I don't see any evidence of sock-puppetry in the Firefly thread, myself. But I am kind of hopeful certain posters decide we're too boring to deal with and go away...
You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats, press one or say 'goats.' To sacrifice a loved one or pet, press the pound key.
Phone Menu Voice ,'Conviction (1)'
Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Consuela - Dec 27, 2002 9:15:18 pm PST #1648 of 10001
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix
Jon B. - Dec 27, 2002 9:19:02 pm PST #1649 of 10001
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
I guarantee you that if we ever had to deal with a determined troublemaker, having the IP address that did the posting would be required to take action.
By blocking that IP address from posting? It's likely the IP address isn't static and/or we could end up banning someone else who happens to get assigned that same address, so what's the point?
Rob - Dec 27, 2002 9:22:46 pm PST #1650 of 10001
You'd use the IP address to find out where the posts are coming from. Depending on where, an email to the ISP's abuse address might take care of it.
But without it, there's nothing you can do.
§ ita § - Dec 27, 2002 9:30:09 pm PST #1651 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I'm with Jon. I'm against banning by IP because it's easy enough to a) circumvent b) throw out the baby with the bathwater.
edit: And I've way given up on complaining to ISPs, after reading about how little of abuse@ISP.net ever gets read.
John H - Dec 27, 2002 9:33:25 pm PST #1652 of 10001
The point about IP being (possibly) useful to prove that sockpuppetry is going on is still valid. But we seem to agree that was just paranoia now, so it's pretty much irrelevant.
Rob - Dec 27, 2002 9:44:22 pm PST #1653 of 10001
Just for the record, I never suggested banning by IP address. I don't know where you got that from.
Rebecca Lizard - Dec 27, 2002 9:45:23 pm PST #1654 of 10001
You sip / say it's your crazy / straw say it's you're crazy / as you bicycle your soul / with beauty in your basket
The point about IP being (possibly) useful to prove that sockpuppetry is going on is still valid. But we seem to agree that was just paranoia now, so it's pretty much irrelevant.
Yeah, having read the thread now, I don't see sock-puppetry at all.
Jon B. - Dec 27, 2002 9:46:40 pm PST #1655 of 10001
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
Sorry, Rob. I was just trying to guess why you thought grabbing the IP address was useful.
Cindy - Dec 27, 2002 10:05:12 pm PST #1656 of 10001
Nobody
I am kind of hopeful certain posters decide we're too boring to deal with and go away...
That's why I posted. 'Tis my gift.
I have a question about IP number assignment based on the earlier explanations, but as I'm not weighing in on the unanimous discussion, I'm going to post it over it in Buffistechnology.
David J. Schwartz - Dec 27, 2002 11:23:19 pm PST #1657 of 10001
New, fully poseable Author!Knut.
Sorry if I was paranoid. It was a germ of a hint of an idea, and I didn't mean to get everyone worked up.