Jump to content

NEW MODERATORS; Please welcome our latest staff members.


DHutch

Featured Posts

Ok, another suggestion for the new guys! How about a light bit of sock puppet sniffing? I know for a fact there is at least one banned member here with a sock puppet registered. I expect there are loads actually.

 

Might have to explain 'sock puppet sniffing' to that nice Mr Athy first. I can imagine him jumping to the wrong conclusion about what it means doing!

Sock puppet accounts are against the rules of course. The challenge is where a sock puppet doesn't smell like a sock puppet, or where an account smells very sock-puppety but in fact isn't one.

 

Tools are available to site staff to help with this, but they aren't completely fool-proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it really matter if they haven't upset anyone?

A fair question. Imagine a member is banned for abusive posting to other members but then immediately sets up a sock puppet account and comes straight back in. If we allow that, we might as well not bother with any moderation and allow people to post what they like. I'd predict that the forum would shrivel and die if we allowed that.

 

If a member hasn't been banned, there's no need for a sock puppet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fair question. Imagine a member is banned for abusive posting to other members but then immediately sets up a sock puppet account and comes straight back in. If we allow that, we might as well not bother with any moderation and allow people to post what they like. I'd predict that the forum would shrivel and die if we allowed that.

If a member hasn't been banned, there's no need for a sock puppet.

However you (you mods, not you personally!) are allowing that. And whilst I'm on what should the policy be on mods replying to reports be? Obviously if a reporter becomes vexatious they are fair game to be ignored but I am aware of a few reports recently, from infrequent reporters, including one from me, that just disappear into the ether with no acknowledgement even if might just be that "the mods disagree with your reason for reporting". IMO it's all about being courteous!

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However you (you mods, not you personally!) are allowing that. And whilst I'm on what should the policy be on mods replying to reports be? Obviously if a reporter becomes vexatious they are fair game to be ignored but I am aware of a few reports recently, from infrequent reporters, including one from me, that just disappear into the ether with no acknowledgement even if might just be that "the mods disagree with your reason for reporting". IMO it's all about being courteous!

 

Yes I agree.

 

You can see how failure to acknowledge an effort by a forum member can lead to "why should I care".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, another suggestion for the new guys! How about a light bit of sock puppet sniffing? I know for a fact there is at least one banned member here with a sock puppet registered. I expect there are loads actually.

 

Might have to explain 'sock puppet sniffing' to that nice Mr Athy first. I can imagine him jumping to the wrong conclusion about what it means doing!

 

I'd prefer to see effort spent on either enforcing the rules as they exist or re-writing them to permit the political discussions that now seem to be tolerated.

 

Difficult to know what will be classed as a breach when the rules are apparently only a guide, open to inconsistent application.

A fair question. Imagine a member is banned for abusive posting to other members but then immediately sets up a sock puppet account and comes straight back in. If we allow that, we might as well not bother with any moderation and allow people to post what they like. I'd predict that the forum would shrivel and die if we allowed that.

 

[snip]

 

Were that the case the un-moderated forum would not continue to thrive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fair question. Imagine a member is banned for abusive posting to other members but then immediately sets up a sock puppet account and comes straight back in. If we allow that, we might as well not bother with any moderation and allow people to post what they like. I'd predict that the forum would shrivel and die if we allowed that.

 

If a member hasn't been banned, there's no need for a sock puppet.

 

It depends how you define 'need'. There are cases I'm told, where a member has registered multiple sock puppets then built entire threads arguing with only himself and his puppets.

 

All done purely for self amusement. No-one 'upset' (junior's criterion), so would that be ok?

P.S. ISTR 'sock puppet' used not quite to be the same as a 'doppel', but the term is more attractive so tends to get used when people mean a doppel.

 

A bit like 'troll'. Current usage has subverted the old, more precise meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends how you define 'need'. There are cases I'm told, where a member has registered multiple sock puppets then built entire threads arguing with only himself and his puppets.

 

All done purely for self amusement. No-one 'upset' (junior's criterion), so would that be ok?

A possible example would be James T. B**k, who appears to post only in the Virtual Pub. I'm sure that he is someone else on the rest of the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A possible example would be James T. B**k, who appears to post only in the Virtual Pub. I'm sure that he is someone else on the rest of the forum.

 

 

Good start Mr Athy, you've sniffed one out already!

 

Your next task is to identify whose hand is in the sock... but DON'T tell us!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes I agree.

 

You can see how failure to acknowledge an effort by a forum member can lead to "why should I care".

 

Which describes exactly the situation I now find myself in.

 

I'm aware that a banned member is on here with a Sock Puppet and causing arguments just as he did prior to his ban. I am also aware that he has been reported and I'm further aware of zero feedback to the reports - not even a courteous "Thanks for your report, we're looking into it."

 

It appears that those who should care don't give a toss if argumentative and poor advice is offered which makes me believe that my time here is done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A possible example would be James T. B**k, who appears to post only in the Virtual Pub. I'm sure that he is someone else on the rest of the forum.

 

Which is probably how he managed to get into the cricket team when his only qualification was an ability to scoff buns at tea time.

 

Oh! and welcome to the new moderators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Which describes exactly the situation I now find myself in.

 

I'm aware that a banned member is on here with a Sock Puppet and causing arguments just as he did prior to his ban. I am also aware that he has been reported and I'm further aware of zero feedback to the reports - not even a courteous "Thanks for your report, we're looking into it."

 

It appears that those who should care don't give a toss if argumentative and poor advice is offered which makes me believe that my time here is done.

 

 

From what I hear there can be dozens or even hundreds of reports outstanding at any one time, and when there is only one mod on duty they will flow in faster than they can be dealt with when a thread gets 'contentious'.

 

The two new mods olny get us back to the deeply inadequate staffing level before LM and Theo resigned. Dan, we need a dozen new mods, not just another two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Good start Mr Athy, you've sniffed one out already!

 

Your next task is to identify whose hand is in the sock... but DON'T tell us!

 

James T Berk is an authorised duplicate account, permitted for the purposes of light relief, and confined to the VP.

 

Identifying the owner of such accounts is hardly rocket science, as the owner is recorded in the profile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Ever, I know I'm new around there, but I don't recall seeing any such report. Perhaps you should send it again.

 

Thanks for the offer Athy but I'm also aware that Dan knows about him and is content to do nothing about it, so there would appear to be little point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

James T Berk is an authorised duplicate account, permitted for the purposes of light relief, and confined to the VP.

 

Identifying the owner of such accounts is hardly rocket science, as the owner is recorded in the profile.

 

 

Yes but it was a gentle test intended to help Mr Athy ease himself into his new role!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However you (you mods, not you personally!) are allowing that. And whilst I'm on what should the policy be on mods replying to reports be? Obviously if a reporter becomes vexatious they are fair game to be ignored but I am aware of a few reports recently, from infrequent reporters, including one from me, that just disappear into the ether with no acknowledgement even if might just be that "the mods disagree with your reason for reporting". IMO it's all about being courteous!

I'm sorry if this has happened. AFAIK reports are generally acknowledged, although I didn't do this on the duplicate threads I deleted the other day as I wasn't officially 'out' yet. It's possible that a technical glitch has occurred. I genuinely don't know yet - I'm new! I don't expect to be able to use that excuse for long though.

 

It depends how you define 'need'. There are cases I'm told, where a member has registered multiple sock puppets then built entire threads arguing with only himself and his puppets.

 

If a member 'needs' to do this then they have my deepest sympathy. I'd suggest going for a nice bracing stroll, perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.