Can't We Do Something about All the Idiotic Sock Puppets?

[Some Schmo]

Hmmm....

The ignore feature works fairly well but only up to a point. Unregistered lurkers can still see everything that is posted in this forum. Whether or not they want to join a virtual cesspool, hey, how would I know?

There are entire thread pages I don't see because every post is from some idiot on my Foes list. I certainly wouldn't keep reading this board if I couldn't turn the idiots off. I'm privy to enough of their stupidity just in quoted posts alone.

Apparently, it's all alpha-male-like to hide like a coward behind several different handles.

The mods and admin can already see the IP addresses in list form including alternate accounts that posters are using. That is to say, if you are using a sock, those same posts come up where your regular posts come up on the list for viewing.

Well then it would be even easier than I imagined to control this nonsense.

So...it's not okay if emoticons make the board look like a kindergarten coloring book but it IS okay if the spam trolling makes the board look like a boys bathroom in middle school. Hopefully you will understand the reasoning behind that and if you do, would you please be kind enough to tell the rest of the class what that reasoning is?

The only consistent thing about Shades' rules are their inconsistency.

with regard to to your current complaint, I'm afraid if you're waiting for a response or decision on the part of admin, you'll have to take a number and get in line behind me and others who are still waiting on the so-called moderation thread for a decision regarding violations of the board's spamming and harassment rules, particularly, sexual harassment of female posters.

Jersey Girl, we just found out that Shades considers a mini-skirt a rape provocation. You could be waiting a while.

I'm not sure that decision will ever come from admin because you know, Shades respects women so much that he bends them over a pedestal and he's never seen fit to deal with sexual harassment on this board regardless of the fact that the issue has been raised since the board's early days. I do think the anti-harassment rule works...the problem is that Shades himself doesn't work.

You actually answered the main question I had, which was whether the admins had the tools to do something about it. I'm not sure I ever expected Shades to act on it, but thought it was worth a shot.

[Dr. Shades]

The only consistent thing about Shades' rules are their inconsistency.

Please point out what's inconsistent.

Jersey Girl, we just found out that Shades considers a mini-skirt a rape provocation. You could be waiting a while.

Holy cow you're obtuse! A miniskirt is **NOT** a rape provocation! Just like a 17-year old kid holding an AR-15 is **NOT** an open invitation to try to kill him! I am simply trying to point out that if you falsely believe the latter, then consistency demands that you also falsely believe the former: You don't get to have it both ways!

How can you and Marcus possibly not get this extremely easy analogy, even after it's been clearly and straightforwardly broken down and explained to you in pure, correct, easy-to-understand American English?

Every other human being gets it.

Rats, mice, and cockroaches get it.

Bacteria, germs, and viruses get it.

But for some inexplicable reason, you and Marcus are the only two carbon-based compounds in the entire multiverse who DON'T get it. What are the odds that both of them would be right here on this message board? Seriously, what are the odds?

You actually answered the main question I had, which was whether the admins had the tools to do something about it. I'm not sure I ever expected Shades to act on it, but thought it was worth a shot.

I despise sock puppets and have long considered implementing a rule against them. I always worry about the law of unexpected consequences, though. So, what does everyone think? Should we implement a rule against sock puppets?

[doubtingthomas]

Just like a 17-year old kid holding an AR-15 is **NOT** an open invitation to try to kill him!

No, but it is an invitation to disarm him, especially if he shoots someone. Rittenhouse could have fled when he noticed Rosenbaum was following him.

[canpakes]

The only consistent thing about Shades' rules are their inconsistency.

Please point out what's inconsistent.

Jersey Girl, we just found out that Shades considers a mini-skirt a rape provocation. You could be waiting a while.

Holy cow you're obtuse! A miniskirt is **NOT** a rape provocation! Just like a 17-year old kid holding an AR-15 is **NOT** an open invitation to try to kill him!

Shades, for the third time now, Rittenhouse wasn’t chased because he was toting an AR.

He was chased because he shot someone, then ran from the scene.

Your analogy doesn’t work.

[Marcus]

Jersey Girl, we just found out that Shades considers a mini-skirt a rape provocation. You could be waiting a while.

Holy cow you're obtuse! A miniskirt is **NOT** a rape provocation! Just like a 17-year old kid holding an AR-15 is **NOT** an open invitation to try to kill him! I am simply trying to point out that if you falsely believe the latter, then consistency demands that you also falsely believe the former: You don't get to have it both ways!

How can you and Marcus possibly not get this extremely easy analogy, even after it's been clearly and straightforwardly broken down and explained to you in pure, correct, easy-to-understand American English?

Every other human being gets it.

Rats, mice, and cockroaches get it.

Bacteria, germs, and viruses get it.

But for some inexplicable reason, you and Marcus are the only two carbon-based compounds in the entire multiverse who DON'T get it. What are the odds that both of them would be right here on this message board? Seriously, what are the odds?

Wow. That's quite a rant. And quite incorrect. Morley actually explained why your miniskirt analogy fails quite clearly:

I'm saying that if a woman wears a miniskirt, it does NOT matter the situation she subsequently puts herself into. She is NOT asking to be raped, and if someone tries to rape her, it is the RAPIST'S fault, NOT hers. . . in spite of the fact that she's wearing a miniskirt in a situation she "has no business being in" (according to everyone OTHER THAN myself).

Here's my point: Kyle Rittenhouse/our hypothetical female put himself/herself into a situation he/she had no business being in, while holding a firearm/wearing a miniskirt. In spite of all that, any would-be rioter/rapist who tries to kill/rape him/her is FULLY accountable for his own actions, IN SPITE OF the situation in which Rittenhouse/our hypothetical female put himself/herself into and IN SPITE OF the rifle/miniskirt that he/she is carrying/wearing. If someone attempts to kill/rape him/her, then he/she has the right to defend him/herself, REGARDLESS of the situation he/she put him/herself into.

Get it now?

Shades, apart from what should or shouldn't have been the Rittenhouse verdict, your analogy is seriously flawed. Each potential scenario has to do with perceived intentions.

Any woman wearing a miniskirt never has the intention to initiate rape. A reasonable person is never going to conclude she may be provoking violence. A miniskirt has no ability to harm others.

A person packing a rifle may indeed be have the intention to become an active shooter. A reasonable person seeing someone in an urban setting with any type of long gun may wonder at the intentions of the carrier.

It's the reason we let women in miniskirts walk into middle schools, while stopping folks who are carrying rifles.

I'm sure you'll apologize, in addition to SS and me, to "...every other human being... Rats, mice, and cockroaches... Bacteria, germs, and viruses," all of whom got EXACTLY what you were saying, and knew EXACTLY why you were so wrong.

Thank you again to Morley for explaining it to you so clearly. It's not his fault you still don't get it.

What are the odds that among all the mice, rats, cockroaches, bacteria, germs, viruses, and every other human being, that YOU would be the only one who would STILL not get how inappropriate your mini-skirt analogy is? Seriously, what are the odds?

[doubtingthomas]

Shades, for the third time now, Rittenhouse wasn’t chased because he was toting an AR.

He was chased because he shot someone, then ran from the scene.

Your analogy doesn’t work.

Shades probably thinks the Kenosha protestors are violent gang members killing everyone in their path. I am very disappointed at Shades.

[Some Schmo]

Holy cow you're obtuse! A miniskirt is **NOT** a rape provocation!

Then your analogy doesn't work. A miniskirt is not a threat like a kid with a gun is. You're the one who can't have it both ways, not me.

Just like a 17-year old kid holding an AR-15 is **NOT** an open invitation to try to kill him!

No, but it's certainly a good idea to disarm him (if you can do it safely). Remember, bad guy with a gun? Disarming them is what it looked to me like the guys were trying to do (clumsily, I admit). I didn't see anyone try to kill him.

How can you and Marcus possibly not get this extremely easy analogy.

As I once told ceeboo, analogies only work if they are analogous. You want to pretend Kyle was a victim (he was a victim of his own stupidity and gullibility, but that's it). I'm not having the victim crap. The two guys that died at his irresponsible hands? Now they are what I call victims.

I despise sock puppets and have long considered implementing a rule against them. I always worry about the law of unexpected consequences, though. So, what does everyone think? Should we implement a rule against sock puppets?

Ah, good to end on something with which we agree.

Yes, we should implement that rule. The only unintended consequence I can think of offhand is what might happen in Kevin's situation, where he forgot his password or whatever and created a new avatar for himself to log back in. In that scenario, I'd recommend the new avatar be used just to let the admins know they've been locked out in order to restore the account, after which the new avatar can be deleted.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

But for some inexplicable reason, you and Marcus are the only two carbon-based compounds in the entire multiverse who DON'T get it.

It’s because it’s a sort of emotional appeal that probably falls under ‘affirming the consequent’ logical fallacy. At the very least it’s a bad analogy or bad comparison in order to justify bringing a rifle to a riot “to protect one’s self.” You’re not doing a great job of defending KR’s decision, so you’re resorting to an emotional appeal that has little to do with KR’s choice.

- Doc

[doubtingthomas]

we just found out that Shades considers a mini-skirt a rape provocation. You could be waiting a while.

Shades never said that. You have the tendency to badly misrepresent what others say.

[Some Schmo]

Shades never said that. You have the tendency to badly misrepresent what others say.

Do you think of me when you angrily masturbate?

I'm flattered.