(August 1, 2013 at 7:09 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(August 1, 2013 at 7:06 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: BRING BACK THE GAUNTLET!

Oh, I'm sorry.

BRING BACK THE GAUNTLET....please!

(August 1, 2013 at 6:23 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: He should only reveil that if he has the consent of the person who made the sock.

Why?

The person is guilty of a rule break. We get to see other rule breakers shamed.

The person who deceived everyone has no rights to protection as far as I can see.

GC called it out straight away to me. The person ganged up on GC using the sock.

The reason the rule about socks exists is because it's dishonest and deceitful.

I say, socks should be allowed only when it's completely obvious they're socks. They have to be at least Borat level of obvious.

(August 1, 2013 at 7:11 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 1, 2013 at 6:23 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: He should only reveil that if he has the consent of the person who made the sock.

Why?

The person is guilty of a rule break. We get to see other rule breakers shamed.

The person who deceived everyone has no rights to protection as far as I can see.

GC called it out straight away to me. The person ganged up on GC using the sock.

The reason the rule about socks exists is because it's dishonest and deceitful.

so he broke a rule aaaaaaaaand?

(August 1, 2013 at 7:17 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: so he broke a rule aaaaaaaaand?

Go try breaking the rules Germans. See what happens.

If the rule is meaningless, get rid of the rule. We'll all know where we stand then.

I asked if I could block a troll staff member. uh uh not allowed. Take a ban or play the game.

To me sock puppetry is far worse.

Fr0ds, bro, you need to chillax.

(August 1, 2013 at 7:11 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 1, 2013 at 6:23 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: He should only reveil that if he has the consent of the person who made the sock.

Why?

The person is guilty of a rule break. We get to see other rule breakers shamed.

The person who deceived everyone has no rights to protection as far as I can see.

GC called it out straight away to me. The person ganged up on GC using the sock.

The reason the rule about socks exists is because it's dishonest and deceitful.

It's largely moot, as he's come forth.

We DO name names - when people are banned, but not when they are warned.

Creating a sock does not automatically result in a ban, although typically the circumstances do lead to one - they are most often used to circumvent bans.

In this particular case, BadWriterSparty came forward voluntarily to staff, when he realized that what he was doing was not allowed. He has been given a warning. Had he not come forward voluntarily, the end result would likely have been different.

Yes, you are correct that it is deceitful to use a sock account, and it is certainly not appropriate to use one to "gang up" on another member.

(August 1, 2013 at 7:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 1, 2013 at 7:17 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: so he broke a rule aaaaaaaaand?

Go try breaking the rules Germans. See what happens.

I did.

And as a result my head was not chopped off and paraded through the streets on a fucking stick.

And I really appreciate that, and I guess all others who conflict with the rules will appreciate that aswell.

(August 1, 2013 at 7:27 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: We DO name names - when people are banned, but not when they are warned.

Creating a sock does not automatically result in a ban, although typically the circumstances do lead to one - they are most often used to circumvent bans.

Good post CD.

I think a sock puppet, especially when another person has been victimised as in this case, must be named.

Otherwise where's the justice for the victim? The thread stands as do the posts, and the perp gets a private warning.

(August 1, 2013 at 7:11 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 1, 2013 at 6:23 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: He should only reveil that if he has the consent of the person who made the sock.

Why?

The person is guilty of a rule break. We get to see other rule breakers shamed.

The person who deceived everyone has no rights to protection as far as I can see.

GC called it out straight away to me. The person ganged up on GC using the sock.

The reason the rule about socks exists is because it's dishonest and deceitful.

I'm a big fan of BadW but I agree with you that even handedness is justice.

Frankly the technicality of the sock puppet troubles me less than the sense that someone like GC needs to be driven off. If we want to hear all voices and not restrict membership to the choir, then we all have to refrain from playing king of the mountain. If someone is disturbed and disturbing people that might be different, but GC represents the thinking of a broad sweep of Americans and is far from crazy. No atheist here should feel so empowered that they can tell a theist member that this forum isn't big enough for both of them.

That said, I'm all for recognizing that the infraction may not have been intentional. It is the lack of fair play which motivated making the sock puppet that I object to. Maybe something appropriate expressed to GC acknowledging the wrong doing toward him would be enough? Whatever is done, I think GC needs to hear that we as a community do not condone this sort of thing.