MULTIPLE IDENTITY POLICY

[dragit]

Hey Simon, What's the go with jamesmc and The Disch?

Your rules suggest a permanent ban, but you have given a nic ban only?

What technicality this time?




MULTIPLE IDENTITY POLICY

Posters found to hold multiple forum identities and using them to add support to their own position within a forum argument, OR to undertake any activity that can be constituted as a breach of rules, will be penalised without any formal warning and with an ongoing permanent ban on all identities from the offending I.P. addresses.

[BackFromUSA]

Hey Simon, What's the go with jamesmc and The Disch?

Your rules suggest a permanent ban, but you have given a nic ban only?

What technicality this time?




MULTIPLE IDENTITY POLICY

Posters found to hold multiple forum identities and using them to add support to their own position within a forum argument, OR to undertake any activity that can be constituted as a breach of rules, will be penalised without any formal warning and with an ongoing permanent ban on all identities from the offending I.P. addresses.

gee Dragit - read the rule - the permanent ban is on all IDENTITIES i.e. nics ... not the IP.

Not a technicality - it is the rule.

[Sainternist]

I have decided to ignore both of these users as I don't wish to associate with any antagonistic people on here.

[dragit]

Are you this condescending in real life Simon? It's very rude and I don't appreciate it…

I am asking a pretty basic question as I don't think it makes sense.

I read the rules and to me ongoing permanent ban on all identities from the offending I.P. addresses. would mean a permanent ban…

[BackFromUSA]

Are you this condescending in real life Simon? It's very rude and I don't appreciate it…

I am asking a pretty basic question as I don't think it makes sense.

I read the rules and to me ongoing permanent ban on all identities from the offending I.P. addresses. would mean a permanent ban…

Dragit

It means that any identity (nic) that comes from that IP address will be banned - not just the identities that offend - so if he had say 2 other identities - which he didn't then they would have had a nic ban on them as well.

Not condescending - just pointing out what it says.

You have asked the questions - and I have answered them.

Simon

[SaintPav]

I agree with Dragit.

You are condescending Simon.

[dragit]

gee Dragit - read the rule

my apologies… I read that as condescending.

As I've quoted the rule it could be assumed that I have also read it, hence asking a question…

[dragit]

Another quick question…

What is the point of banning a nickname only?

[asiu]

Stinger got caught backing himself up with Saynta ,
but only Stinger got banned.
... is that consistent or was that a special case ?

[asiu]

... it is understood and appreciated he's a 'special case' .
Just wondered why the different response.

[skeptic]

This lynch mob mentality is getting a little old

First world problems

[Freebird]

Stinger got caught backing himself up with Saynta ,
but only Stinger got banned.
... is that consistent or was that a special case ?

Both of them were an enemy of Plugger..not surprised you brought him up even though you have no ties with plugger

over to you Cyril

[Con Gorozidis]

I think the answer to everything is XYZ.

[Con Gorozidis]

I think the answer to everything is XYZ.

Great post Con. I also think XYZ sums it up perfectly.

[Playon]

Hah bet you cant say that backwards

[Playon]

Stinger got caught backing himself up with Saynta ,
but only Stinger got banned.
... is that consistent or was that a special case ?

Both of them were an enemy of Plugger..not surprised you brought him up even though you have no ties with plugger

over to you Cyril

Well I dont have ties with either, but I like them both, Unfortunately they didnt like each other and it effected their posts.

[Devilhead]

I think the answer to everything is XYZ.

The answer is 42 numb nuts!

[BackFromUSA]

Stinger got caught backing himself up with Saynta ,
but only Stinger got banned.
... is that consistent or was that a special case ?

Stinger was NOT caught up in the Multiple Identity rule.

Stinger received a Nic ban for other breaches. He also accepted that ban with some grace and understanding.

Unfortunately (due to my mod error) the Nic 'stinger' wasn't banned properly for a while (was a temp ban rather than a permanent ban) so it became active for a while.

Stinger (like plugger66) was within his rights to use another Nic to post with - whether it be new or old.

It was a ban on the Nic Stinger only.

[BackFromUSA]

I agree with Dragit.

You are condescending Simon.

Not condescending ... Frustrated!!!

The rule states EXACTLY to the letter what I have done ... Yet I am accused of using technicalities with overtones of favouritism etc.

I don't know any of you except 1 or 2 people and I don't favour anyone and just try to moderate to the rules.

The question in my mind was only raised because the poster wanted to prove that I twist rules to my liking.

Well just FYI - St.Byron and I consulted with each other for two days on this matter and were satisfied that we acted to the letter of the law and appropriately given the breaches.

We take our responsibility very seriously and we do not favour or target anyone specifically.

Breaches of the rules get assessed with consideration and consultation before our actions.

[asiu]

Stinger got caught backing himself up with Saynta ,
but only Stinger got banned.
... is that consistent or was that a special case ?

Both of them were an enemy of Plugger..not surprised you brought him up even though you have no ties with plugger

over to you Cyril

best not open mouth and remove all doubt.

what part of that post had any relevance to the Thread discussion ?
... plainly a straight out attack ... where is Admin when needed ?

Plugger , like GT and Lyon are gawn.
... if u wanna continue your hate campaign against him
go to the Admin forum.
... if u wanna create one against me ,
best u grow a set and stop hiding under Stingers singlet

[dragit]

The question in my mind was only raised because the poster wanted to prove that I twist rules to my liking.

That is honestly not the case…

My reading of the rule ongoing permanent ban on all identities from the offending I.P. addresses is that it is a permanent ban of that poster… why else do you think I was trying to flush out stinger/saynta breaches? Couldn't be bothered if I thought it was a mere nickname ban.

I still don't understand what a nickname ban is meant to achieve though, surely that doesn't discourage anyone from breaking the rules? Does anyone really care if they can come back as dragit 2.0 the next day?

[Jacks Back]

"will be penalised without any formal warning and with an ongoing permanent ban on all identities from the offending I.P. addresses"

This, to me, means that if someone has two identities (nicknames) then both nicks will be permanently banned but the person can possibly come back with one new nickname. It's a bit confusing.

[st.byron]

Another quick question…

What is the point of banning a nickname only?

It gives the user a chance to re-register with another nic and start afresh.
The two nics were banned primarily because they both sent abusive PM's to the same poster.

Two very abusive PM's, written in identical style, coming from two nics with the same IP address in a matter of minutes.

The person used the double nics to re-inforce their abusive behaviour by trying to make it look as though the PM's were coming from two different people.

Just the content of the PM's would have been worthy of a temporary ban, but when taken in context of using multiple nics to "double the abuse", we felt a permanent ban was appropriate.

Given that user's history, we felt it appropriate to give them the chance to re-register afresh if they so desire.

[BackFromUSA]

The question in my mind was only raised because the poster wanted to prove that I twist rules to my liking.

That is honestly not the case…

My reading of the rule ongoing permanent ban on all identities from the offending I.P. addresses is that it is a permanent ban of that poster… why else do you think I was trying to flush out stinger/saynta breaches? Couldn't be bothered if I thought it was a mere nickname ban.

I still don't understand what a nickname ban is meant to achieve though, surely that doesn't discourage anyone from breaking the rules? Does anyone really care if they can come back as dragit 2.0 the next day?

yes some take pride in their nic

but more importantly with the nic ban comes the PM warning that the NEXT level of banning is IP bans

We use the nic ban as a firm and final warning before an IP ban

[dragit]

Okay, thanks.