Anonymong wrote:wineandgolover wrote:I can't think of a good reason for a user to have multiple accounts on a bulletin board. <snip> I would favor a real-name policy on this BB.
One's own lack of imagination of appreciation of people's situations and cultures doesn't mean other people might not have a good reason. Perhaps Salman Rushdie plays Go and doesn't want to make it easier for himself to be assassinated. Or someone in an official capacity in the go world wants to post in a clearly non-official voice. Another common group of victims of this kind of thing are minority groups who don't conform to your cultural expectations, say a transgender person who is known in the go world as a woman but who's legal name is still a male one, or a native american with a 'strange' name. That you are happy to reveal your identity doesn't mean everyone else is, just look at the grief Facebook's policy causes.
Your "snip" combines two separate thoughts of mine here. Just because I would favor a real-name policy doesn't mean I would impose it. I'd just vote for it. Why? On this board, civility isn't a huge problem, but I've seen some others blow up because of it. Real name policies generally add to civility.
And it sounds like you are saying that minorities and persecuted groups should hide their status. That makes me sad. Further it seems you are saying that even if accounts are anonymous, that being part of a minority or persecuted group somehow justifies making a second account. I don't see how that follows.
Anonymong wrote:wineandgolover wrote:If what you have to say is so controversial that you are tempted to post with another account, rethink posting it at all. Do people really think it's a good idea to allow a second account to post objectionable material (racist, sexist, homophobic, whatever) and a third (and fourth) to upvote it?
Do you think my original post was controversial/objectionable? I have my reasons for making this account, one of which was to test the self-restraint of the admins here versus elsewhere. Another was to focus discussion on the issue itself rather than myself. I do agree though that sock-puppetry behaviour should not be allowed (such as upvoting one's own comments, posting glowing reviews on your own books/teaching/etc).
There was nothing objectionable about your post, just controversial, which is fine. Under the forum rules, I can't see a reason that your other account would have been banned for it, had you used it to post. So it does nothing to demonstrate the need for a second account.
I am amused that you felt the need to test the admins. Did they pass?
All that said, I don't feel strongly at all about this issue, and after further reflection, I can think of reasons for a second account, such as a separation of commercial and personal posts. But, as always, I'd suggest following the policy of not writing something online that you wouldn't say to somebody's face. If you do this, you probably don't need a second account.
Anonymong wrote:wineandgolover wrote:Regarding banning, assuming a banning is warranted, of course admins should ban the user, not the account. The account didn't do something wrong, the user did.
What if the punishment is not a ban which disappears after a day or two, but a permanent black mark on the user's profile that they are a bad/naughty person. Should this punishment apply to all aliases? Or perhaps this form of eternal reputation-damaging punishment is the problem, not the spreading of it to all aliases?
If you believe the punishment is excessive, fine, then argue that. But to argue in favor of banning an account rather than the individual is the equivalent to confiscating the keyboard that was used to write hate speech. The account, like the keyboard, is just the tool.
