Fair points, also. I guess I don’t worry about such stuff since I am not the type of poster who spends a lot of time consoling and relating to others emotionally online. I am really only interested in substantive discussions. (I am not alone in this though; this forum is not exactly buzzing with purely social activity.) As for helping people with solving code problems and technical issues, that I have done, in the few instances where I feel I can and nobody else has. But that is for the benefit of the record, not really for the individual user. If people I don’t know started sending me email queries for tech support that would not become part of a public record, I would not see such service as a smart use of my time unless I can snap off the answer in a one-liner. So I’m not really doing it for the questioner, anyway, I’m doing it to contribute to a community and that contribution cannot be destroyed by someone ending a thread with, ‘Psych!’ 8)
My initial response was to say that “DavidK” was Jacek, but then it occurred to me that this is exactly what Jacek would want us to do. Looking for an external Jacek we keep finding the internal Jacek that lurks within each and every one of us. We think it is the Jacek without we fear, but it is the Jacek within us, a monkey-faced, petty, suspicious dwarf rearing its head from the depths of our souls that terrifies us.
It’s good that it worked out that way. From what I understand, a Jacektomy is not a very pleasant procedure (although I continue to believe that we would collectively benefit from doing it).
I’m 99.9999999999999% certain that “DavidK” is Jacek. But I will not hold it against him. If Jacek chooses to convey an amusing anecdote through his “DavidK” inflatable doll, so much the funnier for the rest of us. But I refuse to blamestorm and search for my own inner Jacek, and through my refusal I foil Jacek’s intentions.
(The funny thing is that I live in the same city as Jacek. I know who this person is in real life. I am currently in the same building as he! I could reveal many things about this strange person, but I will not, because by attacking the Jacek who happens to be the actual Jacek, I would merely feed my own inner, metaphorical Jacek.)
Well, chiming in to support yourself with a sock puppet might count as trolling by some definitions, but this instance is a pretty mild example (as is this). Anyway, it seems that Jacek mostly uses the Rickardson account for legitimate I6 discussion.
So if I understand the reasoning correctly, it implies that if I (purely hypothetically) were to go out and commit a crime using a false identity, and then were to come home and resume my real persona, the “real” me should be immune from any consequences for actions undertaken by my Mr. Hyde manifestation. After all, the Dr. Jeckyll side of me has always been scrupulously honest.
Nope! The question is whether “Pudlo”'s posting as “Rickardson” is in itself banworthy, specifically for “Rickardson’s” account; the things done with the “Pudlo” account are immaterial to that particular question. If one felt that “Pudlo” should be banned for what he did with his own account, presumably one would feel that all his accounts should be banned.
I get the feeling when I read comments like this people who support liberal use of banning just want revenge: they want the troll to feel it. But of course that is far from the real purpose of a ban, which should be wholly preventative. What negative outcome would be prevented by banning an account that has done no trolling? To use the moderation system to punish or to exact revenge or to achieve some notion of ‘justice’ is to wholly abuse it and it virtually guarantees that the system will end up corrupted with emboldened moderators taking out anyone who sneezes wrong, just to show 'em. It’s the wrong goal; applying the wrong standard; an appeal to moral emotions has no place in moderation discussions, which should focus entirely on consequences to the community, and not at all on the consequences to the trolls or on whether they have gotten what’s coming to them. That misplaced focus is exactly what leads communities to feed a troll and turn minor skirmishes into forum-swallowing wars. Seen it happen many times; in each case the desire to morally punish was as responsible as the trolling for the negative consequences on the community (including desertions by good users).
Basically you have to ask yourself, do you want to strike back, or do you want to minimise the damage? People who opt for the latter behave very differently (and more effectively) toward trolls than those who let themselves be swayed by the former.
Oh please, we’re not actually discussing whether it’s morally right to ban a troll, are we? Jacek’s a pain in the arse trouble causer who contributes nothing but insults and arguments and flame wars to this forum. He’s about as welcome as cancer. Ban him and move on. To hell with whether it’s morally right or not.
Well, as long as “Rickardson” isn’t being a troll, I’d rather have him than Pudlo. If a troll decides to create a different account and behave differently on that account, I’d say that it deserves at least a non-ban.
Of course, the really civil way to do it would be to actually change behaviour, and hopefully make a public apology, but heck, since hardly any troll is going to do that, I’m quite happy with the schizos/sock puppets, as long as they’re not trolls themselves.
EDIT - Rothman - I hope we can keep the distinction between real-life crimes/double identites and a guy writing inflamatory things in a public forum where pretty much everyone already knows he’s a bad apple quite clear. You described someone trying to flee a serious offence. In this case I see only someone who knows that his name is so looked down on, it’s unlikely he’ll get help if he needs it (or, maybe more probably, isn’t about to ask the very people he’s been pissing off for help), and therefore establishes a second identity to do those smaller, more constructive things.
In a sense, Mr. Hyde has created a Dr. Jekyll, not the other way around. And I’d rather have the Jekyll.
Fat chance of that now, though. I can’t imagine he’ll keep using the account now.
For the record, I don’t support the liberal use of banning. I feel strongly that such a drastic step should be limited to the unusual case of an individual whose apparent intention is solely to disrupt and to act like a jerk, with no redeeming social value.
Likewise. It isn’t about punishment, it’s about housecleaning. No more personal than calling an exterminator to remove a pest … if it can be done in a painless and humane fashion, all the better.
I don’t spend much time on discussion boards (other than this one), so all this secret-ban and slow-ban stuff is new to me, but it certainly sounds interesting. It does seem like a dedicated troll would be nearly immune, though: if he logs in on multiple sock-puppet accounts, it should be easy to notice that the post he intended to offer sock-puppet support to is invisible to his sock-puppet persona
Personally, I’d just like the ability to make a given account invisible to me, and let others make up their own minds … the current “foe” system doesn’t make anything invisible, just vaguely masked (I also find the connotations of “foe” a bit distasteful … this person isn’t my enemy, just a pest with no interest in really contributing to the topic at hand). If that system were perfected, I think bans of any kind would be less important, since everyone could make a choice according to their own tolerance for the intruder.
