Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 1:02 am
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:48 am
No, not disingenuous at all. If I explain what information we have and how they help us spot duplicate accounts, that will teach people how to better evade our ability to detect sock puppets. You can "take" my response however you choose, but that's your take. My answer is that I'm not going to draw a road map for those who want to evade the rule.
Ok, so we’re back to you being nonplussed about the board trolls, their ongoing behavior as described, and the methods they use to circumvent rules and moderation. All I’m suggesting is a further measure to shut it down in order to promote the board’s mission of discussion. Ultimately the moderation team and Dr. Shades get the board they manage, so if the ongoing shenanigans are your thing then it is what it is.
I think when a user deletes their entire posting history that act throws the board’s ongoing operations into further disarray as described. A user ought to decide whether their historical record and current username participation is worth their right to post in the future. If they delete their crap, then we ought to oblige them fully by denying their future participation since they robbed the board of context and the ability to search the record.
What are your thoughts with regard to to my reasoning?
- Doc
Thought one is that I’ll start a thread in the mod forum to roundtable it. That’s generally how we handle requests for rules changes. Then someone will follow up on whatever gets decided.
Thought two is that adopting new rules to address special cases of irritating behavior by one or two people is generally bad policy. If the person engaging in irritating behavior is doing so to provoke a reaction, they will respond by finding some other irritating behavior that arguably isn’t prohibited by the rules. So, then what you end up with is a hodgepodge of rule upon rule resulting in a rule set that no one reads, let alone understands or follows.
Thought three is that, if this were a widespread problem so that affected the ability of people to carry on conversations, we can address that under UR 8.
Thought four is that I am reluctant to adopt rules to prevent problems that users can easily address. To my knowledge, we’re talking about one person. If users choose to interact with that person, they can easily preserve the contents of the other person’s posts by using the quote feature when they respond. That’s what folks commonly do anyway. Alternatively, they can choose to ignore and not respond to the offending individual. Then, deleted posts won’t interfere with the flow of a conversation because they were never part of the flow to begin with.
Thought final is that there are, as a practical matter, six boards here. I don’t think it’s fair to judge the board by the lowest common denominator. While I don’t disagree in theory with your reasoning, I don’t see it as a problem in practice other than Prison/Telestial, where we try to give people a broad a range of expression as we can, including behaving in ways that irritate others.
But that’s just my initial impression.