(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.
