Speculating on Re Regs

Beasty

Going Forward wrote: »

Therefore, the mere asking is, in itself not speculation.

Thanks

I suggest you re-read my post as that is not what I said.

The Hill Billy

OP - If you are going to twist people's words here, we're done. You've already received an infraction in this forum recently for ignoring mod instruction on this same topic. Do not make the same mistake twice.

tHB

charlie14

Stheno wrote: »

Mods actively look to identify posters who are reregs tbh.

We also appreciate getting pms from posters about potential reregs, I'd one such pm today and I've escalated it to the admins to investigate.

I know in the cafe, when we have a rereg, one of us will post it in the cafe mods forum so we are all aware of it and I imagine that applies across the site.

Sometimes though mods/admins miss reregs and it's great to have users pm us or report them.

If you are not comfortable with reporting because you believe a mod might be biased towards a rereg the option is there to pm a mod that you don't believe is biased and ask them to raise it.

If you don`t mind me saying, imo, that is information that for some reason many others posting on here are not aware off or were very reticent about giving.

Yet again thank you for that.

Beasty

charlie14 wrote: »

If you don`t mind me saying, imo, that is information that for some reason many others posting on here are not aware off or were very reticent about giving.

Yet again thank you for that.

To be clear, mods will usually be on the lookout for re-regs evading forum or site-bans. If someone with a poor posting history re-regs mods will typically be on the lookout simply to ensure they don't start afresh with a completely clean record.

If someone with a good track record closes their account then starts a new one, we really don't care (unless perhaps we have a personal link with the individual - for example I probably know in excess of 100 Boardsies personally, and equally know a few of them who have started afresh - I don't need to check with Admins in those cases as it's often quite clear to me early on if I know a poster in real life)

Stheno

charlie14 wrote: »

If you don`t mind me saying, imo, that is information that for some reason many others posting on here are not aware off or were very reticent about giving.

Yet again thank you for that.

What do you think mods are there for?

charlie14

Stheno wrote: »

What do you think mods are there for?

Well one of the reasons I would have thought was to provide clarity should a poster have a query.

Up until your reply to my posts, I was beginning to doubt if I was correct on that one.:)

Tony EH

Going Forward wrote: »

it is trying to inform oneself to make a decision on whether to invest any time responding to someone one already suspects one has responded to at length and in great detail over a long period, albeit 2, 6 months or a year ago.

/\

This.

The don't ask/don't tell style rule enforced here is strange. I've never seen it on any other board and it requires users who haven't quit and re-reg'd to act willfully blind to re-reg posters who are obviously such.

It's a bit silly.

I fully understand the privacy aspect. But, it tiresome in the extreme to spend the time explaining something in a post or going over well worn ground in good spirit and out of respect for a "new" poster, only to find out that their questions were...ahem..."rhetorical" all along because they'd asked the same "questions" or written the same variation of a post in a previous Boards.ie existence.

There may be nothing to be gained in "calling out" a re-reg poster, but there's nothing gained either by pretending not to notice. If I suspect someone of being a re-reg of a prolific poster, I think it's better to say that what I think instead of wasting time and effort replying to a post that has already been covered.

charlie14

Tony EH wrote: »

/\

This.

The don't ask/don't tell style rule enforced here is strange. I've never seen it on any other board and it requires users who haven't quit and re-reg'd to act willfully blind to re-reg posters who are obviously such.

It's a bit silly.

I fully understand the privacy aspect. But, it tiresome in the extreme to spend the time explaining something in a post or going over well worn ground in good spirit and out of respect for a "new" poster, only to find out that their questions were...ahem..."rhetorical" all along because they'd asked the same "questions" or written the same variation of a post in a previous Boards.ie existence.

There may be nothing to be gained in "calling out" a re-reg poster, but there's nothing gained either by pretending not to notice. If I suspect someone of being a re-reg of a prolific poster, I think it's better to say that what I think instead of wasting time and effort replying to a post that has already been covered.

There may be nothing to be gained in "calling out" a re-reg poster, but in my experience to even hint it will get you a card.
I imagine "calling out" will get you higher elevation on the bold step.

Like yourself I find the whole thing a bit silly.

Tony EH

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

If you are discussing a question on Northern Irish politics why do you want to completely derail the discussion off topic to talk about Noddy? Discuss the Northern Irish politics discussion and if Noddy is basically trolling then report her. What is the problem with that?

But say Noddy's "questions" have already been addressed many, many, times over many, many, threads when he was posting as Big Ears. Is it not a big fat pain in the arse for people to have to go over that again in the mistaken belief that Noddy is a new guy who just doesn't know?

To me that's just trolling. It might be slightly more sophisticated than starting a thread like "Liberals are all ****...discuss", but it's still trolling nonetheless, no?

Beasty

charlie14 wrote: »

There may be nothing to be gained in "calling out" a re-reg poster, but in my experience to even hint it will get you a card.
I imagine "calling out" will get you higher elevation on the bold step.

Like yourself I find the whole thing a bit silly.

How do you know it's a re-reg?

charlie14

Tony EH wrote: »

But say Noddy's "questions" have already been addressed many, many, times over many, many, threads when he was posting as Big Ears. Is it not a big fat pain in the arse for people to have to go over that again in the mistaken belief that Noddy is a new guy who just doesn't know?

To me that's just trolling. It might be slightly more sophisticated than starting a thread like "Liberals are all ****...discuss", but it's still trolling nonetheless, no?

More or less the point I made tonight regarding my "indiscretion" to the mod who carded me.
The anonymity protection this rule gives to re-regs is basically a licence to bait other poster should they wish too.

Steve

Mods can see stuff and have access to searches, cmods and admins that regular users don't.

That is why we ask that suspicions are sent via reported posts or PM or the dedicated thread in feedback.
It's cool when you are right but it's really not if you are wrong, that is when it's better dealt with in private.

charlie14

Beasty wrote: »

How do you know it's a re-reg?

Are you talking 100% or 99.9 ?
When you have been on a particular thread for a few years debating with a poster who disappears for a few weeks, then returns under a new name then it really isn`t that difficult.

Zaph

charlie14 wrote: »

Are you talking 100% or 99.9 ?
When you have been on a particular thread for a few years debating with a poster who disappears for a few weeks, then returns under a new name then it really isn`t that difficult.

And it really isn't that difficult to follow the instruction to advise the forum mods or Cmods either. At the end of the day what does it matter anyway? If you know that X used to be Y, then you simply treat them the same way you did before they re-registered. I really don't know why some people find it necessary to call them out on-thread.

charlie14

Steve wrote: »

Mods can see stuff and have access to searches, cmods and admins that regular users don't.

That is why we ask that suspicions are sent via reported posts or PM or the dedicated thread in feedback.
It's cool when you are right but it's really not if you are wrong, that is when it's better dealt with in private.

Another point I raised tonight with a mod.

If mods, cmods and admin have knowledge of who exactly re-regs are and posters are under pain of sanction for even hinting who they are let alone identify them, what is the point of posters contacting mods to say they are suspicious that someone is a re-reg.

A complete waste of a poster and a mods time imo.

charlie14

Zaph wrote: »

And it really isn't that difficult to follow the instruction to advise the forum mods or Cmods either. At the end of the day what does it matter anyway? If you know that X used to be Y, then you simply treat them the same way you did before they re-registered. I really don't know why some people find it necessary to call them out on-thread.

If someone keeps going back over old ground then a poster can simply point that out and highlight the posts.


How can you treat them the same way you did before they re-registered if to even hint at it you will result in a card or a ban.

Steve

charlie14 wrote: »

Another point I raised tonight with a mod.

If mods, cmods and admin have knowledge of who exactly re-regs are and posters are under pain of sanction for even hinting who they are let alone identify them, what is the point of posters contacting mods to say they are suspicious that someone is a re-reg.

A complete waste of a poster and a mods time imo.

There are lots of reasons people re-reg. not all of them are bad. Maybe you just want a fresh start, maybe you got banned and want to get around that and troll the same forum.

In the case of trolls, yeah, we will deal with them, but in the case of someone with no record who just just wants to start again then they are perfectly entitled to do that - and the community needs to respect that. Do you really think it is fair to publicly call them all out?

Zaph

charlie14 wrote: »

How can you treat them the same way you did before they re-registered if to even hint at it you will result in a card or a ban.

Simple, you refute their arguments just as you would have previously. I don't see why there's any need to refer to their previous account.

The fact of the matter is that while such posters may sometimes be a pain in the ass, they're not breaking any site rules as long as they haven't re-registered to evade a ban. You are quite at liberty to do it yourself if you so choose and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I think what quite a few people who re-register to throw off a previous account with a certain reputation or a bad record forget is that they aren't starting from scratch and their old record will follow them around, so they might not be given quite as much leeway by the mods as they think they'll get under their new cloak of "anonymity".

ROVER_1912

boards are way to trigger happy for perma-banning,

i had been on boards since 2009 with about 20 friends and thousands of thanks,

then i went on a drunken rampage one night last august and got p/band,

and there's no legitimate way back in

many such cases

sad

Zaph

ROVER_1912 wrote: »

boards are way to trigger happy for perma-banning,

i had been on boards since 2009 with about 20 friends and thousands of thanks,

then i went on a drunken rampage one night last august and got p/band,

and there's no legitimate way back in

many such cases

sad

Well overlooking the obvious fact that I should ban you now for re-registering to evade your siteban for the moment, did you appeal the ban in Prison? There's your legitimate way back in. You're still also at liberty to post in Prison and ask for the ban to be reviewed. Many posters have had their permanent bans lifted after a period of time.

ROVER_1912

Zaph wrote: »

Well overlooking the obvious fact that I should ban you now for re-registering to evade your siteban for the moment, did you appeal the ban in Prison? There's your legitimate way back in. You're still also at liberty to post in Prison and ask for the ban to be reviewed. Many posters have had their permanent bans lifted after a period of time.

the same night i got banned i also went om a rampage in prison and ended up completely banned,

i could have made a good case for myself in prison

i'm sure i could have talked my way out of the original ban

(ps i never had a yellow or red card before that fateful night in august)

Zaph

ROVER_1912 wrote: »

the same night i got banned i also went om a rampage in prison and ended up completely banned,

i could have made a good case for myself in prison

i'm sure i could have talked my way out of the original ban

(ps i never had a yellow or red card before that fateful night in august)

OK, I'll tell you what, if you believe you could make a good case to have your original ban lifted then PM me your original user name and I'll take a look tomorrow and see if we can work something out for you. And in the meantime I promise I won't ban this account. How does that sound?

charlie14

Zaph wrote: »

Simple, you refute their arguments just as you would have previously. I don't see why there's any need to refer to their previous account.

The fact of the matter is that while such posters may sometimes be a pain in the ass, they're not breaking any site rules as long as they haven't re-registered to evade a ban. You are quite at liberty to do it yourself if you so choose and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I think what quite a few people who re-register to throw off a previous account with a certain reputation or a bad record forget is that they aren't starting from scratch and their old record will follow them around, so they might not be given quite as much leeway by the mods as they think they'll get under their new cloak of "anonymity".

So you go through the whole charade of refuting their argument all over again ad nauseam when you are fully aware they are pulling the p**s knowing if you even say to them, "we have been through this before" you are risking being sanctioned.

My point has nothing to do with re-regs attempting to throw off a ban or a bad record. It`s to do with the anonymity that the rules can give to a poster who has outplayed his argument, re-appearing to attempt to replay it again, wasting other posters time who have to ignore that the know who it is.

Imo that is not only taking the p**s, it is baiting.

Which afaik is also forbidden under the rules.

ROVER_1912

Zaph wrote: »

OK, I'll tell you what, if you believe you could make a good case to have your original ban lifted then PM me your original user name and I'll take a look tomorrow and see if we can work something out for you. And in the meantime I promise I won't ban this account. How does that sound?

nice one,

i'll pm my original user name and we can talk tomorrow

charlie14

Steve wrote: »

There are lots of reasons people re-reg. not all of them are bad. Maybe you just want a fresh start, maybe you got banned and want to get around that and troll the same forum.

In the case of trolls, yeah, we will deal with them, but in the case of someone with no record who just just wants to start again then they are perfectly entitled to do that - and the community needs to respect that. Do you really think it is fair to publicly call them all out?

Do you think it is fair that if they have been on a thread where, for the sake of argument a poster has played out their argument to such a degree that other posters are just saying "we had this discussion,already, see post #" that poster can simply re-register and go over all the same old ground and everybody has to pretend it`s a completely different poster.

Imo, this rule is giving re-registers a potential licence act the mick and to bait.

Bishopsback

charlie14 wrote: »

Do you think it is fair that if they have been on a thread where, for the sake of argument a poster has played out their argument to such a degree that other posters are just saying "we had this discussion,already, see post #" that poster can simply re-register and go over all the same old ground and everybody has to pretend it`s a completely different poster.

Imo, this rule is giving re-registers a potential licence act the mick and to bait.

There is no requirement to reply or engage with any poster, even an ignore button.
If the poster is making relevant points and engaging in a debate in a constructive manner then identity shouldn't matter, by speculating as to a posters identity or if they were there before or not is personalising a debate and that's not constructive and takes away from the attack the post not the poster rule IMO.

Going Forward

Bishopsback wrote: »

There is no requirement to reply or engage with any poster, even an ignore button.
If the poster is making relevant points and engaging in a debate in a constructive manner then identity shouldn't matter, by speculating as to a posters identity or if they were there before or not is personalising a debate and that's not constructive and takes away from the attack the post not the poster rule IMO.

How is asking someone if they're a re reg personally attacking them?

If that's what constitutes an attack, isn't setting out to deceive other posters by masquerading under a new username just a different form of "attack"?

Setting out to deceive people isn't constructive either is it?

As you've said, the option is always there for a poster not to engage with a rereg.

And the option is also there for a rereg to demonstrate their bona fides by acknowledging that they're a rereg and that they don't wish to deceive anyone in that regard.

Or they can say nothing about it.

We have been informed that it is quite legitimate to re register.

There is no rule against it, and sometimes people avail of it for personal reasons to shake off their online past.

All laudable and understandable reasons.

They're hardly likely to reregister under a variation of their old username and begin where they left off though.

Point being that they won't be putting it on a plate and shoving it under people's noses that they're a rereg.

That's acting the mick and taking advantage of the no speculating rule IMO.

Going Forward

Zaph wrote: »

Simple, you refute their arguments just as you would have previously.

It gets monotonous.

Zaph wrote: »

I don't see why there's any need to refer to their previous account.

If they've already referred to it themselves to make a point, you can't really expect others to not refer to it.

Problem is if someone else says it they get carded. The rereg can sing about it if they wish.

Little CuChulainn

charlie14 wrote: »

So you go through the whole charade of refuting their argument all over again ad nauseam when you are fully aware they are pulling the p**s knowing if you even say to them, "we have been through this before" you are risking being sanctioned.

My point has nothing to do with re-regs attempting to throw off a ban or a bad record. It`s to do with the anonymity that the rules can give to a poster who has outplayed his argument, re-appearing to attempt to replay it again, wasting other posters time who have to ignore that the know who it is.

Imo that is not only taking the p**s, it is baiting.

Which afaik is also forbidden under the rules.

There is a repetitive posting rule which, afaik, would apply across multiple accounts. So if a poster asks the same question a number of times and then does the same thing under a new username I would see that as breaching that rule. And while a mod may be aware of a rereg, they won't necessarily be aware of all the conversations that rereg has had. By pointing this out using the report feature, mods can be made aware of it.

charlie14

Bishopsback wrote: »

There is no requirement to reply or engage with any poster, even an ignore button.
If the poster is making relevant points and engaging in a debate in a constructive manner then identity shouldn't matter, by speculating as to a posters identity or if they were there before or not is personalising a debate and that's not constructive and takes away from the attack the post not the poster rule IMO.

It`s nothing to do with attacking the poster, it`s the fact that it is posts that that have been so obviously made by the same poster in another guise that it`s laughable, and under the rules nobody is supposed to notice or say "we had this conversation already, bith of us know that see post #xxx, now move on and stop wasting everyones time"

Are you suggesting that poster who are so obviously by their style, manner, and content are re-registers should be given free reign here to keep repeating points what has been debated and dealt ad nauseam in their previous existence should be by others using the ignore button.

Would you meet someone day after day who keeps coming up with the same argument ignore that, rather than point out that you have both been over that repeatedly and just because he/she is wears a different hat each day doesn`t entitle him/her to act as if you develop amnesia each time you see a new hat ?