On Bittersweet being revealed as Crying Vegeta

[CompositeGNFNR]

Like this thread is a circle

Is this a circle like thread

[Strange_One]

Derails inevitable with endless recursions.

BL is a synchrotron.

[Muramasa]

I generally don't have a problem with the admins actions. You guys really don't like sockpuppets, fine. Dish out punishments accordingly. I don't care.


However you guys snooping through PMs to get your man is a very dangerous precedent. We already have one mod who has proven himself not trustworthy. Unless there was a significant threat to the forum or a legitmate threat to do someone harm, I wouldn't want you guys in my PM box ever. A potential sockpuppet is not a good enough reason in my book to violate the privacy of a handful of forumers. You guys potentially do more damage than leaving things well enough alone.

[Five_X]

I generally don't have a problem with the admins actions. You guys really don't like sockpuppets, fine. Dish out punishments accordingly. I don't care.


However you guys snooping through PMs to get your man is a very dangerous precedent. We already have one mod who has proven himself not trustworthy. Unless there was a significant threat to the forum or a legitmate threat to do someone harm, I wouldn't want you guys in my PM box ever. A potential sockpuppet is not a good enough reason in my book to violate the privacy of a handful of forumers. You guys potentially do more damage than leaving things well enough alone.

Spoiler: we're already in your inbox. We know about your fetishes.

You aren't safe.

[Tobias]

EDIT: that was probably funnier then most of my jokes, but in retrospect was kind of mean spirited.

[TheAbsolutistsCreed]

Damn, I laughed my way through reading half of the posts here.

[LegalLoliLover]

I generally don't have a problem with the admins actions. You guys really don't like sockpuppets, fine. Dish out punishments accordingly. I don't care.


However you guys snooping through PMs to get your man is a very dangerous precedent. We already have one mod who has proven himself not trustworthy. Unless there was a significant threat to the forum or a legitmate threat to do someone harm, I wouldn't want you guys in my PM box ever. A potential sockpuppet is not a good enough reason in my book to violate the privacy of a handful of forumers. You guys potentially do more damage than leaving things well enough alone.

Could always just share emails with your friends. Assuming no one here works for Yahoo, Google, etc.

[Muramasa]

Spoiler: we're already in your inbox. We know about your fetishes.

You aren't safe.

NOOO!!! YOU BASTARDS!!! DON'T YOU DARE DIG UP MY SNORLAX x ASH 69 collec... *cough* I mean... *sweats* yeah....



But seriously, going through x amount of private messages over something as relatively harmless as a sockpuppet is really... Honestly I think that's worse than the actual offense.

[LegalLoliLover]

Anyone taking my suggestion?

[Seika]

EDIT: that was probably funnier then most of my jokes, but in retrospect was kind of mean spirited.

Cautious of you. I thought it didn't even go near the line.
(Activity Stream rescued the post for me).

[Tobias]

Cautious of you. I thought it didn't even go near the line.
(Activity Stream rescued the post for me).

He isn't wrong to be worried about it. Hell, we are. My joke seemed in poor taste. Though his statement that sock puppeting was a relatively harmless caused me to grit my teeth so hard I think I cracked my jaw.

But, since I flat out refuse to have the same argument this thread has already seen 50 odd pages of (I browse 10 posts per page, edit that number accordingly) when I wouldn't be saying anything new, so I just figured walking away was the best choice

[Muramasa]

Though his statement that sock puppeting was a relatively harmless caused me to grit my teeth so hard I think I cracked my jaw.

Okay, maybe I went a little too far there. That makes light of a lot of hard work put forth by the mod team and for that I apologize. However the rest of what I said still stands.

[Kyte]

I generally don't have a problem with the admins actions. You guys really don't like sockpuppets, fine. Dish out punishments accordingly. I don't care.


However you guys snooping through PMs to get your man is a very dangerous precedent. We already have one mod who has proven himself not trustworthy. Unless there was a significant threat to the forum or a legitmate threat to do someone harm, I wouldn't want you guys in my PM box ever. A potential sockpuppet is not a good enough reason in my book to violate the privacy of a handful of forumers. You guys potentially do more damage than leaving things well enough alone.

Yes, because it didn't take what in any other place would have already been proof enough for a ban to barely swing the vote in favor of looking through PMs. They go willy-nilly. In fact, they have commissioned special PM-combing bots to scan for dissident thought.

Crush all insurgents!

[Tobias]

Okay, maybe I went a little too far there. That makes light of a lot of hard work put forth by the mod team and for that I apologize. However the rest of what I said still stands.

I understand and respect your viewpoint. Ironically the decisions in this thread have a great deal to do with finding a way to combat sock puppeting without resorting to such measures.

on the principle that it would be better to allow them to continue, no. As to why I refer you back through this thread.

[Seika]

Yes, because it didn't take what in any other place would have already been proof enough for a ban to barely swing the vote in favor of looking through PMs.

This is an interesting point. I suppose this is probably too close a look into the admin forum for us to get, but was there a set of people on the "let's not look through inboxes" side who were arguing for "we already have enough evidence, so in addition to it being something we'd prefer not to do, it's not even necessary"? People who would have gone straight to banning Bittersweet? (And, I suppose, would have ended up missing out on the Leo connection through none of their fault. One presumes Leo himself voted against looking through PMs).

[Tobias]

No. I don't think it will cost anything to say it straight out, we did not have evidence sufficient to ban CV. If the vote had gone the other way, he would still be around and we would still be gnawing an unprovable speculations that as it would turn out, were all to provable, but nobody felt the need to say anything.

[Seika]

Wow.

On the one hand, I'm grateful that the team has such a high standard for evidence. On the other ... yeah, I think that's too high.

[I3uster]

PMs were always kind of open to the mods in the sense that the recipient only had to push one button for it to be seen by the mods, so you probably shouldn't use it for actually sensitive info in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

No. I don't think it will cost anything to say it straight out, we did not have evidence sufficient to ban CV. If the vote had gone the other way, he would still be around and we would still be gnawing an unprovable speculations that as it would turn out, were all to provable, but nobody felt the need to say anything.

That's weird because I think he once logged in drunk as BS without proxy. Does he have a dynamic IP or something?

[Tobias]

I am not comfortable with discussing specifics of the check system. Sorry.

[I3uster]

No problem.