theymos, please BAN all common IP sockpuppet accounts

[yogi]

Pretending to be someone else is an act of dishonesty.

[myrkul]

Pretending to be someone else is an act of dishonesty.

+1

[scintill]

Pretending to be someone else is an act of dishonesty.

Your name probably isn't "yogi" and your forum avatar isn't a real photo of you.
Therefore you are pretending to be someone other than who you really are, and are dishonest.  Seriously?

[myrkul]

Pretending to be someone else is an act of dishonesty.

Your name probably isn't "yogi" and your forum avatar isn't a real photo of you.
Therefore you are pretending to be someone other than who you really are, and are dishonest.  Seriously?

Using an online handle is not the same as making a sockpuppet. One pseudonym is common online practice. Multiple pseudonyms so as to hide that you are the same person presenting two different faces is an act of dishonesty. My name is not Myrkul, either, but in fact, I use that name (or slight variations) on every online forum I have been on, and this icon is my "face" everywhere I go.

[BadBear]

It seems more that you want to attack the person behind the arguments, and not the arguments themselves. Your latest posts seem to support this. Just another form of trolling, and probably contributes to why people use alt accoints in the first place.

[myrkul]

It seems more that you want to attack the person behind the arguments, and not the arguments themselves. Your latest posts seem to support this. Just another form of trolling, and probably contributes to why people use alt accoints in the first place.

Is this in response to me? No, I don't attack the person making the arguments, as I've said before, resorting to ad hominem attacks is the surest sign that you're losing a debate. But if you're not willing to stand by your arguments, you shouldn't make them, rather than making a sock puppet to spout your fallacies for you.

Imagine if a senator yielded his time to one of his aides, so the aide could rant and rave, and the senator's reputation remained unsullied? Would that be considered right and proper, or just plain stupid?

[BadBear]

It seems more that you want to attack the person behind the arguments, and not the arguments themselves. Your latest posts seem to support this. Just another form of trolling, and probably contributes to why people use alt accoints in the first place.

Is this in response to me? No, I don't attack the person making the arguments, as I've said before, resorting to ad hominem attacks is the surest sign that you're losing a debate. But if you're not willing to stand by your arguments, you shouldn't make them, rather than making a sock puppet to spout your fallacies for you.

Imagine if a senator yielded his time to one of his aides, so the aide could rant and rave, and the senator's reputation remained unsullied? Would that be considered right and proper, or just plain stupid?

No, I meant Bitlane, sorry. I've never seen anything like that from you.

I do see how it could be frustrating, but I see it kinda like the arguments for DRM in video games. While trying to make it harder for pirates to pirate games, all they're doing is making it more frustrating for legitimate users, since pirates are going to bypass any restrictions anyway.

[myrkul]

I do see how it could be frustrating, but I see it kinda like the arguments for DRM in video games. While trying to make it harder for pirates to pirate games, all they're doing is making it more frustrating for legitimate users, since pirates are going to bypass any restrictions anyway.

True, which is why I haven't stated that I'm in favor of banning people for sockpuppetry... it would do no good. How many accounts has Atlas had?

Outing the puppeteer is much more effective, and fun, too.

[bitlane]

It seems more that you want to attack the person behind the arguments, and not the arguments themselves. Your latest posts seem to support this. Just another form of trolling, and probably contributes to why people use alt accoints in the first place.

So, you're not a big fan of accountability at it's most primal levels ?

Was Darwin wrong ? Do the most cowardly really get to continue in life, unopposed ?

Aren't we all simply animals anyways ?

[BadBear]

So, you're not a big fan of accountability at it's most primal levels ?

In the end it isn't about me, or any other mod or admin. It's about the forum, and allowing everyone the ability to express themselves freely. The only reason there should be any moderation is to keep the forum categorized properly for easy reading, removal of disruptive posts, and dealing with trolls and spam. 
If people need a second account in order to get their ideas across, then that's their decision.

Was Darwin wrong ? Do the most cowardly really get to continue in life, unopposed ?

Would you go up to someone in a public park and gag them because of whatever suspicions it is you have? Because that's what you're asking for.

[SaltySpitoon]

So, you're not a big fan of accountability at it's most primal levels ?

Was Darwin wrong ? Do the most cowardly really get to continue in life, unopposed ?

Aren't we all simply animals anyways ?

Theres a difference between accountability and unwarranted forced identification, If someone has two accounts, and one of them gets in a bit of trouble for having an unpopular idea, the accountability is right toward that account, its not towards their other account, which may or may not be their "main" account, but if I created an account named ASDFGHJKL, and I say something offensive on that account, ASDFGHJKL is still in trouble, and so am I. This account (Saltyspitoon) may not be effected, but since ASDFGHJKL is still my account, I'm still accountable. So if I decided that I was going to start up some controversial yet allowed topics on the forums, I might not want my name associated with it, for example, if I started talking politics, and stated my opinion on abortion, or something like that, those people that disagree with me strongly may never work with me again, because of my opinion there. If I wanted to start a business, or work on a project, I could have screwed myself over with that one statement.

Yes, in a society, Darwin is wrong. We are animals, but we aren't animals that need to survive based on our strengths and valor. If I wanted to be an IT Tech or a software engineer, can't I be an introvert? Or will I not be able to survive because I'm not outgoing and brave?

Until the forum requires your real name, your real address, and all of you credentials/papers, we get to maintain some level on anonymity. Now, if you cheat someone out of some money or something like that, someone will do research into you, and put pressure on you that way, but Bitcoins are supposed to be anonymous, forcing rules like no alternate accounts is asinine. I say feel free to change your Username from Bitlane, and use your real name, and make sure you have your address listed, all confirmed with bills and gov ID, but I doubt there is anyone on the forum who would volunteer to do that.

[dree12]

So, you're not a big fan of accountability at it's most primal levels ?

Was Darwin wrong ? Do the most cowardly really get to continue in life, unopposed ?

Aren't we all simply animals anyways ?

No method of artificial selection has yet proved as important as social selection. The most cowardly are socially rejected, and therefore socially selected against. Neither throttling nor assisting this process has proven beneficial to the gene pool.

[yogi]

BitcoinTalk represents, at present, the core market place of the bitcoin economy. Economies are build on trust, and dishonesty here damages the future prospects of bitcoin itself. It is no wonder that outsiders see it as a paradise for scammers when subterfuge is not only accepted but expected.

[dree12]

BitcoinTalk represents, at present, the core market place of the bitcoin economy. Economies are build on trust, and dishonesty here damages the future prospects of bitcoin itself. It is no wonder that outsiders see it as a paradise for scammers when subdafuge is not only accepted but expected.

Dishonesty and fraudulence should be punished, not merely rejected. But an acceptable level of sockpuppetry is constructive to the greater intelligence of this community, and does not imply dishonesty.

[yogi]

But an acceptable level of sockpuppetry is constructive to the greater intelligence of this community.

Meaningless sentence is meaningless.

[dree12]

But an acceptable level of sockpuppetry is constructive to the greater intelligence of this community.

Meaningless sentence is meaningless.

Redundant sentence is redundant.

I argue that intelligence can only be achieved with uninhibited discussion, and uninhibited discussion can be sparked by sockpuppetry. Until and unless fraudulent or dishonest, acceptance is optimal.

[yogi]

Your all a bunch of cock sucking mother fuckers!

Wow, thank you sockpuppet for adding to the intelligence of this community.

[556j]

People who falsely accuse anyone with different opinions then them of being puppets should be banned.

[bitlane]

People who falsely accuse anyone with different opinions then them of being puppets should be banned.

Who's sockpuppet are you ?

[556j]

People who falsely accuse anyone with different opinions then them of being puppets should be banned.

Who's sockpuppet are you ?

You already know I'm pirate. Thanks for the new condo in paradise buddy! Next drink is to you.