I agree that the pseud accusations, unless they can be proven, can only create tension.

I don't doubt this - I'm just wondering what, if anything, we do about it. But it sounds like the answer is, not much.

How exactly do we prove it, ita? .... I think it's a match.

There's too much room between "prove" and "think" for me, personally.

Ask Cindy -- IIRC she's been on the receiving end of "similarities" with another poster at another board.

Frankly, I do think the burden of proof lies on the accuser, and maintain that treating poster A like poster B without any such backup is unfair. And treating poster A in a hostile manner counts as a pretty personal attack, in my book.

Well, I have to say that forensic analysis aside, the evidence against it is that S registered before M started posting.

Not true. S. is user number 666.

I'm aware of the evidence for: similarity in posting/discussion styles, uses the same ISP & lives in the same city.

And the canasta thing.

First place S. posted was here, IIRC, specifically asking etiquette questions.

I don't doubt this - I'm just wondering what, if anything, we do about it. But it sounds like the answer is, not much.

And this combined with

Once such an accusation is made public there's no way to disprove it.

is the problem, such as I see it. I have no answers, just a wish for short-term limited omniscience.

There's too much room between "prove" and "think" for me, personally.

I get that. I haven't personally experienced the kind of mayhem that comes with mischievious sockpuppetry or the paranoia and false accusations but I believe it. I guess I'm just wondering out loud whether we're making a conscious choice to tolerate the potential of abuse here, to avoid the worse damage that comes from making unsubstantiated accusations. Or if there's an element of tightening registration protocols that would be effective (I presume not, or we'd have them in place) or if there's a tech fix (again, I presume not, since this came up with caching the ISP addresses).

First place S. posted was here, IIRC, specifically asking etiquette questions.

And this was the last place M posted. After he created a pseud and came back after his banning. Okay, now I'm really done with this subject.

I guess I'm just wondering out loud whether we're making a conscious choice to tolerate the potential of abuse here, to avoid the worse damage that comes from making unsubstantiated accusations.

That's something I think I would be willing to do.

That's something I think I would be willing to do.

Me too. Despite the evidence of my post immediately above Heather's. I grasp the inherent dangers.

I get your feelings too. I don't think I saw the stuff in Firefly (?), but I saw the discussion here. It made me tense, I thought it was dropped, then it was on again. The "don't get your panties in a bunch" thing made me cringe, because I knew it was potentially offensive.

Frankly, I do think the burden of proof lies on the accuser, and maintain that treating poster A like poster B without any such backup is unfair. And treating poster A in a hostile manner counts as a pretty personal attack, in my book.

And once again, I love ita.

Not that I ever stopped, mind you!

I don't mind asking Schmoker point blank if it's true because I'd want the answer recorded.

Just for the record, someone publicly did this, very shortly after Schmoker said he was going back to lurking, and there was no reponse. I think it was Elena.

The doctrine that if we can't prove it, we shouldn't say it, troubles me a lot.

1. You can't un-invent an invention, and you can't un-suspect someone of something you suspect them of. I suspect S of being M. What am I to do with my feelings on the subject? I can't treat him like a regular buffista, can I?
2. How could we possibly prove it anyway, short of going round to his home and catching him at it?