What improvements would you like to see in this discussion forum?

[cybercoma]

I never did that. Was that aimed at me?

If you've never done that, then why would you think it's about you?

[cybercoma]

That is exactly how it is being handled now.

I want to know what you all think about what criteria should be used.

I believe there should be the following criteria: The new registration must be linked to the previous one in such a way in that there is a full accountability of their previous posts AS IS WITH A SINGLE MEMBERSHIP or words to that effect. Maybe some of you lawyer-likes can tighten up my legaloise with better jargon.

If there's a way to link memberships, then that's fine. I can see your concern. That you don't want gimmicks on this forum that people post from and dispose of on a whim. But I'm pretty sure the forum knows exactly who is being a gimmick and who's not interested in having intelligent discussions about topics. This falls under the trolling rule, if you were to actually accept everyone else on the internet's definition of a troll. This is not necessarily a concern about multiple accounts.

I think most people would agree that someone who starts new accounts to circumvent suspensions or worse still being banned should be immediately banned again.

I personally believe anyone that runs multiple simultaneous accounts, on this forum anyway, should have all but one of their accounts banned.

I believe situations like Derek's case should be handled exactly as he handled himself. If you can link to his old account, so be it. Otherwise, he has been open and honest about who he is, created a reasonably similar username, and even informed you and Greg of his return. It's tough to see how any rule was broken there. If a rule was broken there, then it's a bad rule.

I just think that the source of your concern when it comes to people creating multiple account is namely that they do this to derail threads and argue points that they don't believe or just to post things to get a rise out of people without any interest in honest discussion. They can then abandon the account and do this again with a different "persona." Mr. Canada admitted to doing this before he was banned the last time. The problem you're trying to address isn't the multiple accounts as much as it's the trolling. However, you have no interest whatsoever in addressing trolling because you take exception to being the arbiter of whether someone believes what they're posting or whether they're just saying stupid nonsense to get a rise out of people. To the rest of the forum, this behaviour is abundantly clear. If trolling were addressed, then the concern for multiple accounts wouldn't matter.

Edited June 12, 2014 by cybercoma

[GostHacked]

I never did that. Was that aimed at me?

You're so vain, you probably think this thread is about you, don't you, don't you.........

[GostHacked]

Yes, it does.

Regardless, I reckon you folks behave in such a way that is motivated by whether you think the rule is any good or not -- unwittingly, no doubt. I am not saying you all log into the forums and type in your passwords saying "Oh, goody, goody! I get to type in my single user registration at MLW and dive into some fun thanks to this specific rule!" but rather, that you post knowing fully that your posting history is open and accountable to your fellow members.

The main concern from most posters is trolling, and you are deflecting with this multiple account stuff which seems to really be a non-issue at the moment. More posters are concerned about the trolling, but you chose to address this non-issue instead.

[Boges]

Not sure how to deal with "Trolling" other than completely ignoring people you think are "Trolling."

It would appear accusing a member of trolling is a "personal attack".

There's a certain member that I'm convinced is a troll so I try to steer clear of adding to their contribution to the site. . . most of the time.

[GostHacked]

Not sure how to deal with "Trolling" other than completely ignoring people you think are "Trolling."

We report, moderation ignores.

[Boges]

We report, moderation ignores.

But how do you define a troll. People think that posters than only seem to post about one thing are trolls. But maybe that's their MO.

The definition of a troll is someone that is purposely provocative. Which almost all of us can be accused of doing every now and them (see my current status update).

Edited June 12, 2014 by Boges

[bush_cheney2004]

.... The problem you're trying to address isn't the multiple accounts as much as it's the trolling. However, you have no interest whatsoever in addressing trolling because you take exception to being the arbiter of whether someone believes what they're posting or whether they're just saying stupid nonsense to get a rise out of people. To the rest of the forum, this behaviour is abundantly clear. If trolling were addressed, then the concern for multiple accounts wouldn't matter.

No, it has been addressed quite clearly in that the "addressing trolling" actions you keep insisting upon would result in most members being suspended or banned. Multiple accounts would still matter, probably even more so.

[GostHacked]

No, it has been addressed quite clearly in that the "addressing trolling" actions you keep insisting upon would result in most members being suspended or banned. Multiple accounts would still matter, probably even more so.

Actually I would say it's just one real troll is present on this board.

[cybercoma]

It would appear accusing a member of trolling is a "personal attack".

Which is stupid. It's specifically about their posting and their so-called arguments. Not about them personally. Calling someone obtuse is a personal attack. Suggesting someone is a pedophile or supports pedophiles is a personal attack and possibly libel. Telling posters they don't know how to read is a personal attack. Yet, all of those things have slid in the past because apparently they're related to the threads and arguments in the threads enough not to be personal attacks. Yet saying someone is trolling is a personal attack? Come on.

[waldo]

looks like Charles poked the bear again!

[cybercoma]

Actually I would say it's just one real troll is present on this board.

There's two.

[waldo]

Which is stupid. It's specifically about their posting and their so-called arguments. Not about them personally. Calling someone obtuse is a personal attack. Suggesting someone is a pedophile or supports pedophiles is a personal attack and possibly libel. Telling posters they don't know how to read is a personal attack. Yet, all of those things have slid in the past because apparently they're related to the threads and arguments in the threads enough not to be personal attacks. Yet saying someone is trolling is a personal attack? Come on.

it's a part of the troll claiming victimhood play... a classic; gold, real gold!

[bush_cheney2004]

Personal attacks of any kind are not permitted. If some members lack the discipline to ignore what they perceive as "trolling", then they are only perpetuating their own complaint(s).

[bush_cheney2004]

There's two.

See what I mean....they even argue about who/what is a "troll". The moderator(s) are wise indeed.

[waldo]

if some members lack the discipline to not troll, then they are only perpetuating the ongoing demise/failure of this board.

[cybercoma]

Personal attacks of any kind are not permitted. If some members lack the discipline to ignore what they perceive as "trolling", then they are only perpetuating their own complaint(s).

But personal attack are permitted. Quite often actually. Because the moderator picks and chooses what he defines as a personal attack, regardless of whether or not the person reporting it sees it as a personal attack or not. And pointing out that a post is blatant trolling is as much a personal attack as saying an argument uses fallacious reasoning.

So for instance, saying posters "lack discipline" is quite clearly baiting people to respond to you angrily. You're making an insulting character judgment about people who respond to trolling, when trolling is intended to bait people into responding. It's a personal attack, but I don't expect you'll be reprimanded for it.

Edited June 12, 2014 by cybercoma

[waldo]

But how do you define a troll.

good question! Inquiring minds keep asking... and asking... and asking...

will we ever get an answer?

You and I disagree on what constitutes a troll and the act of trolling.

as do you and I... as do you and several other members that I've conversed with. We all appear to have a somewhat common understanding of what a troll is... what trolling is. I'm not aware of your definition - please advise... if you've provided it previously, I can't recall it or I never saw it. Again, please advise - thanks in advance.

[bush_cheney2004]

...So for instance, saying posters "lack discipline" is quite clearly baiting people to respond to you angrily. You're making an insulting character judgment about people who respond to trolling, when trolling is intended to bait people into responding. It's a personal attack, but I don't expect you'll be reprimanded for it.

Not at all....you have purposely misquoted me in an attempt to bend the logic and discussion on this matter. I don't expect you to be reprimanded either. Ignore the "trolls"...it is easily done.

[Boges]

A troll can be defined as someone creating a spoof account just to say things to make people angry or say goofy things. For example if I was to create an e-mail for the sole purpose of creating an account called say. . . Jean Chretien's Facial Deformity or Stephen Harper's Haircut and just say provocative things, I'm a troll.

I don't see that happening on this site. BUT people with legit accounts can be reasonably accused of trolling. I've done it and been chastised for it. You post something that doesn't contribute to a thread. The post just tries to provoke or ad some levity to said thread.

And many posters do that. It's not a personal attack to call someone out on it. It's just a commentary of how a poster is discussing X topic.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Boges

[cybercoma]

Not at all....you have purposely misquoted me in an attempt to bend the logic and discussion on this matter. I don't expect you to be reprimanded either. Ignore the "trolls"...it is easily done.

I didn't misquote you at all. Your entire post is right there in the quote box. Show me where in the forum rules I can be reprimanded for pointing out how your argument is insulting? Are we suddenly not allowed to critically evaluate posts now?

[bush_cheney2004]

Good, contributing members have left this forum on their own in part because there are other members who are determined to bully and silence any contrary views and/or how those views are presented, regardless of topic. This "trolling" business is just another attempt to exert influence to get their partisan way. This forum is richer and more interesting with multiple viewpoints and perspectives.

[waldo]

oh... I can start!

A troll can be defined as someone ...

... purposely derailing and deflecting a thread, particularly one that is most inconvenient and distressing to the troll

... purposely continuing to front the exact same position/statement that has been shown to be false and/or purposely antagonistic, and doing so for years upon years, across thread after thread (whether related or not to the topic/subject)... and doing so, for no other purpose than to, 'stir the pot, (further) antagonize and draw out conflict/response'

[waldo]

This forum is richer and more interesting with multiple viewpoints and perspectives.

sans trolls!

[Boges]

oh... I can start!

... purposely derailing and deflecting a thread, particularly one that is most inconvenient and distressing to the troll

... purposely continuing to front the exact same position/statement that has been shown to be false and/or purposely antagonistic, and doing so for years upon years, across thread after thread (whether related or not to the topic/subject)... and doing so, for no other purpose than to, 'stir the pot, (further) antagonize and draw out conflict/response'

There's a new poster doing exactly that.

Donald Sterling says something racist, that's a proxy for discussing race problem in the US. A man kills his daughter and gets a comically weak sentence, our justice system is different from the US. etc etc.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Boges