buckwheat said:
This is spot on... Deadpoet, are you from Singapore? If not you are up against a majority who believe that small sacrifices to "civil liberties" are justifiable by the greater good achieved. This is a good move regardless of the few who will be "put out" by not being able to have multiple nicks...
You also haven't stated why you would need more than one nick in CS...
Maybe he do not need one!
There are many people who would defend the idea of "liberty" rather then just speaking up because he/she is affected. I guess most SG people can never understand why the rest cannot give up such minor "freedoms" for the greater "good." It's ok. I do not need more nicks, but somehow I dread the day someone (for good or bad) is not able to do so just because 10% (or so, especially important since this 10% usually are the more vocal and active ones) CS popoulation decided long time ago that it would be better for the rest of the 90% also "enjoy" their security of no multiple nicks!
We have been told/reminded many times that we have to be careful, and to be aware of the many scams, whether it been on or off net. Dubious activities using multiple nicks is not new nor will it go away. "Banning" it only gives the users here a false sense of security!! Then, those who got "robbed/snooked" again will still ask for more "draconian" measures!
Of course, this debate can go on and on. Even in a "almost police state" SG now, there are many people foolish enough to be snooked, and there will be people who will (foolishly or not) perp. Last not kid ourselves and covering ourselves with more banklets. If our SG govt can be snooked aka NKF, why not the rest of the populae?
Education, not additional rules and regulations, is the key. Educate the users here of the perils of being a cyber member. If he has to learn it thru the hard way (hard knocks, lose money, aka lose face, etc) so be it. Cocooning the members will do everybody ill-justice.
Back to the point, asking Deadpoet to justify why he needs mulitple nicks is WRONG.
Second point, if individuals want to conduct nefarious activities thru CS, they WILL know how (just like the real terrorists, not copycats or wannabes), they do not really need multiple nicks. Those who want to create havoc knows how to obtain guns, bombs, etc. Just because we (the normal god-fearing govt-fearing people) do not know how does not mean we should be told that we are safe just because guns, bombs, and multiple nicks are BANNED.
wiz23 said:
..........
What I'm trying to say is that, disallowing multiple nicks does not really affect anyone in a negative way. On the contrary, the ban will discourage all those that abuse multiple nicks.
In the end, there is only good done and no harm ... So, why not?
Deadpoet, look on the positive side. Carpe diem ... seize the day and move on
??? Is this the way all SG people think? I do not think so. Luckily, there are a growing number of people who are like Deadpoet. Believing in ideals, rather accepting the norms. Viva!
Thirdly, should we really let admin run everything and feel safe? Only the admin how much work is required to track/follow/monitor the CS forums. Is it fair to them? Especially if they are unpaid and overworked? We should stick to guidelines, FAQs, and let the member educate himself/herself. The admin only can do so much.
Fourthly, what is exactly being done when the admin track/follow/monitor ? Can some (one/two?) misguided admin misuse/abuse the trust we CS members place on them (aka NKF)? Is there such thing as being too powderful? Do we really want to authorize the admin over-reaching powders without "oversight." If so, who should be the "oversight" committee (since we in SG is so happy about committees).
The implications here is huge or little, depending on the significance we place on our god-given liberty.