EnMasse

TS.

Since there seemed to be support for the idea (see this thread) I have written the following text as the first draft of an ammendment to the Acceptable Use Policy banning sock puppets.

Senor Magoo · He's got a big one Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 8700

I like the part about "in perpetuity".

That's right, suckas! Don't bother trying to come back here in 2042, when we're all accessing En Masse with holographic mindmaps and tiny supercomputers embedded in our brain stems! When you're on the shit list, it's forever. Very Happy

_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

Norse of 60 · Kokanee Kid Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 3711

The Evil Twin · Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject:

If Norse has two different robot-slaves posting for him from two different locations (say one server on Mars and another from Neptune).........does that constitute "sock puppetry"? I mean if "EnMasse" is aiming for longevity, it's only logical that we should be planning for every possible future contigency. Imagine 2042....clones of the EVIL Twin posting under different names from several different planets having coversations (and even fights) with other ET clones (both biological and cybernetic). We need a plan....and fast!
_________________
I can't support bike lanes. Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks. My heart bleeds when someone gets killed, but it's their own fault at the end of the day. - Assclown Rob Ford

Tehanu · Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:16 pm Post subject:

Thanks for this, TS.!

What about people who register more than one account and use them at the same time to "debate" each other? (And, a reminder, if you have more than one person posting from your computer, please let the mods know so we don't assume this is happening!).

Would a blanket: "Each individual may only have one username and account on enMasse. Subsequent accounts, a.k.a. "sock-puppets," may be banned at the discretion of the moderators" cover the whole thing?

thwap · Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject:

peterjcassidy

Norse of 60 · Kokanee Kid Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 3711

Tehanu · Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:33 pm Post subject:

Norse of 60 · Kokanee Kid Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 3711

pogo · Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject:

And what about time travellers. If I post and then return from the future to debate my post is that okay?

DSquared · Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 11:12 pm Post subject:

Personally, I think the exemption for those who have self-banned should be removed, and that any self-banned individual can contact the mods via e-mail to have that ban reversed.
_________________
This is pre-eminently the time, to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Diane Demorney · Bazinga! Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 4746 Location: Calgary

In 2042, I'll be dead. Just sayin'

Mr. Green

_________________
Scissors cuts paper. Paper covers rock. Rock crushes lizard. Lizard poisons Spock. Spock smashes scissors. Scissors decapitates lizard. Lizard eats paper. Paper disproves Spock. Spock vaporizes rock. And as it always has, rock crushes scissors.

skeptikool · *BANNED* Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Posts: 1758

In perpetuity is a long time. Popular no doubt with those lacking redemption in their lexicon, and manna to those of authoritarian persuasion.

Are we to assume that the mods will never be mistaken in a judgment - that there will never be a need to back-pedal?

bshmr · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 12:35 am Post subject:

It seems to me that the crux of the issue is the "subversive use of UserIds by one person".

Examples are 1) the 'false dialogues' (which inflate view/posting counts, fake support for positions, or are literally 'straw men'); 2) the 're-appearing banished troll' (which demonstrates their magical power or something): 3) occasionally, users create new userids because of difficulties with use of prior userids -- forgotten this or that, the database is fouled; and, 4) in some communities, an alter-ego is allowed so that a clown or cynic can 'brilliantly flash without disrupting everything permanently.

From the above, 'multiple UserIds' is not the problem to address but specific individuals and their subversive behaviors are.

Personally, the rule should 'ban' the person and associated behavior, not the artificial 'UserId' or varied names of the same imagined companion. [ Have the rule address the reality as opposed to the 'mystification' of it -- to put the point another way. ]

Senor Magoo · He's got a big one Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 8700

Diane Demorney · Bazinga! Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 4746 Location: Calgary

Well, skeptikool, I can't speak for elmateo or Tehanu, but I never make a misteak.
_________________
Scissors cuts paper. Paper covers rock. Rock crushes lizard. Lizard poisons Spock. Spock smashes scissors. Scissors decapitates lizard. Lizard eats paper. Paper disproves Spock. Spock vaporizes rock. And as it always has, rock crushes scissors.

elmateo · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 1:09 am Post subject:

elmateo · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 1:14 am Post subject:

skeptikool · *BANNED* Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Posts: 1758

TS. · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 2:49 am Post subject:

I can get behind the spirit of the amendments proposed so far. I even propose a shorter period between appeals for reinstatement (one year). I included a reference to Article 10 when mentioning banning, to ensure that the "indefinitely" part of that Article is understood to be implied. The following is my suggested new language:

elmateo · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 2:58 am Post subject:

My understanding of the AUP is that moderators can if they choose review and reverse any of the bans made, specifically if an appeal is made by the user.

And since all moderators are influenced by peer pressure there is also the possibility of holding a reinstatement vote - while not binding according to the AUP, I feel is part of an unwritten constitution of this place.

Maybe I am being a little adventurous in saying this... Tehanu, DD, anyone, correct me if I am completely wrong.

Therefore any sort of "forever" statement should be taken with a grain of le salt or be made explicitly forever and ever and ever till Tehanu dies Shocked

.

That being said, I am not so sure I would reverse personally any decision that has been made to ban a member at this point and cannot imagine a reason to do that. But if I did get careless and ban a 1/4 of the board, my replacement could most willingly let all those people back, and not be against the AUP.

Cartman · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:02 am Post subject:

TS. · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:07 am Post subject:

Tehanu · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:08 am Post subject:

TS. · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:10 am Post subject:

Tehanu · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:15 am Post subject:

The VAST majority of people who are banned are trolls. I sincerely doubt that they'll be coming back year after year asking to be reinstated (assuming we're still here!) ... While I agree very much with the idea of having an appeals process, I'm a big believer in general statements in policies, in my experience the more precise you get, the more cumbersome the process gets.

elmateo · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:16 am Post subject:

Yeah personally, I don't think it is that important to have a "time" on the appeal process. If they are jerks constantly emailing the mods, their email will find its way into a filter I like to call "spam".

I am cautious of making the AUP too litigious and really do not see a specific problem with how the process would be handled now. Most importantly is just something that says "your sockpuppet is not a new member, don't think you fool anyone - you will get banned immediately."

TS. · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:23 am Post subject:

sparqui · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:23 am Post subject:

There are e-mail addresses available to contact mods? That's news to me. I thought you had to be logged in to access the PM system.
_________________
“If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor.”

-- Gilles Duceppe

Tehanu · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:24 am Post subject:

contactus@enmasse.ca

Oh, and a belated shout out to TS to say thanks for your work on this!

peterjcassidy · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 4:45 am Post subject:

steve · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 5:43 am Post subject:

TS. · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject:

With huge thanks to Tehanu for her help, I now present the third draft of the proposed amendment. The reference to the appeals period was taken out, because (as peterjcassidy pointed out) we already have a very generous appeals process outlined in the AUP.

elmateo · Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 7:58 pm Post subject:

That I can vote for I think. Good work.

TS. · Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject:

If there are no objections to the third draft that I posted, I will go ahead and ask Steve to put the amendment to a formal vote in the voting centre.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

steve · Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 5:30 am Post subject:

A vote has been created for this proposed amendment to the AUP. The vote opens at 9am Pacific May 10, and closes at 9am Pacific May 17.

thwap · Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject:

I take it it's a given that eph (who rarely posts now anyway) and I really are two different people, often posting from the same address?

If so, then I can vote for the amendment as is.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

Tehanu · Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject:

TS. · Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 7:09 pm Post subject:

Palamedes · Fulltime enMasse Member Joined: 19 Jan 2007 Posts: 351

steve · Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 5:32 am Post subject:

The vote on the sock puppet AUP amendment passed by a wide margin. The vote was marred by irregularities, what with the lights going out and closing the ballot station for the last 15 hours of the polling period, but with the results standing at 29 votes in favour of the resolution to 8 votes in favour of requiring further revision and 30 votes in favour of the resolution to 7 votes against the resolution, I don't think the results were likely going to change. Any objections to declaring the results official?

TS. · Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 7:22 am Post subject:

I haven't seen any complaints. I think the vote was clear, and I would like to see the change made as soon as is convenient for you, Steve GTG.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

steve · Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 5:23 am Post subject:

The AUP has been so amended.

Tehanu · Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:20 am Post subject:

Eek! The AUP has been so amended twice, I guess, because I put the new clause in ... but in the wrong place. I'll go fix it. Embarassed

TS. · Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:24 pm Post subject:

One of you may also want to change the "effective date" of the AUP. It still says "May 19, 2006".
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

Tehanu · Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:51 pm Post subject:

Changed it to "effective as of ..." but that's really just the date that it came into force, right?

TS. · Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:19 am Post subject:

My understanding was that it reflected the date of latest revision.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson