Men's Group
Related: About this forum"LOTS of people have socks"
Well, I don't.
I mean, I'm not just saying that because I'm doing some ironic post-modern Andy Kaufman Shtick whereby I rail against people having socks while I simultaneously have the MOST socks.
I really, honestly don't and never have. It never occurred to me, honestly. One of me is plenty.
I don't think too many regulars in this group are playing that game, either. I don't think it's our style.
If anything, it might explain why our numbers are so low.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)pscot
(21,037 posts)without socks. Unless you're going for Jimmy buffet, of course.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)I've never had a sock or alt ID here.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Lots....like who I wonder?
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Where have I heard that before?
Was there smoke involved?
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 25, 2013, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)
Being a finger-wagging, over-zealous pain in the ass is a 24/7 gig....
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Remember how in the past we had famous sock discussions? One set was actually a mod on DU2.
But, I'm not sure how you get the time to invent a few socks and then have them discuss things with themselves. I suppose if you think of yourself as a writer and that's your schtick...
Behind the Aegis
(54,901 posts)Personally, if socks could be used reliably, I would have no issue with them. I was a member when socks were allowed; then Skinner banned their use. If you were caught using one, both the sock and the "hand" were tombstoned. I think a number of people have been using when DU3 started because the software didn't track like the old software did. Others started activating old accounts and the like (any account I see from prior to 2006 (the year I think they were banned) is suspicious to me, unless they have been a constant poster).
I don't know where the admins stand now, and don't recall Skinner saying they were OK (of course, with Meta being wiped out, a whole chunk of transparency went down the drain). At this point in the game, I don't think they should be allowed at all.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)I do remember it was at one time a flat-out auto-pizza. I also did see posts where Skinner said it was ok, as long as it was in good faith. However, I still maintain that, if he was confident enough in his assessment of the reason for her sock to explicitly state it in the PPR message, it is clearly a violation of
Despite her Alfred E. Newman-esque protestations to the contrary.
Behind the Aegis
(54,901 posts)Some people could post the sun will rise in the east, and I would still stay up to confirm it; so I was not certain if Skinner had said this or not. Huge mistake, IMO. As I said, I could see the use for them, but at this point, I think it better not to have "secret identities." I find it interesting, given that DU3 was supposed to be about transparency and now we have all kinds of ways to scuttle it...allowing sockpuppets, "name removed" has returned, and entire forum was zapped. Seems more and more, DU2 is starting to re-emerge, but it will be sans moderators.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)At least on DU2, if a mod got rid of your posts, it wasn't anonymous. Now that I'm thinking about it, I might be able to get behind the idea of making alerter's identities public. You could have it in the removal message - "This post was alerted on by joeblow, here are the rresults". Keep the jurors anonymous, except to admins like it is now, though. Hadn't given it much thought before, but damn.... the more I consider it, the more I'm liking it..
Behind the Aegis
(54,901 posts)Whereas you say at DU2, when a post was removed, we knew it was a moderator, but we didn't always know who. We did know, most of the time, who locked a thread, though. If a post is hidden here, it is really the jury who "removed" the post, not the alerter. I do think the jury system needs to be reworked, though. I would support "keeping track" of alerts sent, but that is all. The little "alert" stats thing that used to be in the profile is gone (I just checked). I never liked the ideas of percentages" hidden/not hidden because that really doesn't tell us anything, but I feel it would be important for people to know how many alerts someone is really sending. The last one I sent was April 1st, and before that...March 12th! Surprisingly, both were hidden.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)abusing the system...
Behind the Aegis
(54,901 posts)I just haven't figured out a way on how to do so. The only thing I think might give rise to it is that we should be informed if our posts have been alerted upon even when not hidden. There are so many alerts, it isn't really possible (at least I don't think) for the admins to keep up with who has been alerted on and how many times. I do think they have a system in place to monitor the number of alerts an individual sends (I could be wrong).
pacalo
(24,738 posts)A "sock", as I understand the term, is a second account. Besides deception, for what purpose would someone not want to post using their established username?
Here's a hypothetical:
-- DUer 'Anna Conda' is currently participating in a contentious thread that includes another DUer, 'Ella Mentry', to whom, it just so happens, Anna Conda had sent a nasty PM the day before.
-- Because Anna Conda didn't get a reply from Ella Mentry the day before, she may suspect that her PM was alerted on & was tentative in compounding her situation with angry replies to Ella Mentry in today's thread (that happens to be getting exposure on the greatest page).
What Anna Conda decides to do is use a sock account to deflect attention from her actual identity to ensure...
-- any one of her tactlessly-worded posts won't be alerted on & added to Anna Conda's already-high hidden post count; or
-- that she's able to alert on those opinions she doesn't like because Anna Conda's account is currently out of commission due to the 24-hour rule for frivolous alerts.
This would be clearly classified as "not in good faith" use of a sock. Regardless, I don't see how a sock would be created for legitimate, above-board reasons. I'm not understanding the "good faith" qualification at all.
Behind the Aegis
(54,901 posts)I was going to write a hypothetical similar to yours and use funny user names because I thought your creations were funny. I was going to cheat and use drag names I know (Hedda Lettuce and the like), but I think it might be better just to use myself as an example, so....
I am known by more than few people as an outspoken Zionist (I believe in a secure and safe Jewish homeland, Israel) and unflinching in addressing anti-Semitism. Those stances have made me more than a few "friends." The problem is when I am addressing another subject I get attacked for having those views. It becomes a distraction. It can be something as benign as talking about photography or pets, two things I also enjoy immensely. So, if I had another identity, I could discuss those likes without prejudice against me because of my stances on Israel and anti-Semitism. I can give a real world (DU3) example as well. I was discussing a nasty homophobic post, but because I am also a member of this group, I was "addressed" by another group member (not this group) who questioned why I was so passionate about homophobia but refused to show the same exuberance for sexism (which wasn't the topic, nor true). Had I not been known as a dirty member of "The Men's Group," it is highly unlikely such a question would have been posed to me in a thread about homophobia.
To me, a second identity, where I used one for certain political stances, and another for other interests, I wouldn't see a problem, as long as I didn't use them to deceive, as in your example. However, given what I have seen here, I feel most people would find it difficult to maintain the different identities, which is why I don't think that sockpuppets should be allowed at DU>
pacalo
(24,738 posts)Your reason for using another identity would be quite different. I could see the administrators being compassionate about a situation like that. I'd have no problem with them giving approval for using a sock for protection when that DUer has a reputation for acting in good faith.
Permission from the administrators + good intentions = using a sock in good faith.
Behind the Aegis
(54,901 posts)I appreciate your understanding. I have used the term "legitimate sock" and got jumped on before I could explain. You are the first to actually ask me in a polite way. LOL! I still wouldn't do it because I know it would be a great temptation for mischief on my part. I am a little pixie at times.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Hypothetical Poster "A" has a shit ton of people on ignore. However, "A", being a nosy, paranoid busybody can't deal with the fact that people may be complaining about him/her in ATA, so he/she makes a sock in order to look at ATA and see if anybody is complaining about him/her without having to continually un-ignore all the people he/she has on ignore. Of course, this also helps him/her to see if any of the ignored posters have replied to him/her in any of the many threads in which he/she is fighting the good social justice warrior fight. Because, let's face it, some people just can't handle not knowing exactly what all the other "lesser" folks are up to.
"Anna Conda" could claim that she accidentally used her sock identity in that thread -- surely that's the case!
She thought she was reading the ATA forum, got in the mood to help thin out Skinner's workload by knocking some heads, & went the extra mile by going to town on the alert button as DU's watchdog. Skinner wouldn't possibly know who the magic elf was, being 3 o'clock in the morning.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)frankly, anybody that believes her little story is 6 short of a half-dozen.
Skittles
(159,908 posts)I CAN TELL
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Skittles
(159,908 posts)I HATE it when the pee clump is crushed into a corner! THAT CAT IS DOING THAT ON PURPOSE!!!
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)$&*%ing longhairs.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Skittles
(159,908 posts)I present to you: RIFF RAFF, EVIL LONGHAIR
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Skittles
(159,908 posts)alternates between OOH I LOVE THIS and biting me
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Like the wires get crossed.
Behind the Aegis
(54,901 posts)That's some kinda sick!
Major Nikon
(36,911 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Skittles
(159,908 posts)YOU KNOW I WOULD DO THAT FOR YOU MY SWEET
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)okay maybe 3 when I played bass for the Red Hot Chili Peppers
Skittles
(159,908 posts)*liked it too*
"a Skittles classic"
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)fills me with a profound sense of disappointment.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)All of MG and HoF is just me trying to figure things out.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I realized that one afternoon, long ago
after eating a full sheet of blotter at The Greek Theater in Berkeley.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)LOL. Never had a sock on one of these forums. What you see is what you get, warts and all.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Apparently the op survived 5-1.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I don't see any good reason for a sock. Hang out with yourself, agree with yourself, start some crap with others and have yourself defend that crap..... . Too complicated and weird.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)It would make me worry about someone, that they are taking DU way too seriously. It is just a message board. I don't get it. As the previous reply said, the whole concept seems just plain weird.
Upton
(9,709 posts)I've never had a sock either..the "LOTS of people have socks" excuse is nothing but bullshit because it's simply not true.
Major Nikon
(36,911 posts)Just sayin'
Upton
(9,709 posts)Major Nikon
(36,911 posts)Major Nikon
(36,911 posts)I like wearing argyle on the weekends, just to spice things up a bit.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I can barely managed with one account. I think if someone has socks...they need to spend a little less time taking DU so seriously and have way too much time on their hands. Just seems silly.
Response to tammywammy (Reply #47)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)That just seems like a lot of work to keep up with your alternate identity. They must have like a notebook to keep track of what they've said where.
The internet is serious business.
Behind the Aegis
(54,901 posts)The scary part was the person was collecting information about Jewish posters and posting it at other sites, including our real names, places of business, and in one case, a home address (though it was the wrong one). This person also passed info onto people still at this site and others.
Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #52)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Behind the Aegis
(54,901 posts)...you are a little Jew-ish?
Oh, I am certain you are on somebody's list somewhere for some of your comments in regards to the evil Zionist regime and positive remarks about Judaism, like, "Happy Chanukkah!"
Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #57)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Behind the Aegis
(54,901 posts)You kinda have to say it out loud. It is an old, old joke. I think it is a Jackie Mason joke. My father's family is Ashkenazi, but there must be something else deep in the woodpile because I have one brother who looks like he was born in the Middle East, people often think he is Arab. Myself, I got throwback genes, but mine are Cherokee, which I only found out about 7 years ago. I always assumed there was some Mediterranean on my mom's side because of my olive coloration (skin) and dark eyes and hair. Nope! Turns out I am 1/16th (or 1/8th...still exploring that) Cherokee and those genes made themselves known!
Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #60)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Muahahahahahahahahahaha
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)The first few times I read the OP, without reading anything else, just to see if my eyes were bad or something, I had no idea what was going on. There was a sock game? Why would there being only one of you negate the existence of socks?
It was like the feeling you get watching a show for the first time, and not knowing how it would end. You get to the end, and you're like...alright, hold on...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #67)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #68)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #69)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #70)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #69)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Sissyk
(12,665 posts)I have never been good at guessing games. Spill it!!
Perhaps one is a semi famous singer?
Response to Sissyk (Reply #72)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
pacalo
(24,738 posts)Response to pacalo (Reply #79)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
pacalo
(24,738 posts)something about the bag patriarchy. Plastic vs. paper, or something like that.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)"You're good, you... "
Response to opiate69 (Reply #75)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #76)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
pacalo
(24,738 posts)Response to pacalo (Reply #78)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
pacalo
(24,738 posts)agent mike is everywhere.
Response to pacalo (Reply #83)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
pacalo
(24,738 posts)That brief bit of silence could also be due to someone in real life having to be straightened out on the "isms" of quirky logic.
Agent Mike's latest surveillance picture:
Response to pacalo (Reply #86)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
pacalo
(24,738 posts)Here's one for you:
Response to pacalo (Reply #88)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
pacalo
(24,738 posts)He couldn't walk into the diner in town without being the object of adoration & desire (for a shopping trip of their own).
Women were racing to be the first one in the grocery store to find the choice ingredients for making him a delicious brown-nosing, take-me-on-your-next-shopping-trip dinner...
They were just giddy with the possibility that Mr. Brownridge might pamper them one day. Some charmed him with the desserts...
And, then -- & you know there's always at least one in a crowd -- someone puts a damper on the positive community vibes & insists that Mr. Brownridge, on the contrary, had bad intentions; he was, in fact, an evil, evil man not to be trusted by women. Because we know what he really wants, *wink, wink*.
Response to pacalo (Reply #90)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
pacalo
(24,738 posts)I'm not familiar with King Crimson but I like this song.
When I read "King Crimson" on the video header, this is the band I thought I was going to see:
This should be Agent Mike's song, so it fits right in with the discussion.
Response to pacalo (Reply #92)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
pacalo
(24,738 posts)That visual could be the logo for Meta!
I've definitely heard this song before & I'm sure it was from my youthful pot days, too -- probably at someone else's house because the closest I came to listening to heavy rock was the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, & Led Zeppelin. I was still very attached to soul & "up, feel-good" kind of music.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)this album was being played until the tracks wore out and you heard it anywhere anyone was tripping.
Kind of like an anthem.
Too bad the band never could stay together and personnel changes were almost monthly, but they had some great periods.
pacalo
(24,738 posts)Even my husband is astounded at the lack of my knowledge of hard rock. I just knew what I liked & wasn't influenced by what others listened to.
Response to pacalo (Reply #104)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)There's still a Members Only jacket somewhere in your closet.
Response to opiate69 (Reply #110)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #81)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Wonder why some of the super-warriors don't appear to have been given the secret handshake yet?
Major Nikon
(36,911 posts)I think the secret handshake was part of that deal.
At any rate I see it as a silver lining. The peanut gallery is far more entertaining from a spectator standpoint. Since you can get banned there for politely asking questions even when you are receiving impolite responses, I just don't see the value that membership provides.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)How some hypothetical people (let's call them "s" and "r" can spend 10+ years on a message board, being almost universally abrasive, belligerent, bellicose, obnoxious, self-righteous, occasionally abusive and often even incoherent, yet still there exists a small cadre of sycophants who will insist that they were the victims of bullying.
pacalo
(24,738 posts)SUBJECT #1: The eye glas-ses are veigly familiar:
SUBJECT #2: This character can be really quite snippy when referring to "DUh".
SUBJECT #3: While this character spends much of its time submerged...
...there is evidence that it has a rather prickly side, which belies its innocent & sweet facade on "DUh":
Stay tuned...
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Response to pacalo (Reply #93)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
pacalo
(24,738 posts)But it's baffling when one doesn't follow one's own moment of sound judgment.
Isn't this a nice hat...
opiate69
(10,129 posts)I, for one, would never attempt to gain entry to DU through deception or flattery.
Response to opiate69 (Reply #96)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
pacalo
(24,738 posts)pacalo
(24,738 posts)pacalo
(24,738 posts)Response to pacalo (Reply #93)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)guess whether or not it's ok depends on who you are?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)Response to opiate69 (Reply #117)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
Denninmi
(6,581 posts)So, you end up like I did the other day - 11 brown socks, none of which matched each other. How they all get separated in that manner is the type of question a mathematician or statistician should examine - I mean, for God's sake, they all go into the laundry at the same time. Maybe it's just me?
Response to Denninmi (Reply #119)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.