A sockpuppet that begs to be exposed?Follow

Just curious, when someone admits that he's posting under a sockpuppet account,
and posts angry, juvenile insults (oh how they [don't] sting),
and parades the fact that the people he's insulting won't ever know what his "other" account is,
and even goes so far as to (in two separate threads) incite others to spam the email address of a forum user that he doesn't like,

Is it appropriate to request one of the admins to just maybe drop into one of his sub-default threads and leave a post indicating to everyone exactly which other account(s) is connected with this trolling sockpuppet?

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=1096228452476342646&num=13



It's just that I have this morbid desire to see this particular statement:



come back and smack him in the face when an Admin does that neat trick of exposing him.


Please? He's really begging for it.

Maybe there was something I didn't read somewhere, but I was under the impression that there was something wrong with sockpuppets, particularly if they are "used" in order to troll and flame behind the supposed anonymity of a new identity.

In this particular case, the person in question, in one breath, flaunts the assertion that his "usual" account has a particular "good" average karma rating, as if to imply that when he is not dressed up as a monkey flinging poo, he is actually considered to be an intelligent poster generally demonstrating credibility and worthiness of recognition for it, having, by implication, been around the forum for a while and likely recognizable as a regular poster;

and then in the same breath attempts to taunt his audience with the fact that since he is so clever as to have more than one account, they will never know who he is other than another grey name with a low postcount.


I suppose reading it simply reminded me of the several other instances I have happened to read where a poster was being particularly obnoxious or aggressive, and had gone as far as to make claims of impunity, with overblown suggestions of how they are so very leet that the admins couldn't possibly tag them,
(why look, even here we have an example of this poster doing exactly that:)

only to have an admin drop by and provide proof that the administrators are in no wise blind to the relative identity and location of the blusterous individual.


I wasn't so much complaining about his content, since that is being adequately dealt with by the karma system (note that I did not entreat you to nuke the threads);
but rather his hubris, to believe that he can get away with the kind of juvenile insults he casts around, simply because none of us common posters can tell what his 'real' identity is.

Here is a person who has, in two threads, posted another user's email address and is encouraging (despite the deaf ears his goading may fall on) people to wage an assault of spam against it.
Is this kind of action not against some general rule of forum conduct here at this site?

If not, then I apologize for wasting your time.
If so, then I thought it wold be worth pointing out; so that someone with the power to do so unequivocally could show him the holes in his defense.


Was it worth rating me down over?




Edited, Mon Sep 27 00:32:15 2004 by Tenmiles

Edited, Mon Sep 27 00:45:38 2004 by Tenmiles

Wow, if I rated down every post I didn't like, I'd be.... an admin.
(Curious though, when someone else links to a thread, requesting a nuke, and the admins deem it nuke-worthy, it would suggest that they, too, didn't like it. I've not witnessed one of your staff subsequently rate down the person who pointed them to it.
It seems like you took it too personally.)


Anyway, thanks. As I said, I'm sorry to have troubled you.



Edited, Mon Sep 27 02:17:16 2004 by Tenmiles

That's how it was intended, yes.



You haven't witnessed it because no one has told you before, pretty much. It's common policy of both the admins and normal users to rate down entire useless feed-the-troll threads, along with pointers to said threads that only serve to bump them.

Edited, Mon Sep 27 02:24:23 2004 by Danalog

It would modify the start post, I think

"...he is actually considered to be an intelligent poster generally demonstrating credibility and worthiness..." --Tenmiles

<Whew!>

For a moment I thought he was talking about me, up until he mentioned intelligence, credibility, and worthiness. Dodged the bullet on that one, I'm tellin' ya.

Totem

My problem with the karma system is not that it exists but that it is to easily abused, particularily as Illia has just confirmed that sockpuppets are not seen as bad (you may want to send Kao a memo on this). A patient person can easily build up a few sock pupets and camp the heck out of someone or ones, and we have all played MMO so we all know griefers have patience, and the only recourse is to either gang up on that person as we do with any troll but this requires a concerted effort and common knowledge of what this person is doing or the admins must handle it. Both of these options easily allow said griefer plenty of time to have his fun before he is ejected.

My other problem is that while the karma system can easily send a particular post or thread into the realm of sub-default it often takes an admin ruthlessly bombing a poster to get their overall score killed. Considering how quick some people get their post counts up into the thousands it would again only take a griefer a few days of spaming away on some of the backwater forums or finding someones unused journal (the prefered method I am begining to suspect for most post count whores) to get their post count up high enough to require an admins intervention.

What it comes down to is if it requires an admin intervention to work then it must not be working.

Dumping the karma system is silly.

It doesn't serve much of a point in the Asylum, but in the actual game forums it's very handy.

The Warrior forum is able to bury a nasty post really quick with the karma system in place.

But if you don't filter anything so that you can see all the gritty posts then there is no karma system.

It is against my better judgement to even bother asking this, but I am compelled to out of sheer and honest curiosity to inquire;

What was it in my last post that someone felt was worthy of rating it down?

I expressed a genuine and, I think reasonable, question regarding Illia's idea (one which no one has yet answered), apologized for being previously sarcastic, and wrapped up my "issue" with the previous proceedings.

Just trying to understand... looking for a bit of logic so that I can see beyond the apparent pettiness.





Hmmm, I see how it is.

Edited, Mon Sep 27 18:53:53 2004 by Tenmiles

I'd noticed that, in my time here.
I was just dissapointed to think that people like the admins, or others who are sages and gurus, were guilty of the same.

Anyway, I've learned my lesson.
The first rule of Karma Club is: Don't talk about Karma Club.

Thanks everyone, bye ^^

Prime example... my post above.

I was trying to be helpful and explain what happens, and Bigandstuffy decided to rate me a 1.0. There are those people out there who think only their opinion is the correct one, and rate accordingly. But that is sort of how the system works, opinions... oh and you know that old saying... opinions are like...

Is it time to consider moderators?

I'd rather not, but is it coming to that here?

This may seem like a silly question, but I've always wondered...why are we able to rate admins? I don't know why, but it really pisses me off when I see Dana with 4.93 overall karma instead of 5.00, or Illia get rated down for something he posts. Could you maybe make it so admins' karma is untouchable? It just seems like since you're our "lenient parents", we (your wayward rebellious teenage children) shouldn't be able to rate you at all. Or maybe that's just me. ^_^