Should the "parent user" of a banned alt also be banned?

[RoryN]

Asking for opinions. This is not intended to be a petition of any sort.

Here are two postings by what seems to be the same user, under different names:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=35102950#post35102950

I seen this on the news. This is becoming common I guess. It is very disturbing.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=31730023&highlight=news#post31730023

I seen this on the news. Obama is a punk ass.

AllisonMitchell has since been banned.

Besides the above evidence, I'd suggest that more could be found further linking the first user name to the latter - specifically IP addys and / or other login info. (Something that would clearly distinguish one user's alt from another user trying to create an alt that appears to be that user's alt.)

If that's the case, should the parent user also be banned? Or is banning only a "clean up" option to make sure someone doesn't spam under that name any more? Or is it something in between - for instance, would enough banned alts take a user from a "probation" status to an eventual ban?

I'm not a mod, so I don't know. Maybe it takes more effort to do than it's worth. Just thinking out loud, in poll form...

 

[KRCummings]

But then you'd have to find another board.

 

[RoryN]

But then you'd have to find another board.

Please explain.

 

[pointless]

your inability to allow for shades of gray makes it impossible for me to vote in your poll.

asshole.

 

[RoryN]

your inability to allow for shades of gray makes it impossible for me to vote in your poll.

asshole.

What would be the "grey areas"? Give examples.

 

[KRCummings]

Please explain.

See, I knew that's what you would say because you seem to have zero sense of humor, especially about yourself.

 

[KRCummings]

your inability to allow for shades of gray makes it impossible for me to vote in your poll.

asshole.

Gray is such a drab color. Maybe that's why so many people don't allow for shades of it.

 

[pointless]

What would be the "grey areas"? Give examples.

you're an american. spell it with a goddamned a.

 

[RoryN]

See, I knew that's what you would say because you seem to have zero sense of humor, especially about yourself.

That must be why my Lit Toons thread was such a bomb.

 

[pointless]

Gray is such a drab color. Maybe that's why so many people don't allow for shades of it.

i likes it and everyone who doesn't needs to die.

 

[Bert Notorius]

If there is no alternative, there is tyranny.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

you're an american. spell it with a goddamned a.

Spelling it with an 'a' is gey.

 

[Recidiva]

No. You can guess and be right about it, but you can guess and be wrong about it. What if it's different people sharing a computer?

Yeah, someone might have a whole family of schizophrenic alts, but each one posts different things and one might not violate the terms of the site.

Ban each name that violates the rules and don't try to do some silly drag net thing. Just put the assholes on ignore.

The stuff that bugs me the most is spamming and posting personal information. Not because they're terribly morally outrageous, though sometimes they can be. But on the whole you can just ignore the user.

Interaction is voluntary after the first exposure. I have Cade and all his alts I can find on ignore. That's enough for me.

I don't need a baby sitter or someone telling me I should want a baby sitter.

 

[bronzeage]

What difference would it make, either way?

Any user is allowed and infinite number of accounts. The only limit is each must have a different email address, which is not really any kind of limit.

Other than the personal satisfaction of seeing someone who irritates us get kicked out of the club, what is gained or lost?

 

[RoryN]

No. You can guess and be right about it, but you can guess and be wrong about it. What if it's different people sharing a computer?

Yeah, someone might have a whole family of schizophrenic alts, but each one posts different things and one might not violate the terms of the site.

Ban each name that violates the rules and don't try to do some silly drag net thing. Just put the assholes on ignore.

The stuff that bugs me the most is spamming and posting personal information. Not because they're terribly morally outrageous, though sometimes they can be. But on the whole you can just ignore the user.

Interaction is voluntary after the first exposure. I have Cade and all his alts I can find on ignore. That's enough for me.

I don't need a baby sitter or someone telling me I should want a baby sitter.

I agree with most of this. Thanks for posting.

Follow-up question: what if one user - or one computer, if you will - can be linked back to multiple instances of posting personal information under different alts?

 

[rosco rathbone]

That must be why my Lit Toons thread was such a bomb.

Why has no one done "Lit Xtranormal" animations yet?

 

[RoryN]

Why has no one done "Lit Xtranormal" animations yet?

Someone did do some "animations" once based on Lit members. But, they were just words plugged into an animation program, so it was fairly cookie-cutter.

And there was one other problem: the words and ideas weren't really that funny. (At least, that was the consensus at the time.)

 

[Recidiva]

I agree with most of this. Thanks for posting.

Follow-up question: what if one user - or one computer, if you will - can be linked back to multiple instances of posting personal information under different alts?

How is it linked? And again, how would it exclude the possibility of banning everyone who might be using a computer or sharing an address? Ulaven and I share an IP address because we use the same router. Ulaven says we have a static IP and our external address rotates once in a while (I just had to ask to make sure I'm getting the techese correct). He says they'd have to ban a range of IP addresses, which could potentially affect lots of otherwise inoffensive posters and cause the admins headaches. Ulaven says you could specifically ban a MAC address, which would ban a specific device and not an address but again...what if it were a shared computer? He also says you can spoof a MAC address.

So basically banning individual users is technically much more accurate and it can be demonstrated that each banned individual user is tied to whatever violation of terms. Otherwise it's your best guess that might have very irritating and unjustified collateral damage.

So the site is banning only those individuals who can be proven to abuse the terms of service and not causing other posters to be annoyed into...not coming to Lit any more. They maximize their access and minimize their petition headaches by banning individuals and not trying to play tech super-sleuth.

 

[RoryN]

How is it linked? And again, how would it exclude the possibility of banning everyone who might be using a computer or sharing an address? Ulaven and I share an IP address because we use the same router. Ulaven says we have a static IP and our external address rotates once in a while (I just had to ask to make sure I'm getting the techese correct). He says they'd have to ban a range of IP addresses, which could potentially affect lots of otherwise inoffensive posters and cause the admins headaches.

I'm talking about banning user names, not IP addresses. Sorry - I thought that was clear.

So the site is banning only those individuals who can be proven to abuse the terms of service and not causing other posters to be annoyed into...not coming to Lit any more. They maximize their access and minimize their petition headaches by banning individuals and not trying to play tech super-sleuth.

What "petition headaches"?

 

[Recidiva]

I'm talking about banning user names, not IP addresses. Sorry - I thought that was clear.

What "petition headaches"?

Yeah, you're talking names and not addresses, but how do you "prove" that a user name is a parent, a sibling, or a second cousin twice removed? Again, the link has to be something. Is someone spelling the same word wrong every time (genious) proof? Is using the same link or phrasing? Yeah, Cade is easy to pick out, but I wouldn't want to bet on it. I'll just put anyone irritating on ignore. But it's tougher for the site owners to justify banning "parallel" poster behavior.

Petition headaches would be admins having to sort through petitions from users who are banned based on some "best guess" that turns out to be wrong. Banning clusters of users instead of individual posting patterns is likely to have some collateral damage.

Not to mention the crazy conspiracy theory posters online who swear that two different people are clearly the same person. They'd have a field day of appealing to the admins to "consider the evidence, man! This guy says he lives in California and this other guy says he lives in California! Open your eyes!"

 

[rosco rathbone]

Someone did do some "animations" once based on Lit members. But, they were just words plugged into an animation program, so it was fairly cookie-cutter.

And there was one other problem: the words and ideas weren't really that funny. (At least, that was the consensus at the time.)

I never saw it. Seems like it would be pretty easy to make it funny, since those xtranormal robot voices are funny in and of themselves.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

There are about seven posters whose posts I'll make a point to read if I see their name being attached to them. There are others I'll read if I come across their posts along the way. There are many, many, many others whose posts I just skip over and never bother reading.

If it turns out that two of them are actually the same person posting under different names, I really don't care, because I'm not reading either of their posts anyway.

You might consider a similar bit of post-triage.

 

[KRCummings]

There are about seven posters whose posts I'll make a point to read if I see their name being attached to them. There are others I'll read if I come across their posts along the way. There are many, many, many others whose posts I just skip over and never bother reading.

If it turns out that two of them are actually the same person posting under different names, I really don't care, because I'm not reading either of their posts anyway.

You might consider a similar bit of post-triage.

It's an honor to be one of the seven.

No, no don't respond. No need to. I know you don't like to single people out. It'll be our little secret.

 

[drown]

good christ!
why is this even a discussion?

exercise your own personal purview
and ignore whomever you'd like;

you fucking child!

certainly,
in the most perverse of ways,
one empowers lord ro-ro
by even giving reasoned response
to this latest holier-than-thou drivel...

none of the words in this world
can have any more real power
than what any of us might give them.

label that.... wordist.

 

[Recidiva]

good christ!
why is this even a discussion?

exercise your own personal purview
and ignore whomever you'd like;

you fucking child!

certainly,
in the most perverse of ways,
one empowers lord ro-ro
by even giving reasoned response
to this latest holier-than-thou drivel...

none of the words in this world
can have any more real power
than what any of us might give them.

label that.... wordist.

Sorry. Sometimes a reasoned response is all I got.