Orrin
Sorcerer
Group: Moderators
Posts: 371
Joined: Aug 26, 2008
|
#46 id:41623 Posted Feb 6, 2010, 10:49 pm
|
I'm not putting this in yellow because it was me who opened the door of the sock puppet debate and as such I don't think it's appropriate for me to shut it down, but I think it would be good if we could move on from the issue.
As Quix says, an IP address is not proof of anything, and while David has a point that you can look at other information and form an opinion, there is always the possibility that it's a family member, friend, room mate etc.
In this instance I felt that the poster was being disingenuous by posting as if they were simply a disinterested new forum member when clearly they had a personal connection to the member they were defending. However, there was no yellow text and no warning, and there is no rule against posting from the same IP regardless of who is behind it. While I agree with Crat that sock puppets are harmful to discussion, I think any kind of rule against it would be impractical.
Jenni maintains they are not graham, and given that nobody can prove otherwise, we should probably move forward on that basis.
|
|
|
Koron
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 382
Joined: Jun 7, 2008
|
#47 id:41632 Posted Feb 7, 2010, 12:30 am
|
Personally, I think we should validate based on MAC addresses of Matrix-style ports. Much lower chance of two people sharing one of those, I think!
|
|
|
jurdendurden
Conjurer
Group: Members
Posts: 219
Joined: Nov 20, 2009
|
#48 id:41633 Posted Feb 7, 2010, 12:45 am
|
David Haley said:
Then consider taking the posts off the recent posts list.
This is a good idea. It will keep my coding issues on the recent posts list longer for more people to see and (possibly) help with :)
|
|
|
Scandum
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,400
Joined: Aug 8, 2006
|
#49 id:41634 Posted Feb 7, 2010, 12:52 am
|
jenni said:why is everyone so irritable?
They've yet to master the art of pretending to be female in order to get laid? Mere speculation of course.
|
|
|
jenni
Apprentice
Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
|
#50 id:41640 Posted Feb 7, 2010, 12:09 pm
|
Scandum said:jenni said:why is everyone so irritable?
They've yet to master the art of pretending to be female in order to get laid? Mere speculation of course.
this is most rich. that someone just couldn't stop themselves from going there even after implored by a moderator is my cue to vacate this forum. it's really quite perplexing to me that members of a community with so much talent and creativity and such a sense of invention could be this derisive, and to right what wrong?
good luck with your respective projects.
|
|
|
David Haley
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 6,874
Joined: Jun 30, 2007
|
#51 id:41643 Posted Feb 7, 2010, 1:47 pm
|
jenni said:
Scandum said:They've yet to master the art of pretending to be female in order to get laid? Mere speculation of course.
this is most rich. that someone just couldn't stop themselves from going there even after implored by a moderator is my cue to vacate this forum. it's really quite perplexing to me that members of a community with so much talent and creativity and such a sense of invention could be this derisive, and to right what wrong?
good luck with your respective projects.
I see you've met Scandum. Please don't take him as representative of the rest of us. We can get grumpy, but Scandum is, well, Scandum.
|
|
|
shasarak
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 421
Joined: Nov 28, 2007
|
#52 id:41654 Posted Feb 7, 2010, 4:57 pm
|
jenni said:while i would concur that his post could have been more succinct, i get the impression that the "show me" attitude may very well have been negated had any of you actually been interested and PM'd him (as he requested). assuming whatever other information he has is relatively comprehensive, perhaps you'd have considered yourself "shown". the way this whole thing reads to me, it almost seems as though a lot of you believe a certain degree of information to be provided in the initial thread. if he had simply posted a website link, would your responses have been the same because of the possibility that you might consider the website an insufficient motivation to get involved with the MUD?
the OP conveyed that he had a grand idea for a MUD and that he was seeking coders and builders to help put it together and that if they were interested they should PM him. i think some of you assumed that he had nothing further to show and corrected him based on that assumption, and as such his thread quickly devolved into an insistence of others that he didn't know what he was doing and explaining to him the "right way". fair enough, it was advice, but i agree that it did appear to reflect poorly on him in the end and it seems entirely understandable to me that he might wish it removed. as i'm new to this forum as well, i find it pretty disheartening that some of the ensuing responses escalated so quickly to the heavy-handed tone that they did, and especially that this has been at the behest of some of the more respectable names in the community. the guy could have been more concise, but for all we know the PM he requested may well have yielded the information you all implied that he lacked, which is why it seems absurd to me that it's turned into this.
I think that the tone in the original thread was not actually what you or Graham perceived it to be. What you seem to think people were saying is "we think you have no ideas or commitment and just want people to build a MUD for you". What I think they were actually saying was more along the lines of "The way you have phrased your post risks implying that you have no ideas or commitment and just people to build a MUD for you; if, as seems likely, this is not the case, then may I suggest you take the following steps to make that clear and thereby avoid any possible misunderstandings...?" People were trying to be helpful, not critical.
And yes, what Graham should have done is posted a link to his website. Can you imagine someone advertising a job by saying "I'm not going to tell you anything at all about what the job involves or what the company is like in this advert; but if you think you might be interested then contact me and I'll tell you more"? Obviously if you've got details that a person applying for a position might be interested in, you advertise them! not to do so is just bizarre. A reluctance to advertise such details could very easily be misconstrued as meaning that said details do not in fact exist at all; and I think people were quite right to point that out. If Graham had simply included a link to his website in his original post, much anguish might have been spared.
Aside from anything else, this is a discussion forum. We like discussing MUD-related things; and details of Graham's proposed MUD could perhaps have served as fertile ground for new and interesting discussions to spring from. And he might well have benefitted from the feedback.
I think the reason why passions are running so high in this thread has more to do with moderation policy and a concern that it may heading in an unhealthily retrograde direction than with Graham's actions or motivations.
|
|
.........................
Hand over the chocolate and nobody gets hurt.
|
|
