a new account if your old account is banned.

First offense: Two-week ban for main account, permanent ban for all alternate accounts.
Second offense: Permanent ban of all user accounts. (This includes using a new account if your account is temporarily banned.)

Thanks,

-Matt

P.S. - Yes, this includes Matt Collins.

http://i.imgur.com/PZQaz.png

[LibertyEagle]

Honestly, people, I don't know what all of you have your shorts in a twist for about this. Not allowing sock puppet accounts is nothing new. It has never been ok to have multiple accounts. All Josh and the Mods did was to make it official and add it to the forum guidelines.

If any of you think being a Mod is an easy job, let me tell you that it isn't. As much as some of you may like to believe that you would just love it if this place was unmoderated, I can almost guarantee you that you would not. There are a whole lot of things that the Mods handle so quickly, that you don't even know they happened. You have no idea the number of trolls that have popped on this forum; not to mention posts that needed to quickly be removed, unless you personally wanted a visit from Homeland Security. Add that to the combining of duplicate threads, moving threads just dumped in Grassroots Central into the subforum they should have been posted in to begin with, and on and on.

So, lay off them, how about, and just maybe consider thanking them for all the unpaid time they spend moderating this place, while being insulted by the very people they are trying to help.

[Anti Federalist]

You have no idea the number of trolls that have popped on this forum; not to mention posts that needed to quickly be removed, unless you personally wanted a visit from Homeland Security.

Can't argue with that.

Big Brother is quite real, this site is being watched, and "stepping over the line" will get you a visit from Officer Friendly.

[NikolayaRadchenkova]

Can't argue with that.

Big Brother is quite real, this site is being watched, and "stepping over the line" will get you a visit from Officer Friendly.

Yikes! I probably shouldn't be posting with my real name :/

[NikolayaRadchenkova]

zend2.com online proxy

And it seems I'm not the only one who uses it...

[Kotin]

Ahhh.. Noticed that lol.. My mistake

[MelissaWV]

The only contract that I believe does implicitly provide for all the sex I could want is marriage

Since someone is hopping around and tsk-tsking at me about the notion of eduardo advocating rape, what precisely do you call the above?

"Hey even if she doesn't want it, I married her, so I'm takin' it" does not sound like consensual relations to me. Your opinion obviously differs.

[NikolayaRadchenkova]

Since someone is hopping around and tsk-tsking at me about the notion of eduardo advocating rape, what precisely do you call the above?

"Hey even if she doesn't want it, I married her, so I'm takin' it" does not sound like consensual relations to me. Your opinion obviously differs.

He never said "all the sex I could ever want...even if she doesn't want it, I'll take it".

Anyway, I'm not going to discuss this further. I stated my view on this already. I think you're wrong for suggesting he advocates rape and I think the mods should delete that because it is libel and it is a personal attack against another member and it's quite low, especially because he doesn't have the opportunity to defend himself. I'm going to butt out of it now, and he can defend himself if he wants when he gets back. I'm going to go back to posting on other topics.

[malkusm]

All I'll say on this topic is, three separate users reported the post for advocating rape. So, if he wasn't, maybe he should be more clear next time, so as not to give off the impression.

[NikolayaRadchenkova]

All I'll say on this topic is, three separate users reported the post for advocating rape. So, if he wasn't, maybe he should be more clear next time, so as not to give off the impression.

I'm guessing Melissa was one.

And if it's such a horrible post, why hasn't it been removed?

[heavenlyboy34]

He never said "all the sex I could ever want...even if she doesn't want it, I'll take it".

Anyway, I'm not going to discuss this further. I stated my view on this already. I think you're wrong for suggesting he advocates rape and I think the mods should delete that because it is libel and it is a personal attack against another member and it's quite low, especially because he doesn't have the opportunity to defend himself. I'm going to butt out of it now, and he can defend himself if he wants when he gets back. I'm going to go back to posting on other topics.
He did. When I pressed him on it, he didn't clarify it to mean anything else.

[malkusm]

I'm guessing Melissa was one.

And if it's such a horrible post, why hasn't it been removed?

Incorrect.

We rarely remove posts unless they are direct attacks or blatant misinfo on the campaign. As you can see, if we were to remove the post, moderators would be tarred and feathered for not being able to provide an adequate reason for any ban.

[NikolayaRadchenkova]

He did. When I pressed him on it, he didn't clarify it to mean anything else.

Where did he say "I will rape my wife if she doesn't have sex with me?"

Anyway, as I said I'm not going to get further involved. I just think its really low of Melissa of say that he's an advocate or defender of rape.

[randfan7]

Can't argue with that.
Big Brother is quite real, this site is being watched, and "stepping over the line" will get you a visit from Officer Friendly.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/heres-what-facebook-sends-the-cops-in-response-to-a-subpoena/11528
Everything you do online is monitored.
Checkout what facebook sends the cops when subpoened everything you have ever done on facebook.
http://issuu.com/thebostonphoenix/docs/markoff-facebook-subpoena?mode=window&pageNumber=10

[MelissaWV]

I'm guessing Melissa was one.

And if it's such a horrible post, why hasn't it been removed?

Oddly, I wasn't one. I did speak to eduardo about it, though.

For someone who was going to butt out, you certainly have almost none of the facts and all the opinion.

[Travlyr]

Yes, that is obviously the same as banning people who have multiple accounts in order to avoid bans, pat themselves on the back, and disrupt the forums. It is obviously the same as having a political forum without posts that put forth that marriage is a license to have sex with your wife whenever you want, whether or not she agrees (what some might call "rape"). It is definitely the same as trying to keep a forum dedicated to the Mission Statement's ideas from turning into a porn-posting, faptastic corner of the internet where calling for the deaths of Government agents or cheering when they're killed is the latest fashion.
While I did not mean that all power is a negative concept, I believe it may have come across as such. My point was that power is a very interesting concept. It has been said that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The power to print money, or the power to force sanctions on a people, or the power to bomb a country is dangerous power that politicians seem to take lightly. That is the power of government. The power to ban someone from a forum is a demonstration of power, but the consequences are nil. I did not mean banning someone from a forum is comparable to bombing a country... all I meant was that the concept of power is universal.

[PierzStyx]

How do you enforce this? If I make an alternate account with an entirely new name, how would you ever know?

[Phil]

How do you enforce this? If I make an alternate account with an entirely new name, how would you ever know?
IP address. Proxies are how Fire11 comes back.

[Phil]

Since someone is hopping around and tsk-tsking at me about the notion of eduardo advocating rape, what precisely do you call the above?

"Hey even if she doesn't want it, I married her, so I'm takin' it" does not sound like consensual relations to me. Your opinion obviously differs.
Can you stop derailing the discussion in this thread? Thanks.

[Nirvikalpa]

Can you stop detailing the discussion in this thread? Thanks.

http://i.imgur.com/jXMmv.jpg

[Danke]

I'm closing this thread.

[Phil]

http://image.superstreetonline.com/f/8226923/130_0803_06_z+car_detailing+rims.jpg
Thank you for pointing out my typo. I'm on my phone. What a great quality post from a mod, though.

[malkusm]

Thank you for pointing out my typo. I'm on my phone. What a great quality post from a mod, though.

http://www.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Camron-You-Mad.jpg

[Phil]

http://www.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Camron-You-Mad.jpg

Please stop, you're going to scare away the new members.

[bluesc]

"It's fine to contribute to derailing a thread if you're a mod."

Why isn't that in the forum guidelines?

[malkusm]

"It's fine to contribute to derailing a thread if you're a mod."

Why isn't that in the forum guidelines?

Go look at the first post. It's MY thread. You're free to derail your own threads as much as you want.


+ Posts should respect the intent and desires of the Topic Starter.

[bluesc]

Go look at the first post. It's MY thread. You're free to derail your own threads as much as you want.

But I have been given warnings for making off topic posts in someone's thread even when the OP was joining me in doing so. Then my posts, along with the OP's posts, were deleted.

Change it to:


+ Posts should respect the intent and desires of the Topic Starter. overbearing moderators.

[malkusm]

But I have been given warnings for making off topic posts in someone's thread even when the OP was joining me in doing so. Then my posts, along with the OP's posts, were deleted.

Change it to:

Good idea! I'll get on that immediately.

[Noble Savage]

Young bucks always got to show out that's why they should be delegated to just heavy lifting.

[HigherVision]

lol at first I thought this said 'Alternative rock accounts not allowed'

[presence]

Hate to have to be the one to point out the obvious, but...

banning sock puppet accounts on a libertarian message board is kind of hypocritical, no?

I thought the libertarian motto is to punish behaviour which directly infringes on other's liberty...
not to punish behaviour which we dislike or has the probability to be problematic.

Its almost as bad as banning driving while on your cell phone.

Besides... in the digital world of IP spoofing and persona management... how would you ever know?

I have no problem with and kind of like sock puppets... some people learn (and some educate) more proficiently from reading a [spoofed] dialogue than they do reading a well cited single player argument.

but yessa massa, me be keepin me socks on me feet,

presence

[heavenlyboy34]

Hate to have to be the one to point out the obvious, but...

banning sock puppet accounts on a libertarian message board is kind of hypocritical, no?

I thought the libertarian motto is to punish behaviour which directly infringes on other's liberty...
not to punish behaviour which we dislike or has the probability to be problematic.

Its almost as bad as banning driving while on your cell phone.

Besides... in the digital world if IP spoofing and persona management... how would you ever know?

presence
Property owners set the rules of conduct on their property. The owners of this forum are in line with libertarian thought to the extent that they recognize this. If someone came into your store and broke every reasonable and/or explicit rule, wouldn't you throw them out?

[Danke]

Hate to have to be the one to point out the obvious, but...

banning sock puppet accounts on a libertarian message board is kind of hypocritical, no?

I thought the libertarian motto is to punish behaviour which directly infringes on other's liberty...
not to punish behaviour which we dislike or has the probability to be problematic.

Its almost as bad as banning driving while on your cell phone.

Besides... in the digital world if IP spoofing and persona management... how would you ever know?

presence

I made the point that searching via the "new posts" function. It is helpful to have a second account for that. The forum times out, and if you don't read all the new posts (need to do something else, etc.), then a second account comes in handy.

[presence]

Property owners set the rules of conduct on their property. The owners of this forum are in line with libertarian thought to the extent that they recognize this. If someone came into your store and broke every reasonable and/or explicit rule, wouldn't you throw them out?

The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be. - Tao Te Ching

[MelissaWV]

I think some people deliberately confuse the rules made by property owners, whose only real "punishment" is eviction from the property, and laws, where punishment is much more severe and usually not related at all to what was done.

You really are free to start your own forums. Other folks have, in fact, gone on to do just that. I can't think of any that have no moderators, though, or usernames or accounts in some sense.

[presence]

You really are free to start your own forums. Other folks have, in fact, gone on to do just that. I can't think of any that have no moderators, though, or usernames or accounts in some sense.

4chan ?

[MelissaWV]

4chan ?

4CHAN GLOBAL RULES


1.Do not upload, post, discuss, request, or link to, anything that violates local or United States law. This will be severely punished and strictly enforced.
2.If you are under the age of 18, or it is illegal for you to view the materials contained on this website, discontinue browsing immediately.
3.Do not post the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry"), grotesque ("guro"), or loli/shota pornography.
4.The posting of personal information or calls to invasion is prohibited.5.All boards that default to the Yotsuba B or Burichan (blue) theme are to be considered "work safe." Violators may be temporarily banned and their posts removed. Note: Spoilered pornography or other not safe for work content is NOT allowed.
6.The quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments.
7.Submitting false reports or otherwise abusing the report system will result in a ban of indeterminate length. Replying to a thread stating that you've reported it or another post is also disallowed—please do not announce your reports.
8.Complaining about 4chan (its policies, moderation, etc.) on the imageboards can result in post deletion and banishment. The administrator will address your questions, comments, complaints, and concerns via e-mail.
9.Ban evasion will result in permanent bans—no exceptions. Instead, wait and appeal it!
10.No spamming or flooding of any kind.
11.Advertising (all forms) is also not welcome—this includes any type of referral linking, "offers", etc.
12.Impersonating the 4chan administrator, moderators, or janitors is strictly forbidden.
13.The use of scrapers, bots, or other automated posting or downloading scripts is prohibited.
14.All pony/brony threads belong on /mlp/.
15.Remember: The use of 4chan is a privilege, not a right. The 4chan staff reserves the right to revoke access and remove content without notice.Global rules apply to all boards unless otherwise noted.

(Yes, I know there's a smattering of sarcasm... just pointing out they do have rules, even if they don't care to enforce them.)

[heavenlyboy34]

The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be. - Tao Te Ching
You think rules of conduct=law? Come on, now, don't be silly. If you don't like the way this place is managed, go elsewhere. There's no law keeping you here.

[Danke]

So what is wrong with a second account if you don't abuse it in the ways malkusm has laid out?

[Keith and stuff]

banning sock puppet accounts on a libertarian message board is kind of hypocritical, no?
Not at all. Perhaps, if anything, it would be more likely to happen on a libertarian message board. I am not sure if this is a libertarian message board, though.

[heavenlyboy34]

I made the point that searching via the "new posts" function. It is helpful to have a second account for that. The forum times out, and if you don't read all the new posts (need to do something else, etc.), then a second account comes in handy.
why not just open a new tab/window? That's what I do.

[MelissaWV]

So what is wrong with a second account if you don't abuse it in the ways malkusm has laid out?

The truth? It probably will not attract attention, then. Fire11 can't help itself, and posts every darned time. People are on here having full-length conversations with themselves, cross-repping, self-promoting. How many versions of Matt Collins do we REALLY need? That kind of stuff draws the eye and the banhammer.

[heavenlyboy34]

Not at all. Perhaps, if anything, it would be more likely to happen on a libertarian message board. I am not sure if this is a libertarian message board, though. It's named after a libertarian, but many here are not libertarian. It's a motley crue. :D

[Danke]

The truth? It probably will not attract attention, then. Fire11 can't help itself, and posts every darned time. People are on here having full-length conversations with themselves, cross-repping, self-promoting. How many versions of Matt Collins do we REALLY need? That kind of stuff draws the eye and the banhammer.

I understand, but it goes against "the letter of the law."

So at anytime one could be perma-banned.

nice.

[Nirvikalpa]

I understand, but it goes against "the letter of the law."

So at anytime one could be perma-banned.

nice.

It's quite simple. Don't give us a reason to do a large IP check and other comparisons we do (it's quite extensive), and we won't.

[jmdrake]

I made the point that searching via the "new posts" function. It is helpful to have a second account for that. The forum times out, and if you don't read all the new posts (need to do something else, etc.), then a second account comes in handy.


why not just open a new tab/window? That's what I do.

What? Heavenlyboy you dare to circumvent the forum property owners rule that you have to wait for repeated searches? Don't you know that makes you someone who doesn't respect property rights and a *gasp* communist? You shall be neg-repped by the one who's ban should still be permanent until he responded via email to a thread that he couldn't read because he was banned! /sarcasm.

[Danke]

why not just open a new tab/window? That's what I do.

I'm not sure what good that does, it still times out. Sometimes very quickly.

[jmdrake]

I think some people deliberately confuse the rules made by property owners, whose only real "punishment" is eviction from the property, and laws, where punishment is much more severe and usually not related at all to what was done.

You really are free to start your own forums. Other folks have, in fact, gone on to do just that. I can't think of any that have no moderators, though, or usernames or accounts in some sense.

The original internet forum Usenet had not moderation at all. Some Usenet groups tried moderation and found it didn't work. On Usenet once a post is up it's up. By the nature of the technology there is no deleting or editing it. Moderated forums required someone to read posts before approval. That slowed down discussion to a crawl. Then hackers figured out ways around the moderation where they could just post what they want. Yet and still some Usenet forums remain the best places to get information on certain subjects. Yeah there's spam and flamewars and such, but generally it works because typically the only folks who post a comp.lang.fortran are....people interested in Fortran. I sincerely believe with a little forethought and imagination forums could be pretty much self moderated. Take for instance the problem of people taking threads off topic. If the OP had the power to split his own thread himself then there would be no need to complain to a moderator. The ability to ignore people per thread, instead of ignoring them totally, would be nice. Or maybe you could ignore a subthread of discussion when it's just become a back and forth between two people. There are lots of possible ways to do this differently if people exercised a little imagination. Instead it's "Let's have some grand pubah or set of grand pubahs decide". Okay. But what does that say for the need of "deciders" at large when an ad hoc community can't seem to do without them?

[MelissaWV]

That sounds great. Please feel free to go try it.

The big difference, of course, is that if this were set up to be a navel-gazing, lazing around forum... that would be keen. This one has a mission statement of attempting to get people elected. Having to play moderator AND activist is a rough thing. I'd probably just stay here given the option. Others would not.

[Aratus]

we will have local gop candidates needing boodles of
primary help and support until practically this october.

[low preference guy]

And, as I've stated elsewhere, there is no legitimate reason for anyone to be using an alternate account other than (1) rep whoring, (2) circumventing a ban, (3) trolling anonymously.

wow. you were able to list ALL possible reasons. you're a really smart guy.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not sure what good that does, it still times out. Sometimes very quickly.
For my purposes, it works. Just use the new tab to browse around while keeping the other window in place. Still no problems with it to this day, and I've been doing it for years.

[low preference guy]

I can see good reasons for having sock puppets though. I always was fine the the Collins sock puppet among others. I think the rule should only be circumstantially enforced.

I agree. The reason the Collins situation create a mess is that he isn't smart enough to have a sock puppet account. And he asked Josh to do the impossible task of asking everyone to not call Matt Collins out.

[low preference guy]

So what is wrong with a second account if you don't abuse it in the ways malkusm has laid out?

in a practical sense, nothing because you won't get caught.

[jmdrake]

in a practical sense, nothing because you won't get caught.

Oh but you'll be violating "property rights" and showing you have "poor character" and you're really a "communist". :rolleyes:

[brushfire]

But what if the account is called "silence dogood"?
Is that one taken?

[Aratus]

i like the "new" rule. things being catigorically fair across the board is rather cool.
i even did several postings where i suggested to "ZZ" to talk to Matt Collins knowing
fully well the two posting entities were nanosecond wired at the hipster. i can be said to
be only faintly letting the cat out of the bag by creating more of a unique distinctiveness by
my milder semi~teasing casual quips and suggestions to our liberty hobbit. i didn't feel at all
upset by the status quo but i do admit in some of my "blue" verses "gray" 1860s opines i
did get rather wordy, blandly boring and almost philosophical in my opinioning thusly on.

[Aratus]

But what if the account is called "silence dogood"?
Is that one taken?

:)i have not seen ole ben franklin's :eek: resurrection merrily posting :toady: on these forums.:D

[Noble Savage]

Sock puppets are pervy the dude that came up with the first one prolly lived with his mother

my lips are sealed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OULlWNCqDQ)

I see nothing! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh7Q)

[Kluge]

I agree. The reason the Collins situation create a mess is that he isn't smart enough to have a sock puppet account. And he asked Josh to do the impossible task of asking everyone to not call Matt Collins out.

Spot-on. I mean, he was really, really stupid about it to the point of absurdity. Not to mention that there was speculation that it wasn't a good thing to do, legally. I will never understand why some mods didn't take him aside and slap him around...figuratively speaking, of course.

But, things have changed.

[jmdrake]

It had to happen sooner or later. Note the rise of the professional internet forum moderator.

http://www.emoderation.com

I wish that was a joke.

[heavenlyboy34]

Sock puppets are pervy the dude that came up with the first one prolly lived with his mother

my lips are sealed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OULlWNCqDQ)

I see nothing! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh7Q)

Sgt. Schultz is lolz-y :D ...even though Hogan's Heroes was just a propaganda show.

[heavenlyboy34]

It had to happen sooner or later. Note the rise of the professional internet forum moderator.

http://www.emoderation.com

I wish that was a joke.
:eek:

[low preference guy]

It had to happen sooner or later. Note the rise of the professional internet forum moderator.

http://www.emoderation.com

I wish that was a joke.

That's where I work.

[Anti Federalist]

Oh but you'll be violating "property rights" and showing you have "poor character" and you're really a "communist". :rolleyes:

LOL, zing.

[presence]

You think rules of conduct=law? Come on, now, don't be silly. If you don't like the way this place is managed, go elsewhere. There's no law keeping you here.

nah... I'll stay thank you. I'm a fight over flight type. You'll just have to put up with a the voice of protest from time to time... unless that gets banned too.

presence

[angelatc]

So, mods, why is Collins still posting with at least two accounts?

[teacherone]

Josh whacked zanzibar yesterday.

Who's the other puppet?

[enoch150]

In some cases they can make it seem like an idea has much more support and backing than it does. For example the "vote flipping" threads seem to be just one or two guys with 10 accounts talking to themselves, so it add a degree of legitimacy to something that it really shouldn't have.


The inverse is true also. One person with three accounts trolling a new thread about an idea they disagree with can entirely derail it.

Yes, because there are a lot of people on RPF who can't think independently of a crowd or look past garbage.

[John F Kennedy III]

Josh whacked zanzibar yesterday.

Who's the other puppet?

ElfShadow http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?32709-Elfshadow

[heavenlyboy34]

I have no proof of this because I don't have mod powerz or anything, but I strongly suspect Roy L has at least 2-3 sock puppets. May be worth looking into.

[angelatc]

ElfShadow http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?32709-Elfshadow

I second this.

[sailingaway]

ElfShadow http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?32709-Elfshadow

I don't think that is a sock puppet

[Elfshadow]

I don't think that is a sock puppet

Yup, not a sock puppet, and very happy to be unbanned now.

[Kluge]

Yup, not a sock puppet, and very happy to be unbanned now.

I apologize for my assumption that you were. Saw a post that was Collins-esque, then your name & location...well, I hope you're taller than 5'2".

[Kotin]

Yup, not a sock puppet, and very happy to be unbanned now.

I must apologize as well since I was the mod who banned you as a Matt Collins alt account..


The name really made me believe it lol.. Welcome anyways.. :D

[Elfshadow]

I apologize for my assumption that you were. Saw a post that was Collins-esque, then your name & location...well, I hope you're taller than 5'2".

Yup, by about 8", and no biggy as I got my account back.

About the name, I have been using it for 14 years now and its in reference to a Forgotten Realms fantasy novel that I had just read, when I got frustrated on AIM trying to find a name that was not taken. AKA nothing to do with being short or an alt.

The scary thing is that one day I just popped in here and all I could do was look at a page that said. You have been banned. Perment. No reason given. I actually had to look around in here without being logged into to find this thread which made me think Malksum was the one that banned me.

Just happy it got sorted out. :D

[Toady]

Toady is used extremely infrequently to promote moneybombs and joke around. not breakin' any forum rules besides this one! Am I ok? Please don't ban Toady toady!