MULTIPLE IDENTITY POLICY

[kosifantutti]

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

It looks as though jamesmc could disch it out but he couldn't take it.

[Dave McNamara]

... with an ongoing permanent ban on all identities from the offending I.P. addresses.

Hi Mods, I get what you are trying to do with the spirit of that rule, but the current letter of the rule is ambiguous.

Actually, it's not, coz technically, to the letter of the rule, it is a ban only on the offending I.P. address.

What it is not, is a ban on any 'identity', unless said identity logs-in from the banned I.P. address.


Sure, a technicality I know (groan), but...

(Besides, rumour has it that we have several gun legal eagles as Saintsationalists, so maybe amongst them all, we could surely come up with a pro bono tidying-up of that sentence...? )

[Dave McNamara]

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

It looks as though jamesmc could disch it out but he couldn't take it.

Saintsational should have prizes for great posts like that.

[BackFromUSA]

... with an ongoing permanent ban on all identities from the offending I.P. addresses.

Hi Mods, I get what you are trying to do with the spirit of that rule, but the current letter of the rule is ambiguous.

Actually, it's not, coz technically, to the letter of the rule, it is a ban only on the offending I.P. address.

What it is not, is a ban on any 'identity', unless said identity logs-in from the banned I.P. address.


Sure, a technicality I know (groan), but...

(Besides, rumour has it that we have several gun legal eagles as Saintsationalists, so maybe amongst them all, we could surely come up with a pro bono tidying-up of that sentence...? )

Hi Dave (and all your other Nics)

It isn't ambiguous. Well it is if you change the wording from "addresses" to "address".

Quite simply if two or more identities (Nics) used by the same person breach that rule (and we do know through posting history not only their multiple identities but also every single IP address that they have posted from as it is listed in the mid panel) then the rule specifies that the penalty is that ALL Nics (not just the ones that breached) that have been posting from those IP addresses will receive a Nic ban on all of those Nics.

[saintspremiers]

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.

Yet if we call saynta stinger he starts whinging. He even denies saynta is not stinger.

Why all the BS?

Can't we just call saynta stinger on this forum and cut the crap?

Should apply to all posters who change their nicks

[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.

Yet if we call saynta stinger he starts whinging. He even denies saynta is not stinger.

Why all the BS?

Can't we just call saynta stinger on this forum and cut the crap?

Should apply to all posters who change their nicks

Your entitled to that opinion but it wasn't shared by the 3 mods at the time.

The Nic change - whether voluntary or forced - is all about trying to give that poster a fresh start.

Referencing that person under the old Nic was deemed to be an attempt to bait that poster into an inflamed resurrection of old and ongoing disputes. The disputes that poster had under the old Nic that probably lead to the change.

That rule applies equally to all Nic changes.

Now if a person poster under the new Nic is instead the one to bait and continue ongoing disputes... They will be warned / banned but NOT if they have been baited into doing so.

Before someone jumps on that last sentence - Our most recent permanent ban was NOT for this reason - rather for the abusive PMs sent.

[st.byron]

The Nic change - whether voluntary or forced - is all about trying to give that poster a fresh start.

Referencing that person under the old Nic was deemed to be an attempt to bait that poster into an inflamed resurrection of old and ongoing disputes. The disputes that poster had under the old Nic that probably lead to the change.

This.