HolidayBuyer's Guide

Speakeasy forum

General discussion

I wonder....

by C1ay / March 20, 2008 2:16 AM PDT

Why do the mods here delete the posts asking about the multiple personality disorders around here of members like johnedvind2, edvin11, edvin2, critic410, etc.. without addressing the issue of the multiple personalities? Is it a TOS violation to ask about MPD or are we now allowed to have multiple accounts with multiple member names?

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: I wonder....
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: I wonder....
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
As agents of CNet
by Angeline Booher / March 20, 2008 3:30 AM PDT
In reply to: I wonder....

.... we do not make public accusations.

It serves no useful purpose for it to be a topic which would disintegrate into charges and countercharges as it did in the past.

You have been a member for a long time, Clay, so I believe you are fully aware of the policy re: multiple accounts, re-registrations, aliases, and so forth.

The vast majority of people would not chose to violate the policy. But, as with so any other rules and laws which good citizens face and obey , there are always those who choose to thumb their noses at them as if they are above the rest of us. There have always been such a minority, and I suspect there always will be.

Speakeasy Moderator

Collapse -
But is it a TOS violation.....
by Josh K / March 20, 2008 3:57 AM PDT
In reply to: As agents of CNet

....for a non-moderator to "out" someone if it's blisteringly obvious who it is?

Collapse -
(NT) do you mean on forum or in email to mods?
by James Denison / March 20, 2008 10:39 AM PDT
Collapse -
But, I asked because...
by C1ay / March 20, 2008 4:36 AM PDT
In reply to: As agents of CNet

All of the sudden we had numerous edvin-this-and-that and someone truncated that thread and got rid of the posts but we don't know if the MPDs are gone.

I also asked critic410 specifically if he/she was related to the member critic411 and my post was deleted without explanation and we still have members critic411 and critic410. Now what exactly would be the point in deleting my post? Is is a violation of the TOS to question the personas here that give the impression of being a member with multiple accounts?

MPDs seem to be one of the issues that has been hard to get addressed and dealt with here. As a long time member yourself I'm sure you remember when we were all members of ZDNet Speakeasy and everyone was required to use their real name. Alternate personas were not tolerated. Is it now OK for me to have personality 1, 2, 3 and 4? If not then why are others allowed?

Collapse -
use their real name.
by JP Bill / March 20, 2008 4:41 AM PDT

Do you really think that IF John Brown is banned he can't come back as Jim Smith?

Both are REAL names.

This subject has been flogged to death

Collapse -
Are you saying....
by C1ay / March 20, 2008 4:50 AM PDT
In reply to: use their real name.

That JohnEdvind2, Edvind2, Edvin11 and Edvin are all different people that just keep showing up and making 1 or 2 posts?

Collapse -
(NT) I think they are all different people
by critic411 / March 20, 2008 4:57 AM PDT
In reply to: Are you saying....
Collapse -
And yet...
by C1ay / March 20, 2008 5:41 AM PDT

My query to critic410 was unexplainably deleted. I wonder why a mod wouldn't want me questioning someone that appears to be mocking your name.

Collapse -
Same reason some one was mocking
by critic411 / March 20, 2008 5:45 AM PDT
In reply to: And yet...

mr. edvin

Collapse -
I agree with your idea
by WOODS-HICK / March 22, 2008 2:12 AM PDT

a group of people could use your ID and password. as long as their message and agenda is the same. it only requires you sharing your password.

that also provides an answer if someone thinks you are someone else. a reply stating you are not that person; would not be inaccurate at that particular moment.

thanks for the revealing tip.

Collapse -
I think one point is....
by Josh K / March 20, 2008 4:59 AM PDT
In reply to: Are you saying....

....that when someone is banned, it is not the account that is being banned. It is the person.

So if John Smith is banned and then comes back as Jim Smith, he's still a banned member and should have the new account disabled as soon as the identity of the account holder is determined. What is less clear is whether it is a TOS violation to address this banned member by their previous account name. A couple of weeks ago I did it to "jimandjerry" who was very obviously Mark5019, and he started crying "TOS! TOS!" Talk about irony, especially since he was usually one of the first to call others out on the same thing, and would then continue to do so repeatedly.

I notice he's not posting lately though....

Collapse -
You would think....
by C1ay / March 20, 2008 5:43 AM PDT
...that when someone is banned, it is not the account that is being banned. It is the person.

That doesn't seem to be the case around here though so it would be nice if someone would give us some more detail on the undetailed terms of service...
Collapse -
let me give you an example
by jonah jones / March 20, 2008 6:22 AM PDT
In reply to: You would think....

if a "snow white" registered using the email address and was banned for some reason, and then 3-4 hours later "peter pan" appeared using, on what grounds would you ban "peter pan"? being a newbie? registering with a throw away address? using a fairy tale character as a user name?, appearing 3-4 hours after snow white was banned?

or because he/she carried on in exactly the same way that "snow white" did?


Collapse -
I'll go with #5
by Josh K / March 20, 2008 6:43 AM PDT

Do I win?


Collapse -
Just have Lee compare IP addresses....
by C1ay / March 20, 2008 6:44 AM PDT

The odds of you getting multiple drive bys here with different names but the same IP address are pretty slim....

Collapse -
That would work
by JP Bill / March 20, 2008 6:53 AM PDT

IF you have a forum with 5 or 6 viewers.

Collapse -
I happen to know of one with 10,000 members...
by C1ay / March 20, 2008 6:59 AM PDT
In reply to: That would work

it works pretty well with...

Collapse -
(NT) Not nearly as many as CNet.
by Angeline Booher / March 20, 2008 11:39 PM PDT
Collapse -
There are so few that play
by Angeline Booher / March 20, 2008 11:50 PM PDT
In reply to: That would work

.... the game that we see here in SE that it is hardly worth a corporation's time.

It appears that the ones who complain about it are the ones who know the perpetrators well.

Speakeasy Moderator

Collapse -
I see that we have now decided who the "perpetrators" are
by Kiddpeat / March 21, 2008 12:38 AM PDT

and who they are not. Somehow, I think I know who is in what category, but perhaps not. The thing that is still a mystery is what went into that classification activity. I am gaining a new appreciation for the possibilities inherent in reality distortion fields.

Collapse -
Not "we", KP. "They".
by Angeline Booher / March 21, 2008 2:03 AM PDT

This whole thing has been about CNet and the mods being unable to control the re-registrations.

But it was none of the about 2 dozen mods who started this thread or made the comments in another.

Well, it's not like the mods will take action anyhow
by C1ay - 3/20/08 3:52 PM
In reply to: No, it is NOT!!!! by Angeline Booher

Collapse -
Now you've done it, Angeline...
by J. Vega / March 21, 2008 3:48 AM PDT

Oh my, now you've done it with "Woods-Hich ". I've seen a lot of posts about someone mis-spelling a poster's name implying some form of malice. Now you slipped. Does this mean that now you too will be called out for it?

Collapse -
I have 3 identities.
by James Denison / March 20, 2008 10:44 AM PDT

they are me, myself and I. Wink
They all post under James Denison however.

I've noticed some strong similarities between (former?) members who no longer post and some new names who do, but mostly just ignore it. Why kick a skunk twice, isn't once enough?

Collapse -
Are you saying
by JP Bill / March 20, 2008 5:06 AM PDT
In reply to: Are you saying....

I made 3 statements in my post and you're confused ?

Keep flogging

Collapse -
I have been a flogger and a floggee
by WOODS-HICK / March 20, 2008 6:00 AM PDT
In reply to: use their real name.

I am sure C1ay or Clay is familiar with how a 'new' member named: W00DS-HICK, WooDS-HICK and WOODS-H1CK suddenly appeared.

I know in another forum that many are familiar with C1ay or Clay suggested:

changing Dango517 to Dungo517. one of the administrators suggested it was not good to draw attention to their forum.

I know C1ay or Clay is an administrator in another forum that he requested permission to LINK here in SE. if one is an administrator they would know how to fudge the membership process. for example: C1ay.

the 'restructuring' of my name occurred around the time the "no religion/no politics" rule was put in place. it was also the time when many older members left to join another forum. the ones' with integrity kept their word and did not return to SE.

I was also the victim of the johnedvin2 mix-up. that is why a new member called 'whilieye' knew about it and used it in a reply to me. my educated guess is that person was also 'whillk'. it was pointed out that 'ilk' had only one 'l' by you. I see that person stopped posting soon after you mentioned it. I did notice that both names began with 'wh'; which has been used by certain members referring to me. it was so obvious who they were.

of course how would anyone know if the 'real name' was real. photo ID? DNA? "fingerprints" as one suggested.

and that is how I trapped critic411. when I saw him make a reply to who he thought was me: snap went the snare.

I also noticed how 'selective' Clay or C1ay was in the names he was curious about. he is an intelligent man and caught that mistake and added critic411 in another post. I could have helped with that task.

as I have been told by a few moderators: knowing and proving are separate issues. as long as a member does not violate the TOS in replying to other members, it is hard to ban or reveal anything further.

I know who the new members 'are' and reply accordingly. the only way to curtail their activity is to: DNR or play with their heads. knowledge is power.

so read this fast because it will disappear.

Collapse -
Not really selective....
by C1ay / March 20, 2008 6:51 AM PDT

Those names just happened to be the ones I noticed recently.

OTOH, I've personally only ever used one name here but did change my handle from Clay to C1ay when we were told that the member names were going to be made permanent. My real name is still in my profile here.

Collapse -
neither was I
by WOODS-HICK / March 20, 2008 7:31 AM PDT

how do you prove that you are who you say you are?

this will be a twofer:

first, by your own admission you know how forum software works. apparent by your "10000" reply to JP. I do not. I would consider that to be a handy skill (forum software knowledge).

second, mothers and fathers and sons and daughters and friends and other family members are allowed to join CNET. I know you are familiar with wolf packs. clans are cozier.

BTW: my sister and mother say, hello! (the fruit never falls far from the tree, do it.)

Collapse -
why are others allowed?
by jonah jones / March 20, 2008 5:59 AM PDT

theoretically, they aren't....

but you know as well as i, that in this age of proxy servers and those who advocate throw away email addresses, it is hard, if not impossible to be 100% certain if Cl@y or C1@y is a 'newbie' who happened to like the way that C1ay spells his name, a returnee/reincarnation of a banned member or just a troublemaker (remember Jack Ammnann?) who was here to sow the seeds of discontent

i dare say that you have noticed over the last few months there have a number of newbies who proved in their first 1 or 2 posts, who they were and why they were here? you will also notice that they are no longer with us...



Collapse -
ZDNet Days were in another time.
by Angeline Booher / March 20, 2008 8:59 AM PDT

When those genuine trouble makers came in, everybody rallied around, jut like a family does when it is threatened.

Then things changed. Sure, there had been "family fights". But these were without hatred. That changed. Hate took over. Getting even became paramount. If you were not with us, you were against us.

It's still that way. Without their hate I suspect they would be lonely.

Speakeasy Moderator

Collapse -
Those were the days my friend...
by James Denison / March 20, 2008 10:51 AM PDT

...we thought they'd never end, we'd sing and dance forever and a day. We lived the life we choose....

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Cameras that make great holiday gifts

Let them start the new year with a step up in photo and video quality from a phone.