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

[Prismatic]

Actually, from experience with some overseas forum websites, simply banning duplicate nicknames is already quite a mild measure. Most, if not all, forums and websites in Korea requires you to register with their national I.D to avoid identity cloning. Even for foreigners, they have to register with their passports. I would think something like that will be considered more draconian, so much for anonymous internet access.

There are rules and regulations everywhere, if you are unsatisfied with the rules, you are always free to go elsewhere. The moderators have a duty to regulate the forums, unless you can come with a suitable alternative solution, I think just simply complaining about their actions it is rather unproductive.

 

[blive]

Personally, I won't support the use of multiple id for use, except for reasonable reasons, but is there any reasonable reasons at all?

That said, I remember I had an old id for CS here, but forgotten it, so left it unused and had to register again for a new id. Guess it should be ok, right? How to check if the old id is removed or not? I don't think I will ever use the old id anymore...

 

[kahheng]

I am glad we all had opportunity to trash this matter out. But as it stands, IMO, the latest decision by the admin will not eliminate the problems that have arisen due to spurious registration and abuse of multiple nicks.

Permit me to table a suggestion, Darren:

1. Disallow any one person to have more than one identity. Make this a blanket policy as you had originally stated.

Since in the admins' experience, 99% of the time, people who tend to have more than one tend to use it in nasty ways. This will take care of 99% of the problems caused by multiple userid troublemakers.

2. For those 1% of the people who somehow fear ridicule for whatever reason, etc, who need to take on a different persona in order to trade on Buy-Sell, let them apply to you for special permission to do so. Put them on a 'special list'.

3. To protect the best interest of a large number of folks (I would guess a LOT of people are probably so inclined) who want to know that the people that they are trading with are people that they are comfortable trading with, based on their other online experiences with them, this 'special list' should be made available to all who wish to look at the list. Surely we have the right to assure that our transactions are with people we don't mind transacting with.


We should be so thankful that the admin is a considerate and kind person. That he's been willing to mollycoddle a decidedly dodgy individual who cannot bring himself to admit that he actual needs more than one nick to run his business here in CS, speaks volumes for his being a really nice guy.

I suggest people spare a thought for Darren, of the annoyances and difficulties of administrating a forum when one doesn't do it full time for a living.

(Personally, if it were me, I'll just implement the one-nick rule and be done with because I'd have a fulltime job, and I am just operating the forum a labour of love for the hobby and the people who share my passion. I wouldn't have the time to be so bothered with generally petty needs. It will come down to: "I am sorry, but because of limitations with human and other resources, these are the rules that will benefit most of the people but they may not cater to your extremely unique personal requirements. We can't please everyone, but I wish you well in finding another forum that will. Fare thee well." Pardon me,for thinking out loud)

 

[zaren]

(Personally, if it were me, I'll just implement the one-nick rule and be done with because I'd have a fulltime job, and I am just operating the forum a labour of love for the hobby and the people who share my passion. I wouldn't have the time to be so bothered with generally petty needs. It will come down to: "I am sorry, but because of limitations with human and other resources, these are the rules that will benefit most of the people but they may not cater to your extremely unique personal requirements. We can't please everyone, but I wish you well in finding another forum that will. Fare thee well." Pardon me,for thinking out loud)

i fully agree with this.

 

[student]

Personally, I won't support the use of multiple id for use, except for reasonable reasons, but is there any reasonable reasons at all?

Se posts #36, 39, 42, 58

The scenario I pointed out is very real. Maybe unique, as what Kahheng said. But something very reasonable and understable.

A person can be very loaded financially, and able to afford the best equipments. He may also like to collect Leica cameras as collectors' items.

Then he posted some pictures, and get slammed and ridiculed like crazy. Not an unreasonable scenario? Given the types of people in this forum?

So to avoid this, he dissociates his camera collection from his photography.

 

[student]

I am glad we all had opportunity to trash this matter out. But as it stands, IMO, the latest decision by the admin will not eliminate the problems that have arisen due to spurious registration and abuse of multiple nicks.

Permit me to table a suggestion, Darren:

1. Disallow any one person to have more than one identity. Make this a blanket policy as you had originally stated.

Since in the admins' experience, 99% of the time, people who tend to have more than one tend to use it in nasty ways. This will take care of 99% of the problems caused by multiple userid troublemakers.

2. For those 1% of the people who somehow fear ridicule for whatever reason, etc, who need to take on a different persona in order to trade on Buy-Sell, let them apply to you for special permission to do so. Put them on a 'special list'.

3. To protect the best interest of a large number of folks (I would guess a LOT of people are probably so inclined) who want to know that the people that they are trading with are people that they are comfortable trading with, based on their other online experiences with them, this 'special list' should be made available to all who wish to look at the list. Surely we have the right to assure that our transactions are with people we don't mind transacting with.


We should be so thankful that the admin is a considerate and kind person. That he's been willing to mollycoddle a decidedly dodgy individual who cannot bring himself to admit that he actual needs more than one nick to run his business here in CS, speaks volumes for his being a really nice guy.

I suggest people spare a thought for Darren, of the annoyances and difficulties of administrating a forum when one doesn't do it full time for a living.

(Personally, if it were me, I'll just implement the one-nick rule and be done with because I'd have a fulltime job, and I am just operating the forum a labour of love for the hobby and the people who share my passion. I wouldn't have the time to be so bothered with generally petty needs. It will come down to: "I am sorry, but because of limitations with human and other resources, these are the rules that will benefit most of the people but they may not cater to your extremely unique personal requirements. We can't please everyone, but I wish you well in finding another forum that will. Fare thee well." Pardon me,for thinking out loud)

Personally I feel that the most logical statements in this post is #2.

I think that #3 is unnecessary, for one simple reason. The fact is that, the multiple nicks are already known to the administration. As a result, the likelihood of the multiple nicks member to commit mischief will be very low.

Let us face this. If one want to commit mischief say in buying and selling, I don't really have to multiple nicks. I can always co-opt a colleague to be partners in crime, and share profits.

 

[ibs]

I for one welcome our Zero Tolerance Policy Overlords. :bsmilie:

But seriously, I don’t see what the big fuss is all about. Multiple account holders with nefarious (my goodness, isn’t that too strong of a word to use in this context?) motives who are dumb enough to get caught deserves to be suspended. If the person is smart enough, he’ll get away with it; with or without the policy in place. And if they do get caught without the policy in place, I’m sure they would be dealt with by our admin overlords too right?

I’m not quite sure why people would want to keep multiple accounts, but to have a sweeping policy like this is like cracking a nutshell with a 50 pound hammer. A more effective measure is to punish and make public users who abuse their second accounts rather than pre-empting their motives.

So the way I see it, this policy will do little to prevent anything. The person will still be able to carry out his intents, with or without such policies in place.

Merry Xmas!

 

[kahheng]

Se posts #36, 39, 42, 58

The scenario I pointed out is very real. Maybe unique, as what Kahheng said. But something very reasonable and understable.

A person can be very loaded financially, and able to afford the best equipments. He may also like to collect Leica cameras as collectors' items.

Then he posted some pictures, and get slammed and ridiculed like crazy. Not an unreasonable scenario? Given the types of people in this forum?

So to avoid this, he dissociates his camera collection from his photography.

I agree, that's a fair reason, Student. People like this should just 'apply' for special permission to have two nicks. But people like this should understand that there those of us who want to know that the person we're dealing with are people whom we've either had good previous online experiences with, or whom we don't mind trading with after we've done a 'character check' . So I propose that double-nicked individuals be placed on a list that's accessible for the benefit of the latter. I am sure that's not an unreasonable suggestion?

 

[zaren]

Se posts #36, 39, 42, 58

The scenario I pointed out is very real. Maybe unique, as what Kahheng said. But something very reasonable and understable.

A person can be very loaded financially, and able to afford the best equipments. He may also like to collect Leica cameras as collectors' items.

Then he posted some pictures, and get slammed and ridiculed like crazy. Not an unreasonable scenario? Given the types of people in this forum?

So to avoid this, he dissociates his camera collection from his photography.

slamming and ridiculing others in CS is personal attack and harassment. mods and admin will step in swiftly to warn and/or banish the miscreants.

personally, i have no problem with extremely rich people with the most expensive leica gear (i do know some of these ppl IRL btw) posting pics here in CS, and i will certainly not ridicule them for being leicaphiles.

 

[student]

slamming and ridiculing others in CS is personal attack and harassment. mods and admin will step in swiftly to warn and/or banish the miscreants.

personally, i have no problem with extremely rich people with the most expensive leica gear (i do know some of these ppl IRL btw) posting pics here in CS, and i will certainly not ridicule them for being leicaphiles.

You may not, and I know you will not. But there are many who will, and had shown such behaviour.

 

[kahheng]

I think that #3 is unnecessary, for one simple reason. The fact is that, the multiple nicks are already known to the administration. As a result, the likelihood of the multiple nicks member to commit mischief will be very low.

You're not wrong, but it's more than about the prevention of acts of mischief. As someone who occasionally buys and sells on the B&S section, I'd like to know that I don't mind dealing with the person I am about to trade with, in advance of the transaction.

 

[zaren]

I agree, that's a fair reason, Student. People like this should just 'apply' for special permission to have two nicks. But people like this should understand that there those of us who want to know that the person we're dealing with are people whom we've either had good previous online experiences with, or whom we don't mind trading with after we've done a 'character check' . So I propose that double-nicked individuals be placed on a list that's accessible for the benefit of the latter. I am sure that's not an unreasonable suggestion?

the existence of such a list will make multi-nicks redundant in double quick time. we might even see some witch-hunting going on after the list is revealed.

 

[Deadpoet]

Thank you for your and the admin's understanding and openness.

 

[Deadpoet]

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.

Thank you and the Admin's!

 

[Deadpoet]

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?

I don't need a second nick and I don't want one, but who knows, maybe one day, my personality will split and I will have the desire and needs to create another identity for me and myself.

It has nothing to do with the disadvantages and inconvienent, the whole thing has to do with choices and our rights to exercise those choices.

You are correct, I don't have a second nick on CS.

 

[melnjes]

(1) Seriously, there aren't many good reasons for a person to have more than one nick. Can someone think of one, other than access issues?

(2) If the act of banning multiple nicks serves the greater good of preventing frauds, why not? No inconvenience to the individual what. :dunno:


Sometimes, it's a balance between serving the community and retaining the rights of an individual, and not so simple as a "me, myself and I".

Machiavellian concept, which I fully support. Thumbs-up to the admins for a zero-tolerance policy.

 

[student]

Seriously, there aren't many good reasons for a person to have more than one nick. Can someone think of one, other than access issues?

Your very own statement is rather illuminating.

I think the statement "there aren't many......" , also means "there are some...."

Have you read post #65?

 

[kahheng]

I don't need a second nick and I don't want one, but who knows, maybe one day, my personality will split and I will have the desire and needs to create another identity for me and myself.

It has nothing to do with the disadvantages and inconvienent, the whole thing has to do with choices and our rights to exercise those choices.

You are correct, I don't have a second nick on CS.

Right to exercise a choice that's unnecessary because there's no need for it? WTF are you talking about?

 

[kahheng]

I don't need a second nick and I don't want one, but who knows, maybe one day, my personality will split and I will have the desire and needs to create another identity for me and myself.

That's as clear a notice as any that what you've been saying so far is a full load of bullshit

It's other people like Student who've actually come up with a decent reason for needing a second nick, not you.

 

[Darren]

Closing thread as an appropriate and acceptable compromise (for now) has been reached. We will update our position if/when necessary.