Comments on 12778

After reading this ask.me where it appears that a user accidentally outed their sockpuppet, what's the policy about using sockpuppets to skip around the 1 question per week rule?
posted by drpartypoopercrankypantsesquire to etiquette/policy at 9:03 AM (182 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

I'm all for sock puppets.
posted by red_beetle at 9:06 AM on September 28, 2006

I seem to recall that it was agreed that if you're willing to shell out the extra 5 bucks for that purpose, more power to ya. But I could be mistaken.
posted by spicynuts at 9:06 AM on September 28, 2006

I think the sock should be deleted just because he couldn't bother to keep up the charade and use the sock in the answer. That is, I don't care about evading the rule, but laziness and/or carelessness should be punished.
posted by dame at 9:08 AM on September 28, 2006

It isn't skipping around the rule. It's a separate account. The limit is per account, not per person, as this is the internet and all.

(Although I have thought that a one question per zipcode per week rule might cut down on some of the AskMe traffic.)
posted by OmieWise at 9:11 AM on September 28, 2006

I thought if you shell out the 5 bucks, you get to do all sorts of evil things, like be a jerk, post stupid comments, ask more than 1 question a week, etc. If not, then what is the point?
posted by chunking express at 9:14 AM on September 28, 2006

Sockpuppets are evil.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:27 AM on September 28, 2006

Someone just did it again.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 9:27 AM on September 28, 2006

If not, then what is the point?
It's the little pinch of spice that keeps mathowie amused.....or cloaks his surreptitious forays.
posted by peacay at 9:29 AM on September 28, 2006

You're a doctor and a lawyer?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:30 AM on September 28, 2006

eponysterical
posted by iconomy at 9:30 AM on September 28, 2006

I don't think it is against any policy, although using two accounts to ask 39 questions in a year does seem a bit excessive.

And Dr. PPCP Esq., I hope you aren't using this account to avoid the one MeTa per week rule. :)
posted by brain_drain at 9:32 AM on September 28, 2006

::Paging crunchland::
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:39 AM on September 28, 2006

It's very wrong. It makes me sad when people use sock puppets. So very sad.
posted by Mayor Peace Love and Unity at 9:40 AM on September 28, 2006

I saw a melodrama once that featured a hero who was both a doctor and a lawyer. Anyone know what it is?
posted by grouse at 9:43 AM on September 28, 2006

although using two accounts to ask 39 questions in a year does seem a bit excessive.

He could have asked 52 with a single account.
posted by smackfu at 9:45 AM on September 28, 2006

Mmy other account's persona is a Star Trek character. I call him my... SpockPuppet.
posted by boo_radley at 9:46 AM on September 28, 2006

For the record, people with sockpuppets, you to customize your sockpuppet display preferences very differently from your normal account. So you CAN'T forget or get confused and J. Jonah Jameson can't figure out your secret identity.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:48 AM on September 28, 2006

"you need to"
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:48 AM on September 28, 2006

What we don't know can't hurt us :-D
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:51 AM on September 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

timeistight: mefites can't stand laziness.
posted by boo_radley at 9:51 AM on September 28, 2006

This is not 'Nam, there are rules!

posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:57 AM on September 28, 2006

Blazecock Pileon, you should really consider staying out of this thread.

It's super lame to use a sock puppet to get around the posting limitations and if we see people doing it we'll try nicely to talk them out of it and if they won't be persuaded we'll take stronger measures.
posted by jessamyn at 10:01 AM on September 28, 2006

I saw a melodrama once that featured a hero who was both a doctor and a lawyer. Anyone know what it is?

Was it this?
posted by thirteenkiller at 10:02 AM on September 28, 2006

Transparent sock puppets are bad but successful deception is okay?

You misunderstand. I just object to laziness and carelessness. Deception and transparency aren't my concern.
posted by dame at 10:07 AM on September 28, 2006

It's super lame to use a sock puppet to get around the posting limitations and if we see people doing it we'll try nicely to talk them out of it and if they won't be persuaded we'll take stronger measures.
posted by jessamyn at 12:01 PM CST on September 28

What about using them to get around the limitation of being banned? Such as the one you just noted or this guy? Seems super lame to get around a banning that way especially when the person engages in the same behavior he got banned for in the first place.
posted by dios at 10:09 AM on September 28, 2006

It's super lame to use a sock puppet to get around the posting limitations and if we see people doing it we'll try nicely to talk them out of it and if they won't be persuaded we'll take stronger measures.

Really? I thought I've read mathowie suggesting people do that very thing. Did I dream that up?
posted by timeistight at 10:12 AM on September 28, 2006

*cuts off right hand, burns dios in his tank*
posted by quonsar at 10:13 AM on September 28, 2006

I'm with Dame. Eschew wack hustling please. Hustle well or don't hustle at all.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:14 AM on September 28, 2006

thirteenkiller: no.
posted by grouse at 10:17 AM on September 28, 2006

Seems super lame to get around a banning...

No kidding. In other words, you can't pay $5 for double privileges that you don't abuse — but no matter how many times you piss on the website, $5 will always get you back in good standing.
posted by cribcage at 10:18 AM on September 28, 2006

Um, was something deleted from the thread in question, because I have no idea what y'all are talking about....
posted by dersins at 10:19 AM on September 28, 2006

dios, don't you have to go park your car on some hippie's head or something?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:19 AM on September 28, 2006 [3 favorites]

Yup, another name posted in the question as though he was the OP, giving away the fact that the two accounts belonged to the same person.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:20 AM on September 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Really? I thought I've read mathowie suggesting people do that very thing. Did I dream that up?

As a one-time "I will die if I can't ask a second question" thing, the sock puppet has been a recommended remedy, though I still personally think it shows a failure of imagination and resourcefulness. If that happens more than once, or if there's not some sort of crazymaking urgency, then it's super lame.

As to sock puppets to get around banning, it's lame though sometimes tolerated in our chipper BRAND NEW DAY way because mathowie and I are both huge wusses and we think everyone deserves a second chance except for self-linkers who should rot in eternal hellfire, always and forever, etc.
posted by jessamyn at 10:24 AM on September 28, 2006

I removed the comments at the sockpuppet's request.
posted by mathowie at 10:29 AM on September 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

jessamyn writes "As a one-time 'I will die if I can't ask a second question' thing, the sock puppet has been a recommended remedy, though I still personally think it shows a failure of imagination and resourcefulness. If that happens more than once, or if there's not some sort of crazymaking urgency, then it's super lame."

Huh. I was wrong. I had thought it was ok, too. Thanks for the clarification.

(Now I'm gonna have to get rid of that 'cortex' sock-puppet I've been using to post my music stuff.)
posted by OmieWise at 10:33 AM on September 28, 2006

Has it occured to no one that he might have used the sockpuppet to avoid embarassing his stepdaughter, rather than to get around the one post a week rule?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:35 AM on September 28, 2006

So why was the revealing comment deleted from the Askme thread then? Doesn't that have the effect of shielding a member who has misbehaved?
posted by dash_slot- at 10:35 AM on September 28, 2006

I removed the comments at the sockpuppet's request.

Oh, OK.

So....who was it guys? :)
posted by dash_slot- at 10:36 AM on September 28, 2006

Matt, if you go around cleaning up after people all the time, it just encourages "wackness." Is this truly best for our community?
posted by dame at 10:38 AM on September 28, 2006

I don't know if this has anything to do with a sockpuppet, but is conorlastowka really Mike Nelson?
posted by SteveInMaine at 10:39 AM on September 28, 2006

I disagree, dame!

Not really. Just trying to start a fake fight with my sock...opps!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:40 AM on September 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

There are two issues:

1. A user who has a sock puppet account and an account under his more or less real name who asked a question using the sock puppet in order to not link a family question to his real name. Leave the guy alone, he could have just as easily used the anonyme feature and it would have been fine.

2. a user who asked two questions with two accounts in one week neither of which were super embarassing (imho) and then posted follow up comments in one thread from the other account. That's pushing it, I wrote the guy a note. It's fine now.

I figure people have sock puppets for their own reasons and unless they're abusing them or using them to break rules, I try to just let sleeping puppets lie.
posted by jessamyn at 10:41 AM on September 28, 2006

Screw you, lady! Fight at the Herald Square stop, 5.15, today. I'll walk right into you.
posted by dame at 10:42 AM on September 28, 2006

no, conorlastowka works for the company that does rifftrax. And I told him over email last week that we already had a post about the service and that he shouldn't post about it, so when he did, I did some digging and lo and behold, he posted it from an IP owned by the same company that does the rifftrax.

It really pisses me off when people knowingly do shit like that.
posted by mathowie at 10:42 AM on September 28, 2006

That was for my sockpuppet, not Jessamyn.
posted by dame at 10:43 AM on September 28, 2006

oh jessamyn, on #2 I actually banned one account when someone was constantly asking two questions a week this way.
posted by mathowie at 10:44 AM on September 28, 2006

So if dame is my sock puppet, and I'm hers, who is really at the controls???
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:46 AM on September 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

posted by blue_beetle at 10:47 AM on September 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'm in charge. Stop questioning my authority. Dear Ask, how do I make my sockpuppet accept she is not in fact autonomous?
posted by dame at 10:48 AM on September 28, 2006

Has it occured to no one that he might have used the sockpuppet...

His rationale seemed obvious (and relevant) to both of us. But whereas I assumed it was equally obvious to everyone else, you apparently assumed that you were the only person smart enough to figure it out.

Rorschach thanks you for your participation.
posted by cribcage at 10:51 AM on September 28, 2006

You misunderstand. I just object to laziness and carelessness. Deception and transparency aren't my concern.

you sound like a supervillain, which is awesome
posted by poppo at 10:52 AM on September 28, 2006

cribcage: "His rationale seemed obvious (and relevant) to both of us. But whereas I assumed it was equally obvious to everyone else, you apparently assumed that you were the only person smart enough to figure it out.

Rorschach thanks you for your participation."

My comment was based on the actual conversation at hand, which was almost exclusively about using sockpuppets to get around posting quotas, whereas your comment is based entirely on your own assumptions.

Freud says, "Hi."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:02 AM on September 28, 2006

Damnit, socks have feelings, too!
posted by Balisong at 11:02 AM on September 28, 2006

mathowie writes "I did some digging and lo and behold, he posted it from an IP owned by the same company that does the rifftrax. "

I knew it! Even though 15 minutes of surfing around couldn't prove it. How many times was his FPP flagged?
posted by Mitheral at 11:06 AM on September 28, 2006

Also, cribcage, my comment was in direct response to a previous comment in this thread outing the sockpuppet again, which was almost immediately removed by the admins. In other words, "I'm not the arrogant prick you're looking for."

I'm a completely different arrogant prick.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:07 AM on September 28, 2006

your comment is based entirely on your own assumptions.

Perhaps you've confused a comment about assumptions with being based on assumptions. But perhaps not, so let's clarify. You asked, "Has it occured to no one," which I interpreted to mean, "It has only occurred to me." Did you mean something else?

I find that an odd phrasing for a sincere question. It seemed quite obviously rhetorical. But maybe it wasn't.
posted by cribcage at 11:27 AM on September 28, 2006

sometimes tolerated in our chipper BRAND NEW DAY way

The meme that will not die!
posted by solid-one-love at 11:30 AM on September 28, 2006

As I said above, it was in irritated response to someone re-outing the sockpuppet here, after Matt had gone to the trouble to clean up the mistake in the AskMe thread, as well as to this callout in general, which used the thread as an example of "using sockpuppets to skip around the 1 question per week rule."

If my hasty choice of the phrase "Has it occured to no one" in response seems to indicate some deep personality flaw to you, well... I'll just have to live that, I guess.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:43 AM on September 28, 2006

Oh, no! I did it again! I left out the word "with," in the intended phrase "live with that." Hmm. I wonder what that says about me? Am I secretly contemplating suicide over cribcage's disapproval? I just don't know what to think anymore...
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:49 AM on September 28, 2006

It's Raining Florence Henderson: I thought that he was using the sockpuppet to cover their name, which would be fine if he was only using his sockpuppet for that kind of purpose. But after taking a quick look at their posting history, the user has repeatly used their sockpuppet to break ask an additional weekly question about topics that don't involve giving up someone's personal information. I remember that this topic has come up before but I didn't remember if a set policy had been made up yet.
posted by drpartypoopercrankypantsesquire at 11:57 AM on September 28, 2006

I'll just have to live that, I guess.

In other words, that last bit about my faulty "assumptions" was just so much bullshit; and now that your bluff's been called, you're going to retreat into the Internet hallmark, "I didn't really care about that argument, anyway."

Am I secretly contemplating suicide over cribcage's disapproval?

And you'll cover that retreat with humor. Which is fine, because I suppose there's nothing wrong with behaving like a Usenet cliché — but just for future reference, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging the humor in the first place, rather than lamely trying to pretend that you didn't actually make a gaffe.
posted by cribcage at 11:57 AM on September 28, 2006

CRIBCAGE YOU DA WINNER!!!

BIG MANN!!!!!
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:11 PM on September 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 12:11 PM on September 28, 2006

Define quibble.
posted by Cranberry at 12:12 PM on September 28, 2006

Wow, cribcage - you're pretty determined to make a common turn of phrase more important than the obvious context of the conversation, huh? Okay - point-by-point:

1) "that last bit about my faulty "assumptions" was just so much bullshit"

Wrong. As I've said repeatedly, my comments were based on the actual conversation taking place in the thread, which was almost exclusively about the issue of getting around the rules. In other words - my comment wasn't about assumptions at all. Your comment, on the other hand, actually stated that you were talking about your assumptions, and then made (eroneous) assumptions about my motives.

2) No retreat. My humor is not a cover. Nor did I make a gaffe. I merely posed a commonly phrased and obviously rhetorical question intended primarily to shake a finger at the poster who re-outed the sockpuppet, and to pre-emptively head off any upcoming related shenanigans (see the new MeTa thread above).

3) But leaving the humor out, now, since you consider it cliché - I think your complaints are absurdly pedantic.

4) My motives were not to glorify myself, but rather to help the Original Poster maintain his anonymity. What are your motives?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:16 PM on September 28, 2006

dios: I made the second account, and immediately notified mathowie of its presence.

I also explicitly told him that I didn't expect that he would let me keep this account, but if he did, that I'd try to behave.

But hey, thanks for confirming that you are still a vile and petty man, in dire need of hobbies. Perhaps you'd enjoy scrapbooking.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 12:22 PM on September 28, 2006 [3 favorites]

(besides, that is extra funny coming from a guy who was banned at the same time I was.)
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 12:22 PM on September 28, 2006

Blazecock Pileon, you should really consider staying out of this thread.

Hey Blazecock, who are you anyway?
posted by LarryC at 12:33 PM on September 28, 2006

"Tacos Are Pretty Great" = "I love Tacos"?
I never would have guessed. After all the effort said poster went to in order to veil his identity, dios had to go and spoil the surprize.
posted by raedyn at 12:48 PM on September 28, 2006

... I'd try to behave.

That's big of you.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:48 PM on September 28, 2006

the actual conversation...was almost exclusively about the issue of getting around the rules.

That's precisely the point. No one else had mentioned the other issue, so you concluded that no one else had considered it.

Your comment...made (eroneous) assumptions about my motives.

Really? The first time you claimed that, I asked you to clarify and your reply was basically, "Uhh...whatever, dude."

I think your complaints are absurdly pedantic.

And I think you're just being absurd, claiming that I misinterpreted what was meant to be a polite, constructive comment. But you do have a point about my motives: Your comment made me snicker and I decided to post a snark. That was a bit like laughing when someone stumbles; and when you began to protest how you "meant to do that," I probably should have just walked away. If it'll make you feel better, I can do that now.
posted by cribcage at 12:51 PM on September 28, 2006

"Your comment...made (eroneous) assumptions about my motives.

Really? The first time you claimed that, I asked you to clarify..."

Your clarification: You said "you apparently assumed that you were the only person smart enough to figure it out."

You also said, "Has it occured to no one," which I interpreted to mean, "It has only occurred to me." Did you mean something else?"

These are eroneous assumptions, since as I've mentioned in pretty much every comment here, my comment was primarily intended for the poster who re-outed the sockpuppet in the comment immediately preceding my own (and almost immediately deleted by the admins for the same reason it irked me).

I find it interesting that you also said about my comment, "It seemed quite obviously rhetorical." If so, then why take me to task as if you honestly believe I meant it literally?

You admit that you came hunting snark. I think you're just shooting blindly hoping to hit anything at all.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:05 PM on September 28, 2006

*whistles, averts eyes*
posted by brain_drain at 1:16 PM on September 28, 2006

Feature request: can we have a MetaFilter Ultimate Fighting ladder tournament? Call it .... FightMe.

We can have the winner of cribcage vs IRFH take on the winner of dios vs. TAPG. The winner of that can take on that damned preying mantis that killed the mouse in that bell jar.
posted by Humanzee at 1:22 PM on September 28, 2006

C'mon, cribcage is just trying to score points with -- um -- cribcage?
posted by bardic at 1:28 PM on September 28, 2006

cribcage and I are aren't fighting so much as arguing points for style, at least in my view. There's nothing much at stake, and I can't imagine this as having "ultimate" drama potential. Sorry Humanzee.

I might just cut my arm off, though, if he doesn't take it back.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:30 PM on September 28, 2006

I never would have guessed. After all the effort said poster went to in order to veil his identity, dios had to go and spoil the surprize.

I sincerely apologize for my deceit.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 1:31 PM on September 28, 2006

I was sure that your sockpuppet was Tacos Are Something I Do Not Find Overly Offensive.
posted by bardic at 1:33 PM on September 28, 2006

Actually - since I'm mostly just avoiding a task I really don't want to do, I'll make this even less interesting by conceding that my choice of admonishments, though indended rhetorically, obviously came off overly broad in execution (especially after the targeted comment was deleted), I'll toss off an "it's a fair cop," and "mea culpa," and be on my way. If I don't get some work done pretty soon I'm gonna get fired.

But I've got my eye on that preying mantis.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:36 PM on September 28, 2006

Crap, I was hoping for some exciting violence. Also, I was hoping to see someone take down that damned mantis.

On preview: Awesome IRFH! But you'll never win with that attitude: you need to get back the eye of the tiger!
posted by Humanzee at 1:41 PM on September 28, 2006

(besides, that is extra funny coming from a guy who was banned at the same time I was.)
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 2:22 PM CST on September 28

I've never been banned from this site, so you are wrong about that.

But the fact that you would try to behave was certainly short-lived since in the last week you have made multiple comment directly insulting me in an off-topic manner and generally behaving in the exact way that was the basis for your banning to begin with.... as your comment here is evident:

But hey, thanks for confirming that you are still a vile and petty man

Apparently Matt has given you the stamp of approval to behave that way for whatever reason he has, even though it expressly conflicts with the stated point of giving someone a second chance. But whatever.
_________

Hey Blazecock, who are you anyway?
posted by LarryC at 2:33 PM CST on September 28

That one isn't even hard to figure out.
posted by dios at 1:50 PM on September 28, 2006

dios and cribcage, I'm leaving town early for a long weekend and won't have access to a computer. Please hurry up and get to your respective flame-outs. kthxbye.
posted by bardic at 1:56 PM on September 28, 2006

That one isn't even hard to figure out.

I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but I figured it was Pretty_Generic. What was your guess?
posted by solid-one-love at 1:57 PM on September 28, 2006

I just wanted to clarify that at no point in the history of Metafilter have I been quonsar. Nor have I had any sort of fish in my pants.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:07 PM on September 28, 2006

I can't imagine how you people manage to be anal (bored?) enough to keep track of who's behind various sock puppets. It's all I can do to not confuse eriko and ericb.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:12 PM on September 28, 2006

directly insulting me in an off-topic manner

Simply amazing display of hypocrisy there, nimrod.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 2:14 PM on September 28, 2006

No one has skills like dhoyt anymore.
posted by frecklefaerie at 2:18 PM on September 28, 2006

FIGHT!
posted by Balisong at 2:20 PM on September 28, 2006

I'm sorry, but if you paid your money, you get to have all the benefits. It's not harming anything.

"I thought if you shell out the 5 bucks, you get to do all sorts of evil things, like be a jerk, post stupid comments, ask more than 1 question a week"

OMG POSTING QUESTIONS IS EVIL!

Everyone is free to check the poster's history and determine for themselves if the querent has given back an adequate amount for their personal ratio and guidelines. But what the hell; I'll probably get banned when I use a sock puppet to ask two of my four questions a year the same week due to some crazy urgency like a death in the family. Shame on me in advance.
posted by Eideteker at 2:49 PM on September 28, 2006

17,100?!! Holy crap! That's a massive... Google count you got there, cribcage.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:50 PM on September 28, 2006

Damn. I missed the evidence. Although others may argue, I am neither anal nor bored enough to keep track of who is whom, which is why I created the list on my user page in the first place. And, honestly, when I first started it, I was more interested in keeping track of the more interesting uses of sockpuppets, like dhoyt's antics, rather than people signing up for multiple accounts so they could ask more than one lame brained question on ask.mefi a week.
posted by crunchland at 2:55 PM on September 28, 2006

I've never been banned from this site, so you are wrong about that.

man, this is a train wreck. dios got a timeout. y2karl isn't doing badly imo, and I encourage others to find good posts.

Thanks for re-proving that you care nothing for truth.

Are you really this upset by the fact that I occasionally point out your logical fallacies? If so, get therapy. Or at least be a better troll. As it stands you are WAY too obvious.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 2:58 PM on September 28, 2006

Clearly time-outs do not equal bannination, so, technically, it's true.

The only kind of true that matters.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:00 PM on September 28, 2006

17,100?!! Holy crap! That's a massive... Google count you got there, cribcage.

Hell, baby, that's nothing!
posted by cortex at 3:01 PM on September 28, 2006

Also, a "ban" and a "timeout" are very, very different things, semantically. The very idea of a timeout is that the subject will be returning after a short, fixed amount of time.
posted by cortex at 3:04 PM on September 28, 2006

cortex: so a timeout is a fixed-length ban, whereas a ban is (in practice) a variable length ban.

I guess I might agree that the two were totally different if Matt never un-banned people, but in practice almost everybody who was banned was allowed to return, if they asked nicely. The only obvious exceptions being self-linkers, and people who tried to hack passwords.

That said, none of that is here nor there. dios is just upset that I am present on his site, and pointing out that he is a fight-loving contrarian, so he's making a sideways bid to try to get Matt to give me the boot.

Let him pretend he was stung when I called him vile and petty. I still believe my assessment to be true, especially given the fact that he brought me into this thread unprovoked.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 3:16 PM on September 28, 2006

In case anybody is wondering why it is that dios felt the need to randomly drag me into this thread, here's the backstory:

dios's new beef with me appears to be entirely based on this comment of mine, in which I point out that dios and pastabagel were attempting to re-frame the issue to serve their own goals. (in dios's case, a love of fights.)

I felt that arguing the issue was unhelpful to the liberals of this country, and that it made them seem more extreme than they are, in the eyes of the center and center-right.

He replied with this comment in which he is clearly angry that my account is live.

He also claims he wasn't engaged in off-topic hand-waving, but that's just not true. He was arguing the legality of it all, when the real issue is not legality. The real issue was the question of who would benefit.

Pretty dumb beef, isn't it? Yeah... I thought so too.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 3:28 PM on September 28, 2006

You know what, Tacoman? No one cares. And if dios is banned (I can't bother to reread the thread), boo on you for continuing to flog your own self-important imaginary battle with man when he can't defend himself. If you have unfinished business with the man, take that shit to e-mail.

Sorry to be so harsh, but the last thing I want to read more about on this site is dios.
posted by Eideteker at 3:37 PM on September 28, 2006

What Eideteker said.

GYOFtCAoT&DB.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:42 PM on September 28, 2006

cortex: so a timeout is a fixed-length ban, whereas a ban is (in practice) a variable length ban.

Where that length varies from "indefinite" to "completely and unquestionably permanent". In practice, Matt has relented on some bans, and not relented on others. So, in practice, a timeout is explicitly time-limited, and a ban is explicitly not, though there exists the possibility for mercy later, maybe, depending.

Even the practical mitigations of Matt being a softie don't make the distinction difficult to percieve.
posted by cortex at 3:46 PM on September 28, 2006

What Eideteker & Alvy said. The post blithering about what you presume someone's beef with you is... that's not taking the high road.

Get over yourselves.
posted by raedyn at 3:46 PM on September 28, 2006

At some point, one or the other of Matt or Jess mentioned that there is no practical difference between a "ban" and a "timeout", since the turning-off of the login is the same procedure in each case. It's just that in a "timeout" one or the other tries to remember to turn the login back on after a while.

Just FYI.
posted by yhbc at 4:00 PM on September 28, 2006

dios is the one who brought up Tacos in this thread in the first place, you nincompoops.

Yes, let's all pile on Tacos for responding.

Geniuses.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 4:03 PM on September 28, 2006

Sockpuppets gotta stick together, eh Secaucus.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:11 PM on September 28, 2006

pay attention to what i said, not the username.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 4:15 PM on September 28, 2006

posted by ericb at 4:16 PM on September 28, 2006

Geez... I knew there was a reason I'd been avoided all those political-type threads.
posted by koeselitz at 4:18 PM on September 28, 2006

That's not exactly how this place works, and something tells me that you already know that and don't want to acknowledge your own hypocrisy. You are your username as much as you are the content of your comments. That's why this place is a community, as opposed to a message board. People take each other more seriously as users become whole characters, as opposed to just words on a screen.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:20 PM on September 28, 2006

"dios is the one who brought up Tacos in this thread in the first place, you nincompoops. Yes, let's all pile on Tacos for responding."

1. Don't rise to bait, actual or perceived.
2. Don't argue with a man who has (for all intents and purposes) left the room. It's not classy.
3. If at all possible, take the high road (thanks for putting it a bit nicer than I did, raedyn).
4. A derail is a derail.
5. I never meant it to be a pile-on (see? mine is the first such comment!). I'm probably even more surprised than you are that people are agreeing with me. I think it's a MeFi first for yours truly.

I don't mean to belabor the point; I just wanted you to understand my reasoning. Of course, this probably makes me a hypocrite for perpetuating the derail, though I'm kinda hoping it brings it to an end. To wit, I'll try to refrain from further off-topic comments in this thread.
posted by Eideteker at 4:26 PM on September 28, 2006

6. If you've been banned or timed out or insulted or whatever for getting heated in threads about politics, just STOP FUCKING READING AND COMMENTING IN THREADS ABOUT POLITICS. Really. We're not saving the world here, folks.
posted by koeselitz at 4:30 PM on September 28, 2006

"and people who tried to hack passwords."

I thought YOU were Pretty_Generic.

Man, I can't keep this shit straight anymore...
Sometimes, I even get cribcage and crunchland confused.
posted by klangklangston at 4:31 PM on September 28, 2006

Sometimes, I even get cribcage and crunchland confused.

I'm glad I'm not the only one.
posted by dersins at 5:36 PM on September 28, 2006

Eideteker: Congratulations, you win an award for the biggest hypocrite of the thread!
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 5:42 PM on September 28, 2006

I thought the deleted posts were making this thread cofusing, so I opened it in IE to avoid my killfilter and it helped none at all.

And I still have no clue who Blazecock is/was or why Jessamyn made that comment. Clearly I am not paying enough attention to MeTa drama these days.

So anyway. I like Pepsi Vanilla. It's good. So are David BBQ Sunflower Seeds. And SEC football.

And sockpuppet handjobs on cold winter nights.

/goes back to watching ESPN
posted by bargle at 5:44 PM on September 28, 2006

Check BP's posts to Music for a clue, if you're still wondering who he is.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 5:50 PM on September 28, 2006

solid-one-love writes "I figured it was Pretty_Generic. What was your guess?"

I'm missing my dance card, isn't thirteen killer with P_G? She says her boyfriend is banned so she's posting to AskMe for him here. 'Course Jessmyn ~~snarks~~ corrects he's still around.

sonofsamiam writes "It's all I can do to not confuse eriko and ericb."

TPS and PST get me mixed up all the time.
posted by Mitheral at 6:14 PM on September 28, 2006

Nope, still don't get it.
posted by yhbc at 6:20 PM on September 28, 2006

WAIT! Is it Alex Reynolds?
posted by Falconetti at 6:28 PM on September 28, 2006

TPS and PST get me mixed up all the time.

It's one hour forward in the spring, and one hour back at fall.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 6:48 PM on September 28, 2006

"WAIT! Is it Alex Reynolds?"

Heh. Actually. did everyone notice how Tacos called someone a hypocrite? For a second I thought "Aha! Alex is back!"
posted by LarryC at 7:13 PM on September 28, 2006

Clearly time-outs do not equal bannination, so, technically, it's true.

Technically timeouts are bans which are manually removed.
posted by delmoi at 7:31 PM on September 28, 2006

No, bans are timeouts that are extended...
FOR EVAH!!!

Except for when they aren't.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:38 PM on September 28, 2006

TPS and PST get me mixed up all the time.

::scoff::
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:51 PM on September 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Check BP's posts to Music for a clue, if you're still wondering who he is.

I've listened to some of his music, and I found it rather banal. Still, I have no idea what you're trying to say MB.
posted by delmoi at 8:09 PM on September 28, 2006

delmoi, I wasn't being facetious. It is Rothko.
posted by Falconetti at 8:22 PM on September 28, 2006

*Stops presses, wrinkled pants be damned*
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:43 PM on September 28, 2006

*Stops, presses, wrinkled parts be damned*
posted by patricio at 2:35 AM on September 29, 2006

Not enough gifs in this thread.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:11 AM on September 29, 2006

"WAIT! Is it Alex Reynolds?"

Wow, that was seriously douche. So much for Brand New Day. Whatever you think of a guy, I always believe you should evaluate them based on their current behavior. And don't try to gain cool points by outing someone. Not cool.
posted by Eideteker at 4:18 AM on September 29, 2006

This place virtually cracks me up !
posted by lobstah at 5:53 AM on September 29, 2006

I may be wrong--I'm often wrong--but I am totally not buying the Blazecock = Alex assertion. Their posting histories, commenting styles, and especially the apparent lack of ongoing vendettas argue against the idea.

I do think that every one who has ever bee banned is still here, in new clothes. Dhoyt, Pretty_Generic, Mcgraw, etc., walk among us yet. But not Alex. We'd know if he was here.
posted by LarryC at 7:03 AM on September 29, 2006

Eideteker writes "And don't try to gain cool points by outing someone."

No, because keeping the identity secret of some cockbundle who has shat on the community and been sent packing yet returns with a new nickname is of course more important than letting the vast majority of members have some level of name recognition continuity.
posted by peacay at 7:07 AM on September 29, 2006

So much for Brand New Day.

The Brand New Day thing wasn't about being able to change your name and disguise your identity. It was about recognizing that other members are human, and sometimes get off on the wrong foot. Disguising your identity isn't a Brand New Day, it's the Same Old Day with a different name.

I am absolutely not criticizing BP here, as his contributions since assuming that name have been worthwhile and measured, so far as I've noticed. Indeed, if adopting the new name facilitated his participation without immediately reinvigorating old grudges, then good for him. I just don't think that casually pointing out that an old member has taken on a new member name is on par with googling personally identifying information, such as real name and address.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:10 AM on September 29, 2006

There's quite a difference between starting off on the wrong foot (see bunnyfire) and being an anti-social and pathological idiot, getting banned, and then coming back in a new guise.
posted by crunchland at 7:19 AM on September 29, 2006

A bunch of people were dropping little hints and whatever about BP's identity, so I figured let's stop beating around the bush.
posted by Falconetti at 7:25 AM on September 29, 2006

i think sock puppets are ok ... as long as they are properly identified.
posted by lester at 7:42 AM on September 29, 2006

Yeah! what lester said!!!!!
posted by lester's sock puppet at 7:44 AM on September 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

I figured let's stop beating around the bush.

No kidding. I agree in principle, Eideteker, but in this case I'd be more critical of Dios and Monju trying to score "cool points" by waving their arms to announce that they knew a secret, and then playing stupid, coy games when they were asked a straight question. If you don't want to reveal a secret, then shut the fuck up about it.

I'll also stick up for Alex Reynolds. I didn't like him, but I respect the fact that he used his real name and didn't hide behind an anonymous handle — so if you're going to accuse him of skulking around MetaFilter, you ought to have some evidence. Especially if you're hiding behind an anonymous handle.
posted by cribcage at 7:45 AM on September 29, 2006

Amen, crunchland. Even when bunnyfire was given her extended timeout, Matt felt that she only needed a break and mentioned that she should come back once things settled down. I think many other people felt that way as well.

There is a stark difference between bunnyfire's revival and that of Alex. The former didn't attempt to thwart the rules and create multiple sockpuppets. The former was genuinely apologetic for her negative affect upon the site. The latter is an attention-seeker who has not yet shown (to me) any redeeming qualities (except the Dashboard widget, of course).
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:47 AM on September 29, 2006

But this is precisely the problem with "outing" people who aren't acting badly now. Suddenly there's a lot of talk about past behavior, which simply degenerates into name calling, when there's a new username that you can either critique or not. If BP isn't pushing your buttons, why spend the time to deride the person behind that handle for past misdeeds?

Look, I'm torn about this, as I felt like some of that users past behavior, and certainly his insistence on grudge holding, less fun and/or really annoying. But I while I thought that BP was probably a former user back with a new name, I never thought that the behavior of the person using that name was seriously problematic or detrimental to the site. That being the case, harping on the former identity just seems like a gotcha that doesn't advance anything, and in fact, threatens to make things shitty once again. It isn't that I think that "justice" is necessarily served by ignoring history in this case, but, for christ's sake, this is a website, and we aren't talking about a scammer like u.n. owen.
posted by OmieWise at 7:56 AM on September 29, 2006

BP is an upstanding member of the community. Shouldn't that be all that matters? Some of this discussion seems sort of like telling everyone in town that the nice guy who runs the corner store did some time in prison for drugs. It's just gossip that prevents someone from making a fresh start. If BP is Rothko/Alex, then good for him for transforming himself into a more positive influence. And I write this as someone who rolled his eyes a lot at Rothko's posts back in the day.
posted by brain_drain at 8:06 AM on September 29, 2006

I never thought that the behavior of the person using that name was seriously problematic or detrimental to the site. That being the case, harping on the former identity just seems like a gotcha that doesn't advance anything, and in fact, threatens to make things shitty once again.

I agree. And that's why I didn't say who it was, I guess. In retrospect I regret making the comment above that it was obvious, but I honestly thought it was and didn't think it was a secret or anything. I didn't feel like getting into whoever the user was in the past because his behavior under the new handle hasn't struck me as a negative to the community. Of course, I don't read the whole site so I can't speak specifically on the point, but I haven't noticed anything that I can recall that BP has caused a problem with. Contrast that with the other member I referenced above whose behavior with his new handle is equally atrocious with the behavior which caused the banning of his old one. Starting a-fresh is one thing, and I don't find it problematic at all. Re-starting under a new handle and engaging in the same bad behavior before would be problematic. I won't get into my views about sock-puppets any beyond that because I was told before that I have beat that horse. But I will say that I agree with what OmieWise just said... and I know that being in agreement with him is usually a very strong position to be in.
posted by dios at 8:10 AM on September 29, 2006

OmieWise writes "[If some old user with a new username] isn't pushing your buttons, why spend the time to deride the person behind that handle for past misdeeds?"
I guess I take the view that knowing someone's past assists me in - what I mentioned above - having a certain continuity with the members whose comments I read (and some of whose personalities I get to know etc).

Knowing this history, for the vast majority, isn't about payback or derision --- it's about having a wideangled appreciation of the place. In real life people make mistakes, are forgiven and life goes on. I don't know why Mefi has to be different. If you are an ass then people will know it. But being an ass oughtn't be rewarded with 'clean slate' opportunities. I can't get all my stupid comments deleted. I live with them. As we all should.
posted by peacay at 8:13 AM on September 29, 2006

Just to clarify....I think an old user with a new username is fine. But I think their profile should state that they were 'such and such' previously. Not a link. Just for the record, to keep things organised/less confused.
posted by peacay at 8:22 AM on September 29, 2006

But this is precisely the problem with "outing" people who aren't acting badly now. - OmieWise

Exactly. Blazecock Pileon's handle made it pretty obvious that the poster had been around MeFi a bit before. But the person hasn't been causing trouble, so what's the point of trying to link it to someone that's been a pain in the ass before? If a poster is making a genuine effort and is being successful why drag in stuff from the past - so you can sling mud for no apparent reason? Also, what if you're wrong? BP is being a productive member of the community. Why should their reputation be marred by suspicions of being connected to a highly contentious character in the past?
posted by raedyn at 8:34 AM on September 29, 2006

Omniwise, while I fully appreciate your point, and agree to a certain extent, certain characters who willfully abused their posting privileges here, had their privileges revoked, created sockpuppets to circumvent the ban, and then proceeded to post to the site without clarification (until they were forced to do so under public scrutiny) get very little sympathy from me. I fail to see the difference between self-linking and creating sockpuppets to circumvent being banned from an ethical standpoint. Both, IMHO, are detrimental to the site.

Now, if Matt and/or jessamyn are aware of these puppets and have kept quiet, that's a different story. If these puppets have been approved by admin, then by all means, proceed. Though I find that unfair to the community, I also completely understand the logic behind such a decision and can get behind that.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 8:37 AM on September 29, 2006

But I guess we've also seen posters here who HAVE made a genuine effort to change their ways and become less controversial and assholeish, but then they're followed around the site & baited, and bad things have been said about them in other threads that they aren't even a participant in. In that case perhaps it's the mudslingers that are the problem?

Not really sure what my point is there. I just really don't have a desire to go back to some of the personal flame fests between a small handful of attention-seeking members that suck so much life out of the site. We've been there, done that, and (to me at least) it seems like things have improved. Let's keep it that way.
posted by raedyn at 8:42 AM on September 29, 2006

Well, I guess from the idealist point of view, everyone should get a clean slate, and have the ability, once they've reformed, to be accepted back into the community. But I think from the pragmatic level, people need to be responsible for their behavior, and the idea that someone can act like a complete asshole, and then come back and all is forgiven just doesn't seem right. Not to mention them coming back, pulling their old tricks, putting us all through the melodramas, again and again... I can't think of any way to prevent that sort of behavior other than to out the people with their new aliases.

And I think there's something to be said for actually knowing that a guy who was once behaving like a dumb-ass has evolved and reformed.
posted by crunchland at 8:43 AM on September 29, 2006

Well, I agree, and were we to see bad behavior under a new name from someone we knew used to behave badly under a different name, I would support connecting the dots. Wholeheartedly. But I actually disagree about which position, in this case, is idealistic and which is pragmatic. I think that my position, which is that without present ills folks should pretty much be left alone (note, too, that quite some time has elapsed since the bad behavior in question), is the pragmatic one. In this case I'm suggesting a live and let live policy, where that first 'live' is the poster's reponsibility: leave the community in peace and peace will be granted unto you. Ideally folks should be accountable and should be help accountable. I'm just not sure what that idealism gets us here. (Aside from being true to our ideals, which I don't completely discount, but which I just think is less important (to me), in this case.)
posted by OmieWise at 8:59 AM on September 29, 2006

whose behavior with his new handle is equally atrocious with the behavior which caused the banning of his old one.

Dude, shit or get off the toilet. Stop obliquely referring to some atrocity Tacos has commited since returning as if it's obvious to everyone. You have made no case whatsoever for his bad behavior, but you keep bringing it up like it's some constant of the universe or something.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:05 AM on September 29, 2006

OmieWise writes "Well, I agree, and were we to see bad behavior under a new name from someone we knew used to behave badly under a different name, I would support connecting the dots."

2 things..

- How are we supposed to know it's bad behaviour from someone who was an ass previously if we don't know that 'x' in a previous guise is now the badly behaving 'y'?

-There's a silent majority who, if they are at all like (the not so silent) me, get pissed off with the confusion that cloaking allows. I didn't know who BP was and it always kind of irked me because of course raedyn is right, it was obvious they were an old user returning.
posted by peacay at 9:23 AM on September 29, 2006

posted by matkline at 9:27 AM on September 29, 2006

Aren't you Danb?

THIS MAKES MY HEAD HURT.

(If BP is AF, props to him. He's been nothing but good in his new name.)
posted by klangklangston at 9:39 AM on September 29, 2006

(If BP is AF, props to him. He's been nothing but good in his new name.)

Amen. But I just spent some time comparing the posting histories of the two (assuming Klang meant AR) and I'm not seeing the evidence. Am I missing something? Clearly BP is an old timer in a new suit, but he isn't that old timer.

The whole AR/Rothko saga was sad. The man could be charming and insightful, on those rare occasions he was not lashing out at someone. He clearly was not well. Some users here (myself included I am ashamed to say) learned to push his buttons to watch the freak out. I ended up apologizing to him, and he sent me a nice email, and we were fine after that.

Hey, maybe Blazecock Pileon is Insomnia_LJ? The name does hint at polyamory...
posted by LarryC at 9:53 AM on September 29, 2006

Yeah, I meant AR. BP is openly gay, ILJ was not.
posted by klangklangston at 9:57 AM on September 29, 2006

Of course, BP doesn't have to be a banned member. Could be anyone.
posted by LarryC at 10:05 AM on September 29, 2006

peacay writes "- How are we supposed to know it's bad behaviour from someone who was an ass previously if we don't know that 'x' in a previous guise is now the badly behaving 'y'?"

What I meant was that if someone is acting shittily, and continues to do so, and it's obvious that they're a returned old user, that's the time (again, as far as I'm concerned) to investigate and make an issue of their old identity if applicable. As is clear from this thread, many people my know an identity even if they aren't saying.

As far as the general annoyance goes, that's legitimate. There are plenty of reasons to disagree with my reasoning, and I wouldn't even mind an outing of this or that sockpuppet as long as there wasn't a concommitant stress placed on how dastardly their last incarnation was if their present identity is clean.
posted by OmieWise at 10:09 AM on September 29, 2006

crunchland: But I think from the pragmatic level, people need to be responsible for their behavior, and the idea that someone can act like a complete asshole, and then come back and all is forgiven just doesn't seem right. Not to mention them coming back, pulling their old tricks, putting us all through the melodramas, again and again... I can't think of any way to prevent that sort of behavior other than to out the people with their new aliases.

Actually, it seems to me in the case of AR/BP that not telling people was the right choice. After it became clear that it was easy to bait AR, people did it over and over again. And yeah, him being thin-skinned and unable to drop it was a problem, but so were the continued attacks. If BP is any evidence, removing the attacks left him free again to be a good member. And that suits everyone.
posted by dame at 10:18 AM on September 29, 2006

Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly. Then again, you always were a dick.
posted by dame at 11:07 AM on September 29, 2006

I wish I would have kept my mouth shut, now that we are getting bullsht like that stupid drama queen picture from Krrrlson.

The only reason I said anything was because of all the bullshit hints people kept dropping prompted me to try to figure it out. It took about two seconds to find confirmation. I think BP has been a decent member of the community so far, and I don't have any animosity towards him.
posted by Falconetti at 11:11 AM on September 29, 2006

Yeah, seriously. Hush up and leave it, people. I've enjoyed Blazecock Pileon's contributions an awful lot, and the link never even occurred to me (regardless of the dirt-simple Googlery required to confirm the suspicion once stated).
posted by cortex at 11:14 AM on September 29, 2006

You've changed my mind, Krrrlson. Best to let sleeping dogs lie.
posted by crunchland at 11:20 AM on September 29, 2006

krrrlson: <3
posted by Stynxno at 11:54 AM on September 29, 2006

I've enjoyed Blazecock Pileon's contributions to Music, that is. I haven't paid much attention elsewhere.
posted by cortex at 12:09 PM on September 29, 2006

the dirt-simple Googlery required to confirm the suspicion once stated

I can't speak for anyone else, but I plugged AR's name plus "Blazecock" into Google and I got nothing. So I have no idea what you're talking about — but again, rather than just saying, "Here's why I believe X," we're playing the vague allusion game, as if you people are allergic to straight answers. Except this time, we've got the added irony of someone burying his coy hint into the same breath he used to admonish people from guessing. "Don't talk about the secret — which, by the way, I solved, ha ha."

As far as I can tell, LarryC is right: There's no reason to believe BP = AR, which means you're impugning a guy who has been banned from the site and thus can't defend himself. Pretty lame.
posted by cribcage at 1:19 PM on September 29, 2006

(I don't think I'm really impugning... I'm complimenting, or meaning to...)
posted by klangklangston at 1:48 PM on September 29, 2006

To be honest, I don't really know what "impugning" means. I was just trying to show off.
posted by cribcage at 2:00 PM on September 29, 2006

[removed the image, wtf are you doing?]
posted by jessamyn at 2:49 PM on September 29, 2006

"The only reason I said anything was because of all the bullshit hints people kept dropping prompted me to try to figure it out."

That's a valid point, and I understand. cribcage stated your case very well. I just want to make sure you know I was calling the action douche, not the person. I apologize if I misattributed your motivations based on the motivations I was busy fighting myself (though I'm glad I didn't jump on the "OMG I KNOW WHO IT IS" bandwagon).

Everyone's already said anything I'd need to say to clarify the comment I made while rushing out the door to work this morning. It's nice, because usually I feel like I'm shouting into a wind tunnel any time I try to find like minds.
posted by Eideteker at 3:44 PM on September 29, 2006

No offense was taken Eideteker, I regret saying anything now anyway. Also, the "proof" is that the title of songs posted to Music by BP are the same as titles to songs on AR's homepage. I hope the repercussions of all this are limited to this thread.
posted by Falconetti at 3:54 PM on September 29, 2006

I guess the moral of the story in this thread and the one listed just above it is that, in the age of Google, you can run, but you can't hide.
posted by crunchland at 4:23 PM on September 29, 2006

What Falconetti said. I never suspected a BP-AR link, but once that suspicion was presented, it was easy to verify by checking against unusual strings in his Music contributions. Dirt-simple googling, at that point.
posted by cortex at 4:32 PM on September 29, 2006

[removed the image, wtf are you doing?]

I'm sorry, is there a new policy I'm not aware of? Are you going to go through the archives and delete every unprovoked mention of KKKrlson for me? How 'bout those times *I* was accused of being/having a sockpuppet?
posted by Krrrlson at 4:41 PM on September 29, 2006

September 28, 2006 9:03 AM Subscribe

September 28, 2006
9:03 AM Subscribe