(August 2, 2013 at 12:15 am)Minimalist Wrote: Ah, yes.

Damn, those Jehova's Witnesses are bad motherfuckers. Mormons may not let you read materials not approved by church elders, but JW's make you whack any sense at all out of your head.

I miss Peter . I liked him. Can we bring him back?

(August 1, 2013 at 6:23 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The reason the rule about socks exists is because it's dishonest and deceitful.

Fortunately for you and other theists, being deceitful and dishonest is not against the rules.

My experience in moderating is in interactive chat services, not forums, but I rather imagine that the concerns are similar. I could give a flying fuck whether someone is being dishonest or not. What I do care about is whether what someone is doing is disruptive of the normal activities in my channel, or otherwise threatening the goals that myself and other moderators and participants have. And if someone is disrupting things in a novel way that nobody has foreseen, I'll not hesitate to ban them, whether or not there are or are not guidelines in place (there are none in the medium that I moderate; it's solely at the discretion of the moderator).

This brings me to the no sock rule. I was active for a couple of years on a forum that had no policy against people creating sock puppets. Nobody cared, as the presence of socks there does not in any significant way disrupt activities. I have three accounts there, two of which I've posted a substantial number of posts under. People know the two accounts are mine, but they do not care; nor would they even if they didn't know. The most prominent concerns that I see with sock accounts are ban evasion, spamming, and ganging up on members or using them as shills. Since spamming is already against the rules, and disallowing banned members from rejoining could be handled by a rule explicitly against that, that leaves other rationales for the no sock rule. If a person is not using them to gain an unfair advantage over someone else, I'm not sure I see them as that problematic. Sock or not, it's just another voice, to be dealt with as just another voice would be dealt with. Now GC is all "I knew it all along" and shit. If BWS hadn't come forward, he'd have had to slug it out with this "newcomer" just like he would anyone else. (I haven't seen the actual discussion, so insert the appropriate qualifiers.) If BWS wasn't using the sock in a disruptive or patently unfair way, what's the beef?

(August 2, 2013 at 1:00 am)apophenia Wrote:

(August 1, 2013 at 6:23 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The reason the rule about socks exists is because it's dishonest and deceitful.

Fortunately for you and other theists, being deceitful and dishonest is not against the rules.

My experience in moderating is in interactive chat services, not forums, but I rather imagine that the concerns are similar. I could give a flying fuck whether someone is being dishonest or not. What I do care about is whether what someone is doing is disruptive of the normal activities in my channel, or otherwise threatening the goals that myself and other moderators and participants have. And if someone is disrupting things in a novel way that nobody has foreseen, I'll not hesitate to ban them, whether or not there are or are not guidelines in place (there are none in the medium that I moderate; it's solely at the discretion of the moderator).

This brings me to the no sock rule. I was active for a couple of years on a forum that had no policy against people creating sock puppets. Nobody cared, as the presence of socks there does not in any significant way disrupt activities. I have three accounts there, two of which I've posted a substantial number of posts under. People know the two accounts are mine, but they do not care; nor would they even if they didn't know. The most prominent concerns that I see with sock accounts are ban evasion, spamming, and ganging up on members or using them as shills. Since spamming is already against the rules, and disallowing banned members from rejoining could be handled by a rule explicitly against that, that leaves other rationales for the no sock rule. If a person is not using them to gain an unfair advantage over someone else, I'm not sure I see them as that problematic. Sock or not, it's just another voice, to be dealt with as just another voice would be dealt with. Now GC is all "I knew it all along" and shit. If BWS hadn't come forward, he'd have had to slug it out with this "newcomer" just like he would anyone else. (I haven't seen the actual discussion, so insert the appropriate qualifiers.) If BWS wasn't using the sock in a disruptive or patently unfair way, what's the beef?

Go to Religion the Op Adam and Eve post #89 and read my last entry.

Not seeing your point, GC.

(August 2, 2013 at 1:00 am)apophenia Wrote: Fortunately for you and other theists, being deceitful and dishonest is not against the rules.

Sorry is this kindergarten? You're such a dick appo

(August 2, 2013 at 1:00 am)apophenia Wrote: If BWS wasn't using the sock in a disruptive or patently unfair way, what's the beef?

Read the fucking story moron.

I would have no problem if the rule was that socks were OK. In our chat room here I frequently assume many faces. Nothing wrong with a bit of fun.

Somebody's sure got a bug up their ass.

My bible loving conjoined twin was looking to open an account here, but now he's afraid the theists here will insist the rules make him superfluous.

The irony.

(August 2, 2013 at 2:32 am)apophenia Wrote:

Not seeing your point, GC.

You acted as though I didn't know, I did before I logged out that night.
That last post shows I knew something was up and I was finished with PP. I knew someone here, who I didn't know, was being a trickster and as soon as I figured it out I alerted Fr0d0 so we could shut down the Christians from arguing with PP. That's all I'm saying.

GC, you're acting as if PP wasn't saying stuff about the Bible that actual Mormons wouldn't either. This is their 8th Article of Faith, and they adhere to it pretty strongly:

"8: We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God."

They know the Bible is unreliable. That's the whole reason that Joseph Smith Jr. and his buddies produced the Book of Mormon: it was to supplement the contradictory state of the Bible with something that was more succinct in its reasoning. On the other hand, the Book of Mormon fails miserably on the historical side, but that doesn't get rid of the fact that people were beginning to see problems with the Bible the moment it started coming in contact with the common man. The Holy Babble is also the reason why there are so many denominations, and not just one concise Christian religion.

Arguing with PP would have still been like arguing with a Mormon, but this Mormon was definitely a lot more rational, and a helluva lot cooler!