2009 : I wonder.....

[SaigonSaddler]

Not hard, but not necessary. We all have a right to privacy and anonymity on here (with a username such as King Crimson, I can hardly suggest otherwise, and I'm guessing that all those on this thread - yourself, Cully, tape, Exile, WN, WM, cyclo, Sheff - aren't using our real names).

Multiple usernames can lead to issues such as this (i.e. where one poster becomes attributed with the posts of another), but again - according to the site set-up, as defined by the owner - multiple usernames are fine. They can be funny, can allow posters freedom to post in a 'different' way, and they also allow posters who've 'burned their bridges' as it were, a fresh start, but they can lead to issues about identity (as is the case here).

Would be gutted if my mom had called me pleck_saddler but point taken .
Why not ban the ISP ?
That is possible, as i quite know :shock:

Users can be banned in several ways - including by IP (but this can be got round by people who know how (not me), and can result in 'innocent' users being banned as 'collateral damage' - AOL users are susceptible to this in particular from my limited understanding).

For my own part, I think if people focus on the content of posts rather than the author of them, they are much more likely to treat people in an even-handed way. 'Claire' was making a point - whether you agree with 'her' or not - and rather than focusing on the validity or otherwise, we begin a new scene from 'the hunchback of Notre Dame' as the baying hordes, after 'recognising the style', grab their flaming torches and set off in pursuit of a monster.

More's the point, what has Claire done that requires a ban?

I think mods should treat posts from people that do actually exist and are known by others with more credence than some one-off nonsense from a made up name. It can't be that hard to store some kind of mental log of who actually exists and the made up names of a few nutters. This is why the status of these rogue posters is repeatedly raised. It's all very well modding the odd swear word for the protection of the few under 8s, but the only real distress is caused by pseudo-posters that are free to post anything without significant action by mods (as long as they don't swear).

CR has taken the time to post in a pretty annoying attack on what Willy Nilly has posted. Thanks CR, but please do one until you stop hiding in anonimity. Until then your input is utterly worthless.

[Tyldesley_saddler]

Not hard, but not necessary. We all have a right to privacy and anonymity on here (with a username such as King Crimson, I can hardly suggest otherwise, and I'm guessing that all those on this thread - yourself, Cully, tape, Exile, WN, WM, cyclo, Sheff - aren't using our real names).

Multiple usernames can lead to issues such as this (i.e. where one poster becomes attributed with the posts of another), but again - according to the site set-up, as defined by the owner - multiple usernames are fine. They can be funny, can allow posters freedom to post in a 'different' way, and they also allow posters who've 'burned their bridges' as it were, a fresh start, but they can lead to issues about identity (as is the case here).

Would be gutted if my mom had called me pleck_saddler but point taken .
Why not ban the ISP ?
That is possible, as i quite know :shock:

Users can be banned in several ways - including by IP (but this can be got round by people who know how (not me), and can result in 'innocent' users being banned as 'collateral damage' - AOL users are susceptible to this in particular from my limited understanding).

For my own part, I think if people focus on the content of posts rather than the author of them, they are much more likely to treat people in an even-handed way. 'Claire' was making a point - whether you agree with 'her' or not - and rather than focusing on the validity or otherwise, we begin a new scene from 'the hunchback of Notre Dame' as the baying hordes, after 'recognising the style', grab their flaming torches and set off in pursuit of a monster.

More's the point, what has Claire done that requires a ban?

I think mods should treat posts from people that do actually exist and are known by others with more credence than some one-off nonsense from a made up name. It can't be that hard to store some kind of mental log of who actually exists and the made up names of a few nutters. This is why the status of these rogue posters is repeatedly raised. It's all very well modding the odd swear word for the protection of the few under 8s, but the only real distress is caused by pseudo-posters that are free to post anything without significant action by mods (as long as they don't swear).

CR has taken the time to post in a pretty annoying attack on what Willy Nilly has posted. Thanks CR, but please do one until you stop hiding in anonimity. Until then your input is utterly worthless.

Finally the voice of reason ! Saigon i salute you

[King Crimson]

I think mods should treat posts from people that do actually exist and are known by others with more credence than some one-off nonsense from a made up name. It can't be that hard to store some kind of mental log of who actually exists and the made up names of a few nutters. This is why the status of these rogue posters is repeatedly raised. It's all very well modding the odd swear word for the protection of the few under 8s, but the only real distress is caused by pseudo-posters that are free to post anything without significant action by mods (as long as they don't swear).

CR has taken the time to post in a pretty annoying attack on what Willy Nilly has posted. Thanks CR, but please do one until you stop hiding in anonimity. Until then your input is utterly worthless.

I think posters can ascertain for themselves the validity of comments made and judge them by their provenance accordingly, SS. We can only mod what we see. There are some perennial posters on here who I give little value to their opinion, and that's my prerogative (I'm sure we all do), but I like the fact that the judgement call is mine as a viewer, and mine alone.

[King Crimson]

Oh, and you can always stick 'er on yer 'Foes List'. :idea:

[Tyldesley_saddler]

Oh, and you can always stick 'er on yer 'Foes List'. :idea:

Even though we all know its not a "er".

[King Crimson]

Oh, and you can always stick 'er on yer 'Foes List'. :idea:

Even though we all know its not a "er".

Yep.

I'm not a king either. :wink:

[OldPenkSaddler]

Whilst no-one has said directly who they think "Claire" is, it sounds like you are very much barking up the wrong tree, and again, surely you can read the humour into the situation????

I think, you think, 'they' think is it someone that 'they' don't really think it really is! Just a thought. :idea:

[Tyldesley_saddler]

Whilst no-one has said directly who they think "Claire" is, it sounds like you are very much barking up the wrong tree, and again, surely you can read the humour into the situation????

I think, you think, 'they' think is it someone that 'they' don't really think it really is! Just a thought. :idea:

Confused me know :lol:

[SaigonSaddler]

I think mods should treat posts from people that do actually exist and are known by others with more credence than some one-off nonsense from a made up name. It can't be that hard to store some kind of mental log of who actually exists and the made up names of a few nutters. This is why the status of these rogue posters is repeatedly raised. It's all very well modding the odd swear word for the protection of the few under 8s, but the only real distress is caused by pseudo-posters that are free to post anything without significant action by mods (as long as they don't swear).

CR has taken the time to post in a pretty annoying attack on what Willy Nilly has posted. Thanks CR, but please do one until you stop hiding in anonimity. Until then your input is utterly worthless.

I think posters can ascertain for themselves the validity of comments made and judge them by their provenance accordingly, SS. We can only mod what we see. There are some perennial posters on here who I give little value to their opinion, and that's my prerogative (I'm sure we all do), but I like the fact that the judgement call is mine as a viewer, and mine alone.

Indeed and my suggestion would never seek to demand what postings to enjoy, but you are also a mod. I find it bizarre that swear words are modded relentlessly (fair enough) but the actual damage and hurt by these hidden posters is largely ignored and then out comes the 'well, we really can't do anything'. Yes, you can. You can repeatedly ban usernames. How long does it take to ban a username? If this is too difficult, the collective mod-mind is capable of sorting this problem out with any kind of intellectual fortitude.

As for the 'foe' list, I'm not bothered if users target me, but why should real people who I know are upset be attacked? If other real users wish to attack individuals then fine, but at least they can be identified, challenged and held to account over their views and positions - whether they are right or wrong. No problem.

So your viewpoint as a poster is unquestionable, but the position mods take towards issues like this MUST be allowed to be debated by all interested parties, even if the mods' response is ultimately to dismiss them.

[Tyldesley_saddler]

I think mods should treat posts from people that do actually exist and are known by others with more credence than some one-off nonsense from a made up name. It can't be that hard to store some kind of mental log of who actually exists and the made up names of a few nutters. This is why the status of these rogue posters is repeatedly raised. It's all very well modding the odd swear word for the protection of the few under 8s, but the only real distress is caused by pseudo-posters that are free to post anything without significant action by mods (as long as they don't swear).

CR has taken the time to post in a pretty annoying attack on what Willy Nilly has posted. Thanks CR, but please do one until you stop hiding in anonimity. Until then your input is utterly worthless.

I think posters can ascertain for themselves the validity of comments made and judge them by their provenance accordingly, SS. We can only mod what we see. There are some perennial posters on here who I give little value to their opinion, and that's my prerogative (I'm sure we all do), but I like the fact that the judgement call is mine as a viewer, and mine alone.

Indeed and my suggestion would never seek to demand what postings to enjoy, but you are also a mod. I find it bizarre that swear words are modded relentlessly (fair enough) but the actual damage and hurt by these hidden posters is largely ignored and then out comes the 'well, we really can't do anything'. Yes, you can. You can repeatedly ban usernames. How long does it take to ban a username? If this is too difficult, the collective mod-mind is capable of sorting this problem out with any kind of intellectual fortitude.

As for the 'foe' list, I'm not bothered if users target me, but why should real people who I know are upset be attacked? If other real users wish to attack individuals then fine, but at least they can be identified, challenged and held to account over their views and positions - whether they are right or wrong. No problem.

So your viewpoint as a poster is unquestionable, but the position mods take towards issues like this MUST be allowed to be debated by all interested parties, even if the mods' response is ultimately to dismiss them.

Saigon well put and well said son !

[cyclothymic]

So we have one hundred replies, UTS civil war, accusations and counter-accusations, mis-identification of Claire Rainor by those who see poopooshoecakewendymonk round every corner ... like this ghost poster or hate them, they are good at what they do. They started this thread with one old and much repeated 'joke' or 'insult' and look where it has gone. The kind of person an advertising agency would love to have in their employment - almost viral isn't it?

[SheffieldSaddler]

I think mods should treat posts from people that do actually exist and are known by others with more credence than some one-off nonsense from a made up name. It can't be that hard to store some kind of mental log of who actually exists and the made up names of a few nutters. This is why the status of these rogue posters is repeatedly raised. It's all very well modding the odd swear word for the protection of the few under 8s, but the only real distress is caused by pseudo-posters that are free to post anything without significant action by mods (as long as they don't swear).

CR has taken the time to post in a pretty annoying attack on what Willy Nilly has posted. Thanks CR, but please do one until you stop hiding in anonimity. Until then your input is utterly worthless.

I think posters can ascertain for themselves the validity of comments made and judge them by their provenance accordingly, SS. We can only mod what we see. There are some perennial posters on here who I give little value to their opinion, and that's my prerogative (I'm sure we all do), but I like the fact that the judgement call is mine as a viewer, and mine alone.

Indeed and my suggestion would never seek to demand what postings to enjoy, but you are also a mod. I find it bizarre that swear words are modded relentlessly (fair enough) but the actual damage and hurt by these hidden posters is largely ignored and then out comes the 'well, we really can't do anything'. Yes, you can. You can repeatedly ban usernames. How long does it take to ban a username? If this is too difficult, the collective mod-mind is capable of sorting this problem out with any kind of intellectual fortitude.

As for the 'foe' list, I'm not bothered if users target me, but why should real people who I know are upset be attacked? If other real users wish to attack individuals then fine, but at least they can be identified, challenged and held to account over their views and positions - whether they are right or wrong. No problem.

So your viewpoint as a poster is unquestionable, but the position mods take towards issues like this MUST be allowed to be debated by all interested parties, even if the mods' response is ultimately to dismiss them.

Absolutely spot on.
So come on mods, make an effort.
Or have some of you something to hide.....

[Cully]

For those of us too thick to work it out - who posts as Claire Raynor?

Thanks for replying and confirming what I have suspected since your last post on 30th November 2008. I knew if I waited long enough you'd eventually post :lol:




'evening all!'

[cyclothymic]

For those of us too thick to work it out - who posts as Claire Raynor?

Thanks for replying and confirming what I have suspected since your last post on 30th November 2008. I knew if I waited long enough you'd eventually post :lol:




'evening all!'

lol - it isn't me Cully. But thanks for the compliment - if it is one :?

As a fence-sitting non-intellectual-socialist I am totally against attacking anyone either directly or under an alter-ego.

As I have made clear in PMs - I like you.

Sunday nights are not the best time for me to discuss things - I react to the creatine in the beef.

But I will try:

I like people - all people. Even the bad ones have something positive ... even if it is only a little positive.

I got upset by what I perceived to be some fairly heavy fox-hunt style posting in the latter part of 2008. It was very hurtful and physically damaging to certain posters and at the time I may have lost my temper ... but all is forgiven from my side of things.

We are all human - non-perfect and liable to make and repeatedly make the same mistakes.

We can use our fairly short time here in a positive way or a negative way ... each one of us has that choice every second of our lives.

I hate this creatine but I still eat meat ...

Oh ... did I mention that I am not Clair Rainor?

[Whitti Steve]

Well said Cariad

[Kiansmom]

The problem I have is when Fred was banned we were told as soon as it was obvious of his come back under a new name he would be banned again. Of course that didn't happen and it's been left to build up again. I and I'm sure others have seen his comments towards Cully which to me is harrasment but still nothing is done. I still have the pms in my inbox from Fred apologising for taking things to far last time, some apology when it continues now. My gripe is say what you want about me but have the guts to do it under a proper name not some hidden username, or even better face to face but we all know that wont happen as those people are just keybard warriors. What annoys me even more is having a pop at my kids, you have to be a real man to do that don't you? especially when you are the father of kids yourself.Personally I would be horrified if I thought someone like this sicko was in charge of anything to do with my kids, oh well at the end of the day you can't hide forever and will have to accept the consequences for your actions when it does all come out as it eventually will, Google bot realised that too late!

[Tyldesley_saddler]

The problem I have is when Fred was banned we were told as soon as it was obvious of his come back under a new name he would be banned again. Of course that didn't happen and it's been left to build up again. I and I'm sure others have seen his comments towards Cully which to me is harrasment but still nothing is done. I still have the pms in my inbox from Fred apologising for taking things to far last time, some apology when it continues now. My gripe is say what you want about me but have the guts to do it under a proper name not some hidden username, or even better face to face but we all know that wont happen as those people are just keybard warriors. What annoys me even more is having a pop at my kids, you have to be a real man to do that don't you? especially when you are the father of kids yourself.Personally I would be horrified if I thought someone like this sicko was in charge of anything to do with my kids, oh well at the end of the day you can't hide forever and will have to accept the consequences for your actions when it does all come out as it eventually will, Google bot realised that too late!

Urinating and wind spring to mind here !
Waste of time Linda, but well put

[King Crimson]

For those of us too thick to work it out - who posts as Claire Raynor?

Thanks for replying and confirming what I have suspected since your last post on 30th November 2008. I knew if I waited long enough you'd eventually post :lol:

Hmmm. Have you ever read The Crucible, Cully?

[cyclothymic]

The problem I have is when Fred was banned we were told as soon as it was obvious of his come back under a new name he would be banned again. Of course that didn't happen and it's been left to build up again. I and I'm sure others have seen his comments towards Cully which to me is harrasment but still nothing is done. I still have the pms in my inbox from Fred apologising for taking things to far last time, some apology when it continues now. My gripe is say what you want about me but have the guts to do it under a proper name not some hidden username, or even better face to face but we all know that wont happen as those people are just keybard warriors. What annoys me even more is having a pop at my kids, you have to be a real man to do that don't you? especially when you are the father of kids yourself.Personally I would be horrified if I thought someone like this sicko was in charge of anything to do with my kids, oh well at the end of the day you can't hide forever and will have to accept the consequences for your actions when it does all come out as it eventually will, Google bot realised that too late!

I support what you are saying here. As posters we choose to post (or not) on here and rely on board policing to keep things in check. When postings start refering to those we are related to (our children, our parents ... whatever) then it is very out-of-order! Added to that - when it becomes obvious that a poster is getting upset by the way posts are going it is clearly a time to stop that direction of posting.

[Cully]

For those of us too thick to work it out - who posts as Claire Raynor?

Thanks for replying and confirming what I have suspected since your last post on 30th November 2008. I knew if I waited long enough you'd eventually post :lol:

Hmmm. Have you ever read The Crucible, Cully?

Burn the Witch!!!!!! [but don't tell saigon :wink: ]

[King Crimson]

For those of us too thick to work it out - who posts as Claire Raynor?

Thanks for replying and confirming what I have suspected since your last post on 30th November 2008. I knew if I waited long enough you'd eventually post :lol:

Hmmm. Have you ever read The Crucible, Cully?

Burn the Witch!!!!!! [but don't tell saigon :wink: ]

Behind the winks, the laughing emoticons and Dixon of Dock Green, it is clear that you made a major error in your 'detection' of Claire Raynor's identity. I wonder what other alter-egos you have maybe incorrectly attributed, but ones where mods/admin are powerless to validate or refute.

Just a thought, politely expressed (as ever).

[Cully]

KC Here's my brief thoughts on alter egos but without the smilies in the same way you have concluded.

As a moderator, you have access to IP addresses and of course your own forum where you can communicate with fellow Mods and Administrators information you may think exclusive. It matters not to me what you think you have deduced about my 'detections', it is clear your conclusions are just that and as such are no more valid or simple than mine. I wonder what other 'clear' conclusions you have been able to arrive at and by what process; thought transfer or mind reading?

This has turned out to be yet another thread about the misuse of this board by alter egos and as Saigon has so eloquently put, one the moderators may choose to dismiss as they verbally waft their way through thread after thread.

One wonders why we have threads like this, I know the answer, do you?

I'm sorry that I haven't got a smart or witty reply in this post but I would conclude that it is not unusual.

[Cully]

I'm just off for a bath.

[Exile]

One wonders why we have threads like this, I know the answer, do you?

Is it because cully's an easy wind-up, Tone?

[King Crimson]

KC Here's my brief thoughts on alter egos but without the smilies in the same way you have concluded.

As a moderator, you have access to IP addresses and of course your own forum where you can communicate with fellow Mods and Administrators information you may think exclusive. It matters not to me what you think you have deduced about my 'detections', it is clear your conclusions are just that and as such are no more valid or simple than mine. I wonder what other 'clear' conclusions you have been able to arrive at and by what process; thought transfer or mind reading?

This has turned out to be yet another thread about the misuse of this board by alter egos and as Saigon has so eloquently put, one the moderators may choose to dismiss as they verbally waft their way through thread after thread.

One wonders why we have threads like this, I know the answer, do you?

I'm sorry that I haven't got a smart or witty reply in this post but I would conclude that it is not unusual.

Many thanks for the reply. Saigon has suggested a wonderful way forward, by which (in a nutshell) the moderators have carte blanche to dispose of posters who post things that others don't like. Oh, so long as those unpleasantries aren't directed in a particular direction of course, as Claire Raynor has pointed out.

When should the decimation begin?

I hope your bath manages to ease out some of those knots you have got yourself into. :wink:

[Whitti Steve]

Bored, bored, bored...

[80's styleee] Whhhhhyyyyyy dont you, whhhhhyyyyy dont you, whhhhhhyyyyy dont you.

Just switch off you PC screen and do something less boring instead..[/80's styleee]

FWIW, I actually think you enjoy these threads a little more than you suggest Cully.

[SheffieldSaddler]

It is so obvious from the outset of this thread, that the mods (or some mods) do in fact know who these people are.
I can draw a number of conclusions as to why they dont want to do anything about it.
1. It is a mod.
2. It is a very good friend of a mod.
Its what you call the culture of England. That is one rule for one and one for another.

[big baz 1]

It is so obvious from the outset of this thread, that the mods (or some mods) do in fact know who these people are.
I can draw a number of conclusions as to why they dont want to do anything about it.
1. It is a mod.
2. It is a very good friend of a mod.
Its what you call the culture of England. That is one rule for one and one for another.

Very good point well made

[SheffieldSaddler]

Bored, bored, bored...

[80's styleee] Whhhhhyyyyyy dont you, whhhhhyyyyy dont you, whhhhhhyyyyy dont you.

Just switch off you PC screen and do something less boring instead..[/80's styleee]

FWIW, I actually think you enjoy these threads a little more than you suggest Cully.

Well why havent you switched your PC screen off then?
Yet another mod who seems to know more then they are letting on.................

[Whitti Steve]

Bored, bored, bored...

[80's styleee] Whhhhhyyyyyy dont you, whhhhhyyyyy dont you, whhhhhhyyyyy dont you.

Just switch off you PC screen and do something less boring instead..[/80's styleee]

FWIW, I actually think you enjoy these threads a little more than you suggest Cully.

Well why havent you switched your PC screen off then?
Yet another mod who seems to know more then they are letting on.................

Sheff, I have NO IDEA who Fred/Wendy is - and TBH, have no desire to. Just get bored of all the Moderator bashing. I ain't gonna get into a slanging match with you or anyone else on this... there are far more important things in life. Love you x