the maoster:
ROG:
What if more than one person in a household is a member using different devices but the same modemWhaddya reckon the chances of that are in reality Rog?
Dunno
robroy:
NOT having a pop here btw…
1…but if you ‘‘couldn’t care less’’ tacho mate, why bother reading the blatantly obvious content thread, then responding.
Dave and the mods have repeatedly said this (including to me tbh) …just scroll through, so it must have an element of interest for you to respond to the thread.
Content thread ?I was pointing out that the poll is flawed because some of us couldn’t care less whether or not TN continues to allow people to have multiple accounts, that’s the question I was responding to.
2…Like I said most of them are instantly recognisable to give themselves and their other i.d.s away instantly.
Mostly instantly recognisable based on someone’s assumption4…How can you actually ‘‘prove’’ it , unless you are a mod who has accesss to i.p.address.
The idea that a multiple account holder can be identified by his/her IP address is wrong, it’s not hard to hide your proper IP address, I don’t think the admin have access to a posters MAC addresses but I believe even thet can be masked.5…Yeh maybe so, but that is what the Feedback forum is all about, pita is again down to personal opinion.
That is indeed what the feedback forum is for but I was mainly meaning people who disrupt threads in the other forums complaining that someone is a troll/multiple account holder or isn’t who or what they claim to be but offer nothing more than their personal opinions to back up their claims.And yes the so called multiple account holder/troll hunters being a pita is my personal opinion which is why I said it.
6…It’s already been done on many of the (locked
) Feedback threads, including this one albeit non specifically.
Mostly people do not put up any evidence whatsoever that someone is a multiple account holder, a troll or that they are not what they say they are, mostly people just make accusations that they appear to be unable to back up with anything other than an assumption.
the maoster:
ROG:
What if more than one person in a household is a member using different devices but the same modemWhaddya reckon the chances of that are in reality Rog?
There are 2 current users and 2 users who’ve not been on here in years, were that scenerio applies, that I can think of. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more.
tachograph:
I suppose the simple answer is this, if you can prove that someone is not who or what they say they are start a thread in Bully’s and post your proof, then everyone will be warned and can ignore them or the admin team can ban them as trolls, on the other hand if you start a thread accusing someone of not being who or what they claim to be and have no real evidence to back up your claims everyone, including the admin team, will know that it’s you who needs watching.
In the run up to the It’s Time post it was well known who the trolls were, the posts were constant, the content was deliberate and intended to provoke, and yet it took Admin over 18 months to post their response. This worked for about a month before the trolls realised the fine words were nothing but that, and now we’re back at square one.
The problem isn’t so much the trolls, who can be ignored, but the administration of the site in which, no matter how many times trolling is pointed out, the desire to address the problem just isn’t there.
Stanley Knife:
tachograph:
I suppose the simple answer is this, if you can prove that someone is not who or what they say they are start a thread in Bully’s and post your proof, then everyone will be warned and can ignore them or the admin team can ban them as trolls, on the other hand if you start a thread accusing someone of not being who or what they claim to be and have no real evidence to back up your claims everyone, including the admin team, will know that it’s you who needs watching.In the run up to the It’s Time post it was well known who the trolls were, the posts were constant, the content was deliberate and intended to provoke, and yet it took Admin over 18 months to post their response. This worked for about a month before the trolls realised the fine words were nothing but that, and now we’re back at square one.
The problem isn’t so much the trolls, who can be ignored, but the administration of the site in which, no matter how many times trolling is pointed out, the desire to address the problem just isn’t there.
It’s obvious who the offenders are, the ones who do the most whinging about others who out the trolls and who are the gob ■■■■■ mischief makers with multi accounts…(who are incidentally mostly on pre.mod ironically ignoring the obvious point that there is a message in there somewhere…they aint wanted. 
)
Why should these guys not be outed by other members if said members feel they are the ones who create most of the negativity over the years on this forum.
I have a guy on here who appears to be obsessed with me, to the point of him posting virtual meltdown posts displaying his annoyance with me every time I point out his use of multi i.d.s (and despite the fact he’s freely admitted it ) to the point of self embarrasment. 
…instead of him just simply ignoring me (as I try to do him despite his bizzare and derisory claims ) …if criticism is so hard for him to accept.
As Maoster says it aint the real world, but some appear to think it is as important as such.
In fact it’s pathetic, the kind of thing I’d expect among kids in a play ground.
robroy:
It’s obvious who the offenders are, the ones who do the most whinging about others who out the trolls and who are the gob [zb] mischief makers with multi accounts…(who are incidentally mostly on pre.mod ironically ignoring the obvious point that there is a message in there somewhere…they aint wanted.Why should these guys not be outed by other members if said members feel they are the ones who create most of the negativity over the years on this forum.
I have a guy on here who appears to be obsessed with me, to the point of him posting virtual meltdown posts displaying his annoyance with me every time I point out his use of multi i.d.s (and despite the fact he’s freely admitted it
A question to Dave or any of the other site admins :
If you are applying your clamp down on “trolling” and “random crap” to the letter then why are these repeated and unsubstantiated accusations being allowed to be posted? Ignoring the fact that you (Dave) have publicly stated on more than one occasion that being in possession of more than one account name does not break any of the site rules[/b], surely such accusations should only be allowed if the accuser can support their claims with fully verifiable proof ? If they cannot substantiate their claims then in my opinion that can be construed to be trolling/baiting which is in breach of the site rules and should receive the exact same pre-mod sanctions as any other member 
. One rule for one?
As you have seen, multiple requests have been made to the accuser to substantiate his claims which have all been roundly ignored and the accusations continue in every new post he makes. How is this acceptable conduct and what value does it bring to the site? From my obversation point this is blatant trouble-causing and [zb]-stirring - something which the accuser claims he wishes to see stamped out, yet is one of the biggest offenders in recent years but seemingly manages to fool the admins by crying foul and making himself out to be the victim.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the admins to demand that he posts his fully verifiable proof of all the usernames he claims to know that I’m using to “troll” with, within 24 hours or be put on pre-mod himself for [zb]-stirring if he fails to do so or is found out to be lying. Would you agree that is a fair and reasonable request Dave?
Hang on a minute here.
I thought it was ME that was the …quote;…‘‘Paranoid Stalker’’ here.
Have I missed something? 
I don’t agree with multiple account holders so much so I have voted NO 8 times.
To my mind, Dieseldave has summed up the answer to any anxiety about this in four words: don’t feed the trolls! If I suspect trolling but can’t be sure, I simply give it zero energy by not responding and move on. Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
don’t feed the trolls!
Agreed. Why is such a simple statement so difficult for some to understand?
Rob K:
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the admins to demand that he posts his fully verifiable proof of all the usernames he claims to know that I’m using to “troll” with, within 24 hours or be put on pre-mod himself for [zb]-stirring if he fails to do so or is found out to be lying. Would you agree that is a fair and reasonable request Dave?
Yes Rob, of course that’s fair and reasonable.
I’m seeing a distinction here though, because having multiple accounts and trolling/making false accusations are two separate things.
-
It’s possible for a person to have multiple accounts and do no trolling/accusing
This is not in breach of forum rules. -
It’s possible that a person creates just one account, does some trolling/false accusing then gets caught out and simply makes a new account.
This is usually spotted quite quickly and fairly easy for the Mod/Admin Team to deal with. -
It’s possible that a person makes several accounts, one (or more) of which is used for trolling/false accusations.
This has to be dealt with on an account by account basis.
However… sometimes they give themselves away and we can make a link, then deal with the whole lot in one go. Others are cleverer and use various devices and locations, which are more difficult to detect.
I can understand folk’s frustrations, but in an attempt to get the balance right… speaking from the Mod/Admin Team’s point of view, feeding the trolls really ISN’T helping the situation.
As for potentially false accusations, it’s being dealt with, so I await PM/email responses from more than one person (more may follow,) a lack of response will be taken as proof that they’re up to nonsense, and then they’ll be dealt with accordingly.
This lot needs putting to bed as soon as Mod/Admin (and my) time permits, but it’s got to be done fairly and in such a way as to allow time for responses.
Stanley Knife:
ERF-NGC-European:
don’t feed the trolls!Agreed. Why is such a simple statement so difficult for some to understand?
That’s maybe right, but the subject of the thread is ‘‘Multi usernames’’ not trolls.
As already said there is a distinction between the two, one is forum legal the other one aint.
Maybe the ones making the most noise and trying to defend this multi name concept as something harmless rather than a means to make trouble (that obviously 75% of the poll disagree with) are the ones that fit into both camps.
I’m thinking I’m maybe stating the ‘‘bleeding obvious’’ here. 
dieseldave:
Rob K:
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the admins to demand that he posts his fully verifiable proof of all the usernames he claims to know that I’m using to “troll” with, within 24 hours or be put on pre-mod himself for [zb]-stirring if he fails to do so or is found out to be lying. Would you agree that is a fair and reasonable request Dave?Yes Rob, of course that’s fair and reasonable.
I’m seeing a distinction here though, because having multiple accounts and trolling/making false accusations are two separate things.
It’s possible for a person to have multiple accounts and do no trolling/accusing
This is not in breach of forum rules.It’s possible that a person creates just one account, does some trolling/false accusing then gets caught out and simply makes a new account.
This is usually spotted quite quickly and fairly easy for the Mod/Admin Team to deal with.It’s possible that a person makes several accounts, one (or more) of which is used for trolling/false accusations.
This has to be dealt with on an account by account basis.
However… sometimes they give themselves away and we can make a link, then deal with the whole lot in one go. Others are cleverer and use various devices and locations, which are more difficult to detect.I can understand folk’s frustrations, but in an attempt to get the balance right… speaking from the Mod/Admin Team’s point of view, feeding the trolls really ISN’T helping the situation.
As for potentially false accusations, it’s being dealt with, so I await PM/email responses from more than one person (more may follow,) a lack of response will be taken as proof that they’re up to nonsense, and then they’ll be dealt with accordingly.
This lot needs putting to bed as soon as Mod/Admin (and my) time permits, but it’s got to be done fairly and in such a way as to allow time for responses.
For complete transparency and to ensure that there is no favouritism happening behind closed doors and away from prying eyes, could I ask that you handle this using tachograph’s suggestion please :
tachograph:
I suppose the simple answer is this, if you can prove that someone is not who or what they say they are start a thread in Bully’s and post your proof, then everyone will be warned and can ignore them or the admin team can ban them as trolls, on the other hand if you start a thread accusing someone of not being who or what they claim to be and have no real evidence to back up your claims everyone, including the admin team, will know that it’s you who needs watching.To my mind it’s the people who constantly bang on about multiple account holders or stalk people accusing them of not being who or what they say they are but provide no evidence to back up their claims who are the biggest pita
I think that 24 hours for the accuser to post in Bully’s Bar his fully verifiable proof of the “multiple” accounts I am accused of using to create “troll” threads with is a reasonable time limit. At that point you can verify the usernames provided and if proven to be correct I will accept whatever course of action you deem to be appropriate. If, on the other hand, no information is forthcoming within the time limit, or the evidence provided cannot be verified and/or is found to be a complete fabrication, then as you are a man of fairness (noted from your quote above) I expect the same pre-mod sanction be placed on the accuser for trouble-causing and making false accusations.
robroy:
Stanley Knife:
ERF-NGC-European:
don’t feed the trolls!Agreed. Why is such a simple statement so difficult for some to understand?
That’s maybe right, but the subject of the thread is ‘‘Multi usernames’’ not trolls.
As already said there is a distinction between the two, one is forum legal the other one aint.
Maybe the ones making the most noise and trying to defend this multi name concept as something harmless rather than a means to make trouble (that obviously 75% of the poll disagree with) are the ones that fit into both camps.
I’m thinking I’m maybe stating the ‘‘bleeding obvious’’ here.
Yes Rob, it does seem obvious and both your points are valid.
There are a couple of people who have opportunity to sort things out one way or the other, so we’ll give them reasonable time and await their response.
Rob K:
dieseldave:
Rob K:
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the admins to demand that he posts his fully verifiable proof of all the usernames he claims to know that I’m using to “troll” with, within 24 hours or be put on pre-mod himself for [zb]-stirring if he fails to do so or is found out to be lying. Would you agree that is a fair and reasonable request Dave?Yes Rob, of course that’s fair and reasonable.
I’m seeing a distinction here though, because having multiple accounts and trolling/making false accusations are two separate things.
It’s possible for a person to have multiple accounts and do no trolling/accusing
This is not in breach of forum rules.It’s possible that a person creates just one account, does some trolling/false accusing then gets caught out and simply makes a new account.
This is usually spotted quite quickly and fairly easy for the Mod/Admin Team to deal with.It’s possible that a person makes several accounts, one (or more) of which is used for trolling/false accusations.
This has to be dealt with on an account by account basis.
However… sometimes they give themselves away and we can make a link, then deal with the whole lot in one go. Others are cleverer and use various devices and locations, which are more difficult to detect.I can understand folk’s frustrations, but in an attempt to get the balance right… speaking from the Mod/Admin Team’s point of view, feeding the trolls really ISN’T helping the situation.
As for potentially false accusations, it’s being dealt with, so I await PM/email responses from more than one person (more may follow,) a lack of response will be taken as proof that they’re up to nonsense, and then they’ll be dealt with accordingly.
This lot needs putting to bed as soon as Mod/Admin (and my) time permits, but it’s got to be done fairly and in such a way as to allow time for responses.
For complete transparency and to ensure that there is no favouritism happening behind closed doors and away from prying eyes, could I ask that you handle this using tachograph’s suggestion please :
tachograph:
I suppose the simple answer is this, if you can prove that someone is not who or what they say they are start a thread in Bully’s and post your proof, then everyone will be warned and can ignore them or the admin team can ban them as trolls, on the other hand if you start a thread accusing someone of not being who or what they claim to be and have no real evidence to back up your claims everyone, including the admin team, will know that it’s you who needs watching.To my mind it’s the people who constantly bang on about multiple account holders or stalk people accusing them of not being who or what they say they are but provide no evidence to back up their claims who are the biggest pita
I think that 24 hours for the accuser to post in Bully’s Bar his fully verifiable proof of the “multiple” accounts I am accused of using to create “troll” threads with is a reasonable time limit. At that point you can verify the usernames provided and if proven to be correct I will accept whatever course of action you deem to be appropriate. If, on the other hand, no information is forthcoming within the time limit, or the evidence provided cannot be verified and/or is found to be a complete fabrication, then as you are a man of fairness (noted from your quote above) I expect the same pre-mod sanction be placed on the accuser for trouble-causing and making false accusations.
Sounds like the groundwork for a modern day witch hunt. What if someone used one of their multiple accounts to accuse someone innocent of multiple accounting. They could whip up a frenzy knowing that when the accusations are found to be false, the sanctions they as accuswr face are irrelevant because it’s one of many accounts.
Surely the best way is to inform mods of any suspicions and let them deal with it.
There is no way in hell I’m going to post ANY ■■■■ thing demanded by someone displaying almost and virtual paranoid schizophrenic tendencies 
over such trivialities.
Instead I’ll just sit back bemused and amused observing how much someone is willing to embarrass themselves increase their blood pressure , and show themselves up so much on a public forum to have tendencies which have no bearing to a grasp on reality.
Rob K:
For complete transparency and to ensure that there is no favouritism happening behind closed doors and away from prying eyes, could I ask that you handle this using tachograph’s suggestion please :
Rob, you can be assured of one thing… PMs and emails are private, which applies in both directions.
However, this from tachograph might be workable, but will need discussion by the Mod/Admin Team and may need to go further up the ladder. I have an opinion on it, but (for now) I’ll keep that to myself.
tachograph:
I suppose the simple answer is this, if you can prove that someone is not who or what they say they are start a thread in Bully’s and post your proof, then everyone will be warned and can ignore them or the admin team can ban them as trolls, on the other hand if you start a thread accusing someone of not being who or what they claim to be and have no real evidence to back up your claims everyone, including the admin team, will know that it’s you who needs watching.To my mind it’s the people who constantly bang on about multiple account holders or stalk people accusing them of not being who or what they say they are but provide no evidence to back up their claims who are the biggest pita
Rob K:
I think that 24 hours for the accuser to post in Bully’s Bar his fully verifiable proof of the “multiple” accounts I am accused of using to create “troll” threads with is a reasonable time limit. At that point you can verify the usernames provided and if proven to be correct I will accept whatever course of action you deem to be appropriate. If, on the other hand, no information is forthcoming within the time limit, or the evidence provided cannot be verified and/or is found to be a complete fabrication, then as you are a man of fairness (noted from your quote above) I expect the same pre-mod sanction be placed on the accuser for trouble-causing and making false accusations.
This is all very well in theory Rob, but as you know very well, there’s the problem of clever people being able to mask their IP addy by an ever increasing variety of methods, so this idea may founder on the rocks of satisfactory verification.
dieseldave:
This is all very well in theory Rob, but as you know very well, there’s the problem of clever people being able to mask their IP addy by an ever increasing variety of methods, so this idea may founder on the rocks of satisfactory verification.
That sounds very much like a cop-out and filed in the “too much like hard work” folder to me. It seems to me from the admins’ collective lacklustre response to addressing this that they are happy with the status quo where any member can repeatedly throw unsubstantiated accusations around without any fear of repercussions. The person in question has made 4 accusations over the past 2 weeks claiming that I am using mutiple accounts to “troll” and he knows who they are all. Despite numerous requests for proof to be posted either on the forums or to the admins he has refused to do so. That is an outright breach of the forum rules 9a, 9b and 9c :
Rules:
Trolling
Will no longer be tolerated- if in the view of the admin team your posts are simply one line trolling and not posted to contribute/ add value to a discussion they will be removed… the arbitors of this will be the admin team.Random crap
Posts that do not make any sensible contribution to the forum will simply go
the arbitors of this will be the admin team.Baiting other members
Posting simply to get a rise out of another/other members will simply lead to the poster no longer being able to post without their posts being scrutinised first no warnings- it will just happen. any such posts will be removed
the arbitors of this will be the admin team.
You have said on numerous occasions that your priority as the site manager is to stamp out that crap and sanction the troublemakers yet you have 4 clear as day cases sat right there in front of you but apparently for certain members the site rules don’t apply to them. ■■? What am I missing because that’s what it looks like from here?
The excuse of “clever people are able to mask their IP” does not change anything at all. He can still post the usernames which he claims to know for a fact are me and as it’s apparently too much like hard work to decide if it’s me, simply let the long-standing forum users tell you. You have been a member here long enough to know my posting style but if you cannot decide for yourself then Rikki, Lucy, Denis, Vince, Malc, tachograph (to name a few; others are available) would all tell you in 2 seconds flat whether an account is me or not without even needing to look at IPs.
Just sort it out! The selective application of the site rules is getting rather tiresome and I’m not the only one to have said this. You know as well as I do that the person in question has [zb] all evidence or proof (hence his refusal to post the account names) and is now ■■■■■■■■ himself because he’s been forced into a corner with no way out. You don’t want to apply the rules to him because he butters you up by calling you “mate” and “pal” and he is secretly hoping you lock the thread so that it slides off the front page and gets forgotten about. Well not this time. Over the past decade he is by far the biggest complainer about “trolls” yet apparently it’s perfectly okay for him to do it himself by baiting and making accusations about other members without substantiating any of it with proof . It’s totally out of order and whilst I am perfectly capable of ignoring it, the hypocrisy of it stinks. It needs addressing and stamping out because it creates unrest and unpleasantness on the forums. You’ve put members on pre-mod for less.
The solution is simple and you have the power to make it happen : You give him 24 hours to post in public (for transparency and for other members to see if he’s a liar) the account names which he accuses me over using to “troll” from or the alternative is he has his account suspended for troublemaking.
I don’t see what the issue is with this course of action, unless of course some favouritism and bias is getting in the way of proceedings, but I’m sure that’s not the case.
Rob K:
I don’t see what the issue is with this course of action, unless of course some favouritism and bias is getting in the way of proceedings, but I’m sure that’s not the case.
Rob,
I’ll simply repost what I wrote earlier in answer to somebody else…
There are a couple of people who have opportunity to sort things out one way or the other, so we’ll give them reasonable time and await their response.
And something I wrote in answer to you:
Rob, you can be assured of one thing… PMs and emails are private, which applies in both directions.
It’s being dealt with.
I’m making notes and writing it all down… I’m not even asking in the Mods forum, this guys nailed it…