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

[Zplus]

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?

The law does allow for "Alias"....

Multiple IDs does not imply intent for nefarious acts. But it is a means of doing nefarious acts. Guns can kill. Owning a gun does not imply intent to kill. We ban it anyway, because it can potentially be used for killing. Of course a gun can be purely bought because you are a gun collector. ;p

Heck, even chewing gum is banned becoz it can potentially cause a nuisance. Remember the old days when a good pair of shoes were ruined becoz you stepped on gum.... yeah.... When a society cannot use the privileges it is given in a mature and socially responsible manner, it might benefit more people if it is banned. Gee... I do miss chewing gum though...

 

[Firefox]

My 2 cents..

One reason on why someone could have 2 ID's.
A person could be a dealer (identified dealer, that is) and has a nick that is associated accordingly.
This same person could have a 2nd ID that's not associated with the ID as he/ she may wish to make posts not related to the business whilst not being seen as being biased or suffer any wierd repercussions (SP?).
I'll elaborate slightly on the latter point.
Imagine a dealer selling brand X perhaps not so much by choice (the profit margins may be too low for brand Y).
However, he/ she may feel that brand Y products are still a good buy and would advise people to buy the products from brand Y if it suits their needs.
Should he/ she give out this advice using a nick that's associated with his/ her business, this can cause some unhappiness with the distributor or manufacturer of brand X.
OTOH, if some product from brand Y is trurly crappy and he/ she states so using the nick associated with the business, he/ she may be accused of being biased.

Hence, a 2nd ID that people do not associate with the dealer would be useful to him/ her for making general comments or hanging out in Kopitiam etc. whilst the dealer ID would allow him/ her to represent the business on the forums (to address customer queries or issues).

 

[sfhuang]

My 2 cents..

One reason on why someone could have 2 ID's.
A person could be a dealer (identified dealer, that is) and has a nick that is associated accordingly.
This same person could have a 2nd ID that's not associated with the ID as he/ she may wish to make posts not related to the business whilst not being seen as being biased or suffer any wierd repercussions (SP?).
I'll elaborate slightly on the latter point.
Imagine a dealer selling brand X perhaps not so much by choice (the profit margins may be too low for brand Y).
However, he/ she may feel that brand Y products are still a good buy and would advise people to buy the products from brand Y if it suits their needs.
Should he/ she give out this advice using a nick that's associated with his/ her business, this can cause some unhappiness with the distributor or manufacturer of brand X.
OTOH, if some product from brand Y is trurly crappy and he/ she states so using the nick associated with the business, he/ she may be accused of being biased.

Hence, a 2nd ID that people do not associate with the dealer would be useful to him/ her for making general comments or hanging out in Kopitiam etc. whilst the dealer ID would allow him/ her to represent the business on the forums (to address customer queries or issues).

Taking on different identities for different whims/agendas amounts to deceit in any case, whatever the purpose. :nono:

 

[Deadpoet]

We should ban those people whose intents are nefarious, I have no arguement with that. Banning someone just because of multiple nicks but had no done anything nefarious is where the problem lies.

The reasons why someone wants multiple nicks are irrevelent, as long as he/she does not use the multiple nicks for nefarious activities. On what basis do we, as a community, ban this person? Multiple nicks? But this person did not do anything nefarious!

Maybe, I am barking up the wrong tree, or worse up against a brick wall. If the members here agree that a big brother monitoring not only what we post, but how many nicks we may have, so be it. But, what should we ban next? Nicks we don't like?

 

[Zerstorer]

We should ban those people whose intents are nefarious, I have no arguement with that. Banning someone just because of multiple nicks but had no done anything nefarious is where the problem lies.

I think you are mistaken, that's not what the admin intends to do. For those rare few who have multiple nicks and yet no misdeeds, they will simply be merged into 1 identity. No indiscrimminate persecution of innocent users is being performed, think of it as just housekeeping.

The reasons why someone wants multiple nicks are irrevelent, as long as he/she does not use the multiple nicks for nefarious activities. On what basis do we, as a community, ban this person? Multiple nicks? But this person did not do anything nefarious!

How much work and vigilence would be required to weed out those with the intent from those without?

Maybe, I am barking up the wrong tree, or worse up against a brick wall. If the members here agree that a big brother monitoring not only what we post, but how many nicks we may have, so be it. But, what should we ban next? Nicks we don't like?

I'd say that the wrong tree sounds apt. No one is being banned for no reason here. Only those who have committed misdeeds have been banned so far.

 

[Deadpoet]

I think you are mistaken, that's not what the admin intends to do. For those rare few who have multiple nicks and yet no misdeeds, they will simply be merged into 1 identity. No indiscrimminate persecution of innocent users is being performed, think of it as just housekeeping.


How much work and vigilence would be required to weed out those with the intent from those without?


I'd say that the wrong tree sounds apt. No one is being banned for no reason here. Only those who have committed misdeeds have been banned so far.

But if a person did not commit any misdeed, other than have more than 1 nick, why should their various nicks be merged? Isn't that equates to punishment for having done nothing wrong?

 

[kahheng]

We should ban those people whose intents are nefarious, I have no arguement with that. Banning someone just because of multiple nicks but had no done anything nefarious is where the problem lies.

The reasons why someone wants multiple nicks are irrevelent, as long as he/she does not use the multiple nicks for nefarious activities. On what basis do we, as a community, ban this person? Multiple nicks? But this person did not do anything nefarious!

Maybe, I am barking up the wrong tree, or worse up against a brick wall. If the members here agree that a big brother monitoring not only what we post, but how many nicks we may have, so be it. But, what should we ban next? Nicks we don't like?

Of course posts are occasionally looked into for peacekeeping/ prevention of lawsuits, which is why there are mods/admins. But practically speaking, there's really no such thing as active monitoring on forums like these because of a sheer lack of manpower. Big Brother requires big human resources. So don't worry, your concern is quite unwarranted, and unnecessary.

It's clear you're very passionate about wanting more than one nick. Could I ask you: Why can't you live with just one?

 

[kahheng]

But if a person did not commit any misdeed, other than have more than 1 nick, why should their various nicks be merged? Isn't that equates to punishment for having done nothing wrong?

In what way would that constitute 'punishment'?

Could you say, in what specific ways would this person who has not committed misdeeds be inconvenienced?

 

[Deadpoet]

Of course posts are occasionally looked into for peacekeeping/ prevention of lawsuits, which is why there are mods/admins. But practically speaking, there's really no such thing as active monitoring on forums like these because of a sheer lack of manpower. Big Brother requires big human resources. So don't worry, your concern is quite unwarranted, and unnecessary.

It's clear you're very passionate about wanting more than one nick. Could I ask you: Why can't you live with just one?

I have no need for a second nick.

But if I want one, according to the new rules of the forum I can't. I have not done anything wrong, I have no intention of doing anything bad, but I still cannot have a second nick. Why can't I?

Many would argue that since some people with multiple nicks had committed nefarious acts, so no one should be allowed to have multiple nicks. Well, I will use my drinking and drive analogy again. Since some people drink and drive, cause accidents and endangered others, we should therefore ban drinking and driving! I can no longer drink nor drive becasue some people abuse their right to drink and to drive. But I did not do the abuse, yet I am not allow to drink nor drive. Is that fair?

 

[Firefox]

Taking on different identities for different whims/agendas amounts to deceit in any case, whatever the purpose. :nono:

It appears that you've failed to understand just about my entire post..
But nevermind..

 

[incubus]

But if I want one, according to the new rules of the forum I can't. I have not done anything wrong, I have no intention of doing anything bad

ure missing the point. seriously..... the best example someone could give u and have already given u, is abt bringing a knife/gun onto a plane. its juz an everyday item dat we use, but in the wrong hands, it could be used as a weapon. would u rather board a plane dat is free from weapons or board a plane knowing dat the guy next to u could actually hurt u.

in clubsnap context, if dissalowing ppl wif multiple nicks means a better although not 100% foolproof way of reducing flame wars and other nefarious acts, den why not?
i'd say its a good preventive measure.

the probem is, we will never know if other ppl have any nefarious intent or not. and the fact dat having multiple nicks give them the avenue to do so.

but I still cannot have a second nick. Why can't I?

ure reasons of having multiple nicks or diff names could juz mean dat ure eccentric. it may benefit u cos of ure eccentricity and u alone. it does nothing for the rest of the ppl here. and with dat in mind. u cant have it all your way.

 

[Darren]

After sifting through the various feedback in this thread, and to prevent potential future misunderstanding, we want members to understand the following :-

a) If (for whatever benign reason) a member has two (or more) nicks (eg. one to post and one to do buy & sell), and that member has not infringed upon the privilege of having two (or more) nicks, he/she can maintain separate nick(s) until such time an infringement occurs.

b) If an infringement occurs, and after additional investigation, a member is found to have mutliple nicks, all associated nicks will be deregistered.

And to further clarify, an infringement will be defined as (but not limited to) :-
a) registering and using multiple nicks to boost sale
b) registering and using multiple nicks for posting inflammatory threads/posts

The definition of what constitutes an infringement can and will possibly change in the future as there may be additional abuse that may not have been discovered as yet. We reserve the right to amend the definition as situations change.

I trust that this makes our stand on multiple nicks clearer.

 

[TMC]

Sigh.......can anyone come up with a better way to control the people who have 2 nicks and be absolutely sure that they are not going to commit nefarious acts/infringements? Sure there are some good apples in the basket but unfortunately the rest are pretty rotten and there are too many to slowly sort out.

They cant ban drinking or driving because that is too sweeping but they cant stop drunk driving either as they are not able to stop the act itself from being committed. Scale is different here. Would you ban something because the acts have commited by the majority or by the minority?

Raving and ranting......

 

[dawgbyte77]

Sounds like the movie Minority Report... having 2 nicks means you are guilty of assumed crime and therefore must be banned. It seems this is more subjective than objective point of views, both pro and against. If you can solve traffic by charging fee instead of building roads, why not ban 2 nicks. Both makes perfect sense.

 

[Stylus C34]

After sifting through the various feedback in this thread, and to prevent potential future misunderstanding, we want members to understand the following :-

a) If (for whatever benign reason) a member has two (or more) nicks (eg. one to post and one to do buy & sell), and that member has not infringed upon the privilege of having two (or more) nicks, he/she can maintain separate nick(s) until such time an infringement occurs.

b) If an infringement occurs, and after additional investigation, a member is found to have mutliple nicks, all associated nicks will be deregistered.

And to further clarify, an infringement will be defined as (but not limited to) :-
a) registering and using multiple nicks to boost sale
b) registering and using multiple nicks for posting inflammatory threads/posts

The definition of what constitutes an infringement can and will possibly change in the future as there may be additional abuse that may not have been discovered as yet. We reserve the right to amend the definition as situations change.

I trust that this makes our stand on multiple nicks clearer.

Instead of repeating that again and again, when "majority" of us already fully understand the need of such policy, you might want to consider using bigger fonts or old english to post, or at least quote it in a poetry style. Probably helps a bit.

Personally, I still think that complaining for the sake of complaining is sick. So regardless of how you explain, plain useless to some.

A good talking topic for tea time tho. :think:

 

[student]

After sifting through the various feedback in this thread, and to prevent potential future misunderstanding, we want members to understand the following :-

a) If (for whatever benign reason) a member has two (or more) nicks (eg. one to post and one to do buy & sell), and that member has not infringed upon the privilege of having two (or more) nicks, he/she can maintain separate nick(s) until such time an infringement occurs.

b) If an infringement occurs, and after additional investigation, a member is found to have mutliple nicks, all associated nicks will be deregistered.

And to further clarify, an infringement will be defined as (but not limited to) :-
a) registering and using multiple nicks to boost sale
b) registering and using multiple nicks for posting inflammatory threads/posts

The definition of what constitutes an infringement can and will possibly change in the future as there may be additional abuse that may not have been discovered as yet. We reserve the right to amend the definition as situations change.

I trust that this makes our stand on multiple nicks clearer.

Darren, I don't what to say.

This is a wonderful example of openness and considered solution.

If you are a woman, I will give you a kiss!
(sigh, I know you are not! )

 

[Francis247]

Hi All,

After reading 3 pages of argument over the issue of multiple nicks, I couldn’t help to give my point of view on this issue.

But before I start, I must apologize to Deadpoet and all those who think likewise in his direction as I do not agree with his view. In any case if you are offended, you can have my apologies.

I know, I know, some of you out there will tell me, if I don't like the new policy, I can leave. But I feel a part of this community, and it's my responsibility to speak up, if I feel something is awry. this is my opinion, and I believe I am correct. You may not, but your input is welcome!

You have the every right to believe that you are correct, but since you are part of this community (Clubsnap), you should respect and obliged to the rules and regulations here to make the experience here for other users and yourself more enjoyable and pleasant.

Every country has its law; every house has its rules and regulations. It is because of these rules and regulations that we can keep the forums in place and order. I used to frequent other forums before I stumble onto Clubsnap, the problem of multiple nicks is wide spread and out of hand in those forums which is rather sad as I would say. Why sad some may ask, it is because you never know whether to trust that person who posts a thread under your post or believe in the Private Message send to you by another user. For all you know, that one person may be saying one thing to you using one nick and saying things about you using another nick. There is an atmosphere of doubts and mistrust.

But ever since I came here, the experience here have been nice in which I see that the moderators and administrators are doing a great job in maintaining it this way.

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.

If you have the issue of alter ego, sorry to say this but please take it on elsewhere then. A name is an identity; a nick is also an identity. You can have multiple names in your life but in one certain group of community, wouldn’t you like to be only know by one name.

Let me give you a scenario, X is known as Peter by his army friends and Patrick by his university friends. Then one day out with his army friends, one of X’s university friends happen to stumble onto him and call out to him as Patrick. How will X answer to his army friends as to why he has 2 names and how did it reflect on his character?

As long as you tied these 2 or 3 names to one identity, I don’t see a problem because people know you. But in cyberspace, people never see one another, how do we know that this nick and that nick belong to the same person. Or in another case, why do you need multiple nicks and not wanting to be tied to one identity.

Well, good for the few who follow blindly.

People here do not follow blindly. People here respect the decisions, rules and regulations laid down by the moderators and administrators who started this Clubsnap forum. If you enter someone else’s house, always respect and follows the house rules.

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.

Let me put you to another scenario, if Clubsnap never implement the need for users to proof worthy of a second nick, then some people will start to abuse this system. There may be people who want multiple nicks not because they want to commit nefarious acts, but because they like it or they want it. However, given you the control and power, can you ensure that you will not abuse it like somebody else does. I believe Clubsnap moderators and administrators will have a hard time to weed out black sheep in the community and the user experience will be rather sad if this rule is not in place at first.

It's not a question of need. What if I have 1,2,3,4 or even 5 nick, have I use it to hurt anyone? Having more than 1 name in itself is not a nefarious activity. I am know as deadpoet here, I am known by another name to my friends in real life, and I have a name I use for my passport, that is quite alright, so, more than one name in itself is not a crime.

Having many names if not a crime, this I agree. A name is an identity; a nick is also an identity. You can only have one identity, which is the hard fact. As long as your many names point to one identity. I think the administrators and moderators can work something out. I have a suggestion at the end of my post.

It's not the need to have 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.

Like I mentioned, in a certain community (lets say friends), I believe you are know to them by one name or identity, isn’t this true?

Sometime, you can’t do things just because you like it. Example, if a person like to walk around his house half naked just because he like it does not means that he can walk around half naked in his friends’ house. This is the basic courtesy of respecting others decision and house rules.

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.

I believe that it will be better if you can justify why you need or want multiple nicks and let the moderators and administrators decide. If not, I find that all your argument is groundless just because you feel like it. You are trying to blend in the culture here in Clubsnap community, then I suggest you follow the guidelines laid down.

An example. We all know driving drunk is very bad, dangerous and can kill. So, we should go out and ban drinking, and while we are at it, let's ban driving too. Well, I drink and I also drive, but as long as I dont drink and drive, why should I be prohibited from enjoying a drink or two, and not allowed to drive. The act of drinking and the act of driving are not nefarious, but the act of drinking and driving at the same time is. So the law banned drinking and getting drunk while driving, the law did not ban drinking nor driving.

I think your thinking is slightly on the extreme here. The word here is don’t drink AND drive. If you drink, can you ensure that you know how to control, when will you know enough is enough so that it will not affect your driving? You can ensure that yourself, but as a community living, what about others who drink and can’t control and drive. They pose as a danger to others.

If the members here agree that a big brother monitoring not only what we post, but how many nicks we may have, so be it. But, what should we ban next? Nicks we don't like?

I think that is a good suggestion, but I doubt the administrators and moderators will agree to that. :think: :bsmilie:

But if a person did not commit any misdeed, other than have more than 1 nick, why should their various nicks be merged? Isn't that equates to punishment for having done nothing wrong?

Why are you worried about merging the nicks? This is not a punishment, but more like understanding and showing respect to the rules and regulations here.

I have no need for a second nick.

But if I want one, according to the new rules of the forum I can't. I have not done anything wrong, I have no intention of doing anything bad, but I still cannot have a second nick. Why can't I?

Many would argue that since some people with multiple nicks had committed nefarious acts, so no one should be allowed to have multiple nicks. Well, I will use my drinking and drive analogy again. Since some people drink and drive, cause accidents and endangered others, we should therefore ban drinking and driving! I can no longer drink nor drive becasue some people abuse their right to drink and to drive. But I did not do the abuse, yet I am not allow to drink nor drive. Is that fair?

Rules are meant to be followed, not broken. How will you feel if people enter your house and not respecting your house rules?

Another example, in cinema, some people have the urge to smoke but they can’t because of the rules. Why did the rules come about?
1. It is a potential fire hazard.
2. It will cause discomfort to others who don’t smoke (user experience)

This is why no smoking in the cinema. Likewise, multiple nicks is a potential for nefarious activities and it tends to cause mistrust in the user experience.

Ok, so much for a long post. Here is my suggestion for a multiple nicks (if needed).

Under the user name,
Deadpoet
Aka ______
Aka ______
Aka ______

_______
Aka Deadpoet
Aka ______
Etc….

Having to say so much, my stand is clear, I am not condoning multiple nicks may it be for nefarious purpose or not and I hope the moderators and administrators will stand by this point. Please review. Thank you.

 

[Ansel]

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

Is there a system control to prevent creating of multiple post with multiple nicks by the same person in the same thread?

I think 99.8% of nefarious postings occur in threads where the same person is trying to play multiple personalities in the same thread.

Or is there another a way where a new nick by an existing user is identified as a such, but the original user id is not identified. For example, I can create a 2nd ID for myself called "Adams". Adams is displayed as being a 2nd ID of an existing CS member, but it is not necessary for anybody, except the Administrator, to know that "Ansel" and "Adams" are the same person.

This will not be used for nefarious purposes. For example, as orientals, we sometimes feel a bit "pai seh" if our identity is known. One such scenario is that I may want to post a photo for critique, but I know that some of my friends who know me will not dare come in honestly with their comments, for fear of hurting my feelings. If I post with another ID, the critiques will more likely be up front and honest, since these people do not know who the poster really is. Or on the other hand, I really want to put in some comments on another posters photo, but dared not, for fear of affecting our extra-photography relationship.

Just my 2cts on this subject.

 

[kahheng]

After sifting through the various feedback in this thread, and to prevent potential future misunderstanding, we want members to understand the following :-

a) If (for whatever benign reason) a member has two (or more) nicks (eg. one to post and one to do buy & sell), and that member has not infringed upon the privilege of having two (or more) nicks, he/she can maintain separate nick(s) until such time an infringement occurs.

b) If an infringement occurs, and after additional investigation, a member is found to have mutliple nicks, all associated nicks will be deregistered.

And to further clarify, an infringement will be defined as (but not limited to) :-
a) registering and using multiple nicks to boost sale
b) registering and using multiple nicks for posting inflammatory threads/posts

The definition of what constitutes an infringement can and will possibly change in the future as there may be additional abuse that may not have been discovered as yet. We reserve the right to amend the definition as situations change.

I trust that this makes our stand on multiple nicks clearer.

Darren I wish to applaud you for being so considerate in your decision.

Since we're on the platform of being fair minded, I seek your evenhandedness here as well:

How about those of us who do NOT wish to deal with people using their alter ego to trade?

Whilst you have clearly demonstrated thoughtfulness towards people who'd use one userid to chat/discuss/rant and then possibly another to trade (because they do not want other people to know they are the same person as the other nick), what about consideration for those of us who WANT to know that the person we're trading with is the same person that we do not mind trading based on our experience with them when they chat/discuss/rant?

As I had previous pointed out (and at least one other member has agreed with me), there are members on this forum who feel uncomfortable dealing with other members whose politics, opinions, behaviour and character whom they don't agree with.

Shouldn't it be equally fair that we are able to ascertain that we are comfortable with the character of the person we're dealing with?

 

[kahheng]

I have no need for a second nick.

But if I want one, according to the new rules of the forum I can't. I have not done anything wrong, I have no intention of doing anything bad, but I still cannot have a second nick. Why can't I?

So you profess not to need a second nick, but yet want one.

And you've avoided answering in what ways not having another one will disadvantage/inconvenienced your personal use of this forum?

That my friend, is very interesting.

Just to be open about this: since you say you do not need a second nick other than the one you're currently using to post on this thread, would it be correct to assume that you do NOT personally have any other nicks at this time, and have never used any other userids before?