Draconian response to a small problem, here we go again!

[mpenza]

So the law banned drinking and getting drunk while driving, the law did not ban drinking nor driving.

Appropriate example ;p Clubsnap "banned" using one ID and getting a second ID (separate activity), but did not ban getting just a single ID.

Anyway, drunk driving doesn't mean you'll kill someone and some people can take alcohol much better than others and maybe even drive better drunk vs other drivers who don't drink. why don't u question the banning of drunk driving?

Probably, there are enough cases to show that drunk driving could cause harm that the law banned it.... just like there are enough examples to show that multiple identities are generally used for "nefarious" activities, so much so that the Admins go the extra step to ban it.

 

[Azure]

A stand which I personally applaud and fully support. An individual with multiple nicks is, to me, someone with something to hide. I am myself and no one else.

I've personally been on the receiving end of such nonsense in Clubsnap, by youngsters (sub-18-years of age) or adults, it has been with ill intent. So I fully support the de-registering of these jokers. If they are so truly in need of counselling or medication for their dissociative disorder, let them go to IMH or specialist clinics to fix it first. But be here as one person/one nick.


Good job, Darren, the Admins/Mods. Merry Christmas!
:thumbsup:

 

[wiz23]

Knives can be used to kill perople, so, let's ban it.
Car can kill, let's ban driving.
The list of things we do, the list of objects that can be dangerous, and the list of ideas that can cause unrest, and other lists are very long. Are we going to ban all those?

refer to my drinking and driving comment please.

I see ur point and undertstand ur analogies ... But, I just don't think it applies to this issue

It doesn't really matter if I have or do not have multiple nicks, right? Does it matter to u? However, it matters if I have a car or don't have one, etc etc.

I see the reason in banning multiple nicks as the same reason why chewing gum was banned. Not many people was happy. But those that ever had gum stuck on the soles of their shoes would be ... Those that liked to chew gum, how? Move on to some other things to chew lor ...

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

 

[zaren]

try telling the police you have two different names under two different IC's/passports.

i'm sure they will not suspect you of any nefarious activity.

after all, you have the right to assume as many different identities as you wish, right?

hi deadpoet,

why no response from you to this suggestion?

ah....mebbe it's because the very act of having multiple "official" identities in singapore (or any other country for that matter) is itself a nefarious activity, except perhaps for secret agents like James Bond.

 

[dkw]

Knives can be used to kill perople, so, let's ban it.
Car can kill, let's ban driving.
The list of things we do, the list of objects that can be dangerous, and the list of ideas that can cause unrest, and other lists are very long. Are we going to ban all those?

refer to my drinking and driving comment please.

By your logic, carrying a bomb onto a plane is not a nefarious act, exploding it whilst the plane is in flight is one, right?

The point here is that most of the time someone brings a bomb onto a plane (the ACT, a-la creating an alternate nick), he has INTENT of performing a "nefarious" act (exploding the bomb, or in the case of the nick, play foul in the B&S). It is not a prefect correlation between the act and the intent, but it is a strong one. What will the responsible authorities do? Ban all passengers bringing bombs onto planes, yes? Or do you disagree on the account of the small minority of folk who may actually have a legitimate reason for bringing a bomb on board a plane.

Likewise, as the Mods have said, the VAST MAJORITY of multiple nicks have been used for "nefarious" acts. Thus, for ease of policing, they have decide to BAN all multiple nicks. Perfectly logical, justifiable and acceptable.

 

[dkw]

"Re: Draconian response to a small problem, here we go again!"

Besides, unless you have some inside track unbeknownst to other forumers, you have no clue how big or small the problem is, so maybe you should refrain from the bombast.

 

[Stylus C34]

The key word Darren used was nefarious. Having a second or third nick by itself is not nefarious. How on earth can we assume, someone having an alter ego is nefarious. Many of us here goes by different names, is that nefarious. Slamming and scamming using a second or third nick is nefarious. But the nefarious action is slamming and scamming, not having a second nick.

Well, good for the few who follow blindly. I just wonder, were you ever know by different names? Did anyone try to force you to combine the names, use only one? Or were you ever arrested, accused of a crime, being maltreated because you have more than ONE name? What is happenning here is just that!!!

The more than one nick thing has absolutely no impact on my surfing experience on CS, the Admin can ban this practice, but I still do not see why members had to be so inconvienence to have to proof themselves worthy of a second nick, else get banned.

Anyway, have a Merry Christmas and enjoy a New Year with more rights being eroded!

Complaining for the sake of complaining is sick. Can we have a "Zero Tolerance Policy on Complaining" as well?

Plain simple, as long as we have more then 10 votes against the complain. The person who complains get a ban.

 

[zaren]

Complaining for the sake of complaining is sick. Can we have a "Zero Tolerance Policy on Complaining" as well?

Plain simple, as long as we have more then 10 votes against the complain. The person who complains get a ban.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[roninwolf]

It's quite amusing to see so many people trying to argue against ONE person who thinks otherwise. Simply put, majority gets the vote. Are u going to make just one person happy and offends 10 others, or make 10 happy and just make one unhappy?

Personally, I think it's a rather good move, especially for those who have been at the receiving of such nonsense. In the cyberspace, a nick is no longer just a name, but an identity.

Oh btw azure, I think that's a typo It's Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). It's the actual term for what most people called Multiple Personalities, very rare but serious personality disorder. Rare yet we seem to come across quite a few here in CS already. Hmm... :think:

I think the crux is that there's no good reason for having multiple nicks here, but there's 101 bad reasons to hide behind multiple nicks.

Cheers, Merry Xmas...

 

[LordAeRo]

So, IN CONCLUSION, to solve this problem, moderators do not blindly ban ALL nicks which have identical IP addresses, but first probe into why that person/persons have the same IP address, then resolve accordingly.

 

[student]

The key word Darren used was nefarious. Having a second or third nick by itself is not nefarious. How on earth can we assume, someone having an alter ego is nefarious. Many of us here goes by different names, is that nefarious. Slamming and scamming using a second or third nick is nefarious. But the nefarious action is slamming and scamming, not having a second nick.

DP, I agree 100% with you that having multiple nicks does not in itself imply malicious/nefarious intent. And I agree that to have blanket ban on this assumption alone is an overkill or as what you described, a rather Draconian meaure.

But I think that you might have misunderstood Darren. I had looked at the original thread informing us of this ban. In this thread, Darren mentioned

"we have reasons to believe in 99.99& of the case, multiple nicks/IDs are registered with nefarious intent"

The key phrase is "reasons to believe in 99.99%". Darren did not say that multiple nicks=nefarious intent. Just that in this forum, the experience is such practically all (99.99%) who registered with multiple nicks have nefarious intent.

Of course it might be possible that Darren might have been mistaken in his estimate. But I would like to believe that Darren's information is correct.

So, in this case, while some degree of "freedom" is curtailed by the ban, on balance, I think it is justified.

Perhaps the administration might want to consider allowing members who want to have more than one nick (for what ever reasons except nefarious intent) to request permission to do so. Personally, I have no wish to question another member's intent/reasons to have multiple nicks

 

[topster]

e more that one nick. If I want another name, is there anything wrong with it? As I said, I have multiple names in real life, I own up to all of them, I am not hiding, but simply you guys know me as deadpoet, my real life friends know me as something else. I just want another name here on CS, I dont need it, I just feel like it.

If I have to justify multiple nicks based on need, then the whole point is lost. The point is that multiple nicks in itself is not nefarious, and therefore should be be unilaterally banned.

If you want to be known as another nick why not add it to your present one? Just like in real life, get a first middle and last nick. E.g. Angry Deadpoet Man :bsmilie:

 

[buckwheat]

DP, I agree 100% with you that having multiple nicks does not in itself imply malicious/nefarious intent. And I agree that to have blanket ban on this assumption alone is an overkill or as what you described, a rather Draconian meaure.

But I think that you might have misunderstood Darren. I had looked at the original thread informing us of this ban. In this thread, Darren mentioned

"we have reasons to believe in 99.99& of the case, multiple nicks/IDs are registered with nefarious intent"

The key phrase is "reasons to believe in 99.99%". Darren did not say that multiple nicks=nefarious intent. Just that in this forum, the experience is such practically all (99.99%) who registered with multiple nicks have nefarious intent.

Of course it might be possible that Darren might have been mistaken in his estimate. But I would like to believe that Darren's information is correct.

So, in this case, while some degree of "freedom" is curtailed by the ban, on balance, I think it is justified.

Perhaps the administration might want to consider allowing members who want to have more than one nick (for what ever reasons except nefarious intent) to request permission to do so. Personally, I have no wish to question another member's intent/reasons to have multiple nicks

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...

 

[kahheng]

It's quite amusing to see so many people trying to argue against ONE person who thinks otherwise. Simply put, majority gets the vote. Are u going to make just one person happy and offends 10 others, or make 10 happy and just make one unhappy?

The tyranny of the majority is not always a good or right thing. Neither is the tyranny of the minority.

It's however important to be able to listen to multiple points of view. Credit this board's admins for allowing a discussion of the issue, that some obviously feel very strongly about to speak up for and against.

Personally, whilst I am all for the banning of multiple nicks, I am just curious to know why people would feel it justified to own multiple nicks for non-wicked purposes; or who do not want to deceive people of their true identities, yet would want one nick to rave and rant and another to buy, and perhaps yet another to sell. Why is there a need to appear to be so many different people unless there is an intention to deceive for some personal gain?

I appreciate the candour that Deadpoet has shown so far, and am grateful that he had started this thread.

 

[sfhuang]

I think this is a great move and I applaud Darren + the other admins for their response to the problem! (and I do not see this as a 'small' problem ... I know of individuals who abuse multiple nicks in CS to sell their services because they have a bad reputation before.)

 

[student]

The tyranny of the majority is not always a good or right thing. Neither is the tyranny of the minority.

Amen!

It's however important to be able to listen to multiple points of view. Credit this board's admins for allowing a discussion of the issue, that some obviously feel very strongly about to speak up for and against

Kudos to the Admin/Mods and also to DP

Personally, whilst I am all for the banning of multiple nicks, I am just curious to know why people would feel it justified to own multiple nicks for non-wicked purposes; or who do not want to deceive people of their true identities, yet would want one nick to rave and rant and another to buy, and perhaps yet another to sell. Why is there a need to appear to be so many different people unless there is an intention to deceive for some personal gain?

On this, I am with DP.

Just because I do not understand is, to me, not a reason to ban it. Human requirements and makeup etc are just too complex for me to understand. I have no problem with multiple nicks, if the reasons are benign and personal. Let me give an example. A member may not like others to know that he buys a lot of expensive equipment despite the fact that he may be a "newbie", for fear of ridicule. So, a nick for buying, and a nick for other issues. Is that unreasonable?

 

[Caspere]

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.

..........
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.

 

[zcf]

I am all against people using multiple IDs to bid, flame, set trap on other forumer.

But may be there are some individual personal need to have multiple IDs? e.g. multiple personalities, and etc?

But I think that can be requested and explain privately or make know to the mod or public, and let the mod or admin judge in case by case basis. And as long as that person is not involve or planning any neferious act, I see no harm in it.

 

[kahheng]

Just because I do not understand is, to me, not a reason to ban it. Human requirements and makeup etc are just too complex for me to understand. I have no problem with multiple nicks, if the reasons are benign and personal. Let me give an example. A member may not like others to know that he buys a lot of expensive equipment despite the fact that he may be a "newbie", for fear of ridicule. So, a nick for buying, and a nick for other issues. Is that unreasonable?

Not unreasonable at all, though unique. Which is exactly what I have been trying to get at: Let's hear legitimate reasons for wanting more than one userid.

And then, suggest a practicable process to balance this need for occasional humanitarian concerns with the more frequent need to curb spurious, unkindly, deceptive uses of multiple userids.

DP's example about consideration for people who want to rant and rave using one id, and not wanting people to be able to associate the same person with another id doing buying and selling doesn't fly with me. Why? Simple, because I may not want to do business with someone whose politics I don't agree with, or even, someone I don't like. I might be aggrieved, for instance, to find out later that I have sold my hard collected lens to someone whom, if I had known earlier, I wouldn't have done business with

 

[Zerstorer]

DP's example about consideration for people who want to rant and rave using one id, and not wanting people to be able to associate the same person with another id doing buying and selling doesn't fly with me. Why? Simple, because I may not want to do business with someone whose politics I don't agree with, or even, someone I don't like. I might be aggrieved, for instance, to find out later that I have sold my hard collected lens to someone whom, if I had known earlier, I wouldn't have done business with

Agree with this. I do not take kindly to the idea that someone is able to disassociate certain actions from himself. More often than not, this is used for mischief or deceit. If one's intentions are not dishonourable, there shouldn't be need for concealment.

In my opinion, allowing multiple userids to run around unchecked is akin to having a tumour grow.

Yes it, may just be a benign growth, you might even grow fond of this addition to your self as it makes things a little more interesting. However, what if the doctor told you that it has a 95% chance of developing into a cancerous growth? Would you cut it off or let it continue to grow?