But an acceptable level of sockpuppetry is constructive to the greater intelligence of this community.
Meaningless sentence is meaningless.
Topic: theymos, please BAN all common IP sockpuppet accounts - page 3. (Read 6135 times)
Meaningless sentence is meaningless.
BitcoinTalk represents, at present, the core market place of the bitcoin economy. Economies are build on trust, and dishonesty here damages the future prospects of bitcoin itself. It is no wonder that outsiders see it as a paradise for scammers when subdafuge is not only accepted but expected.
Dishonesty and fraudulence should be punished, not merely rejected. But an acceptable level of sockpuppetry is constructive to the greater intelligence of this community, and does not imply dishonesty.
BitcoinTalk represents, at present, the core market place of the bitcoin economy. Economies are build on trust, and dishonesty here damages the future prospects of bitcoin itself. It is no wonder that outsiders see it as a paradise for scammers when subterfuge is not only accepted but expected.
So, you're not a big fan of accountability at it's most primal levels ?
Was Darwin wrong ? Do the most cowardly really get to continue in life, unopposed ?
Aren't we all simply animals anyways ?
Was Darwin wrong ? Do the most cowardly really get to continue in life, unopposed ?
Aren't we all simply animals anyways ?
No method of artificial selection has yet proved as important as social selection. The most cowardly are socially rejected, and therefore socially selected against. Neither throttling nor assisting this process has proven beneficial to the gene pool.
So, you're not a big fan of accountability at it's most primal levels ?
Was Darwin wrong ? Do the most cowardly really get to continue in life, unopposed ?
Aren't we all simply animals anyways ?
Was Darwin wrong ? Do the most cowardly really get to continue in life, unopposed ?
Aren't we all simply animals anyways ?
Theres a difference between accountability and unwarranted forced identification, If someone has two accounts, and one of them gets in a bit of trouble for having an unpopular idea, the accountability is right toward that account, its not towards their other account, which may or may not be their "main" account, but if I created an account named ASDFGHJKL, and I say something offensive on that account, ASDFGHJKL is still in trouble, and so am I. This account (Saltyspitoon) may not be effected, but since ASDFGHJKL is still my account, I'm still accountable. So if I decided that I was going to start up some controversial yet allowed topics on the forums, I might not want my name associated with it, for example, if I started talking politics, and stated my opinion on abortion, or something like that, those people that disagree with me strongly may never work with me again, because of my opinion there. If I wanted to start a business, or work on a project, I could have screwed myself over with that one statement.
Yes, in a society, Darwin is wrong. We are animals, but we aren't animals that need to survive based on our strengths and valor. If I wanted to be an IT Tech or a software engineer, can't I be an introvert? Or will I not be able to survive because I'm not outgoing and brave?
Until the forum requires your real name, your real address, and all of you credentials/papers, we get to maintain some level on anonymity. Now, if you cheat someone out of some money or something like that, someone will do research into you, and put pressure on you that way, but Bitcoins are supposed to be anonymous, forcing rules like no alternate accounts is asinine. I say feel free to change your Username from Bitlane, and use your real name, and make sure you have your address listed, all confirmed with bills and gov ID, but I doubt there is anyone on the forum who would volunteer to do that.
So, you're not a big fan of accountability at it's most primal levels ?
In the end it isn't about me, or any other mod or admin. It's about the forum, and allowing everyone the ability to express themselves freely. The only reason there should be any moderation is to keep the forum categorized properly for easy reading, removal of disruptive posts, and dealing with trolls and spam.
If people need a second account in order to get their ideas across, then that's their decision.
Quote
Was Darwin wrong ? Do the most cowardly really get to continue in life, unopposed ?
Would you go up to someone in a public park and gag them because of whatever suspicions it is you have? Because that's what you're asking for.
It seems more that you want to attack the person behind the arguments, and not the arguments themselves. Your latest posts seem to support this. Just another form of trolling, and probably contributes to why people use alt accoints in the first place.
So, you're not a big fan of accountability at it's most primal levels ?
Was Darwin wrong ? Do the most cowardly really get to continue in life, unopposed ?
Aren't we all simply animals anyways ?
I do see how it could be frustrating, but I see it kinda like the arguments for DRM in video games. While trying to make it harder for pirates to pirate games, all they're doing is making it more frustrating for legitimate users, since pirates are going to bypass any restrictions anyway.
True, which is why I haven't stated that I'm in favor of banning people for sockpuppetry... it would do no good. How many accounts has Atlas had?
Outing the puppeteer is much more effective, and fun, too.
It seems more that you want to attack the person behind the arguments, and not the arguments themselves. Your latest posts seem to support this. Just another form of trolling, and probably contributes to why people use alt accoints in the first place.
Is this in response to me? No, I don't attack the person making the arguments, as I've said before, resorting to ad hominem attacks is the surest sign that you're losing a debate. But if you're not willing to stand by your arguments, you shouldn't make them, rather than making a sock puppet to spout your fallacies for you.
Imagine if a senator yielded his time to one of his aides, so the aide could rant and rave, and the senator's reputation remained unsullied? Would that be considered right and proper, or just plain stupid?
No, I meant Bitlane, sorry. I've never seen anything like that from you.
I do see how it could be frustrating, but I see it kinda like the arguments for DRM in video games. While trying to make it harder for pirates to pirate games, all they're doing is making it more frustrating for legitimate users, since pirates are going to bypass any restrictions anyway.
It seems more that you want to attack the person behind the arguments, and not the arguments themselves. Your latest posts seem to support this. Just another form of trolling, and probably contributes to why people use alt accoints in the first place.
Is this in response to me? No, I don't attack the person making the arguments, as I've said before, resorting to ad hominem attacks is the surest sign that you're losing a debate. But if you're not willing to stand by your arguments, you shouldn't make them, rather than making a sock puppet to spout your fallacies for you.
Imagine if a senator yielded his time to one of his aides, so the aide could rant and rave, and the senator's reputation remained unsullied? Would that be considered right and proper, or just plain stupid?
It seems more that you want to attack the person behind the arguments, and not the arguments themselves. Your latest posts seem to support this. Just another form of trolling, and probably contributes to why people use alt accoints in the first place.
Pretending to be someone else is an act of dishonesty.
Your name probably isn't "yogi" and your forum avatar isn't a real photo of you.
Therefore you are pretending to be someone other than who you really are, and are dishonest. Seriously?
Using an online handle is not the same as making a sockpuppet. One pseudonym is common online practice. Multiple pseudonyms so as to hide that you are the same person presenting two different faces is an act of dishonesty. My name is not Myrkul, either, but in fact, I use that name (or slight variations) on every online forum I have been on, and this icon is my "face" everywhere I go.
Pretending to be someone else is an act of dishonesty.
Your name probably isn't "yogi" and your forum avatar isn't a real photo of you.
Therefore you are pretending to be someone other than who you really are, and are dishonest. Seriously?
Pretending to be someone else is an act of dishonesty.
+1
Pretending to be someone else is an act of dishonesty.
If there is something you're not comfortable saying associated with your name, maybe you should reconsider saying it at all.
That's a pretty naïve view, IMO. A person isn't composed of just one personality. You're a different person in different places and situations, and it's uncomfortable to mix all of these personalities into one.
No, I am always the same person in any situation. A mature person is comfortable with who he or she is, and accepts all facets of his or her personality. If you are not comfortable with something about yourself, perhaps you need to examine why.
A "personal" account and a "business" account is one thing. That's not a sockpuppet, it's separation of yourself and your job. Not wanting to tie an unpopular opinion to your business is fine, but creating a sockpuppet to avoid owning your opinions is disingenuous at best, and fraudulent at worst.
People that need more than 1 account are the same people that need the 'ignore' feature....COWARDS & CRYBABIES
I don't see how having more than one account, besides the possibility for misuse such as creating fake investments and fake credibility, can be a bannable offense. If I wanted to have another account, as long as that account isn't doing anything wrong, and my other account isn't doing anything wrong, whats the problem? If someone is making 500 accounts so that they can scam people, sure, ban them. But what if I wanted an account to represent my honest beliefs, and then another account to relax and mess around a bit more on. I've been known to kid/mess with people, but if I ever wanted to maintain a serious status for whatever reason, I would have a hard time doing that, because of my tendency to heckle. So again, explain to me what is wrong about having one account to be a bit less uptight, and another one to keep a professional stature with as long as I'm not being abusive on either account?
If there is something you're not comfortable saying associated with your name, maybe you should reconsider saying it at all.
That's a pretty naïve view, IMO. A person isn't composed of just one personality. You're a different person in different places and situations, and it's uncomfortable to mix all of these personalities into one.
No, I am always the same person in any situation. A mature person is comfortable with who he or she is, and accepts all facets of his or her personality. If you are not comfortable with something about yourself, perhaps you need to examine why.
A "personal" account and a "business" account is one thing. That's not a sockpuppet, it's separation of yourself and your job. Not wanting to tie an unpopular opinion to your business is fine, but creating a sockpuppet to avoid owning your opinions is disingenuous at best, and fraudulent at worst.
If there is something you're not comfortable saying associated with your name, maybe you should reconsider saying it at all.
That's a pretty naïve view, IMO. A person isn't composed of just one personality. You're a different person in different places and situations, and it's uncomfortable to mix all of these personalities into one.
No, I am always the same person in any situation. A mature person is comfortable with who he or she is, and accepts all facets of his or her personality. If you are not comfortable with something about yourself, perhaps you need to examine why.
Jump to: