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?

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

The Bronze Beta displays IP numbers. Mine shows up to be the same as drlloyd11's. S/he was eventually banned (and I believe the Beta Webmaster blocks IP numbers) but I'm not sure how. It didn't affect my ability to post, though I was worried it would.

Thankfully, nobody actually thought that this person and I were the same people. I'd been around a long time, and had some credibility. But if it had happened here or at another board where I'm newer, I would have died. When I first noticed the numbers there (luckily I noticed first), I still felt sick, because I know some people don't understand that two posters can have the same IP number, even though one of them (me) was posting from my private connection in my private home.

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

This may just be how it has to stay, and if so, yes, I think we have no option other than to be tolerant, welcoming and not make charges we can't back up.

I don't know enough about IP numbers to add anything helpful - but I'm going to ask questions in case my questions prompt someone with that knowledge think of something useful. Going in, I know the answers are likely to be: We have no way to do that, so let's live with it and be nice.

I'm still asking.

Someone (possibly Jon, John, or Rob) mentioned that possibly, the number the Beta displays is not my real and personal IP number and though pp and I showed up as the same poster.

• Is there another number that we can access, that is unique to a person's PC or connection?

I'm thinking there must be, otherwise how could the Beta have blocked drlloyd11 and not me. I know some people have mail programs that display all sorts of header information in an email. Not having that sort of mail program myself, I don't know what, specifically, is displayed.

• Is there any unique identifying information that would come through in an email header?
• Does the Buffistas.org program show detailed headers?
• If so, do/can we capture that information and/or save the confirmation of registration emails for any amount of time?

As a practical solution to the recent events and suspicions, the questions are probably moot. I'm asking in case we ever have a future scenario where we believe a suspended person has registered under a new name and email, we do have a way to investigate it, objectively.

I don't think Schmoker did anything for which he should be suspended. However, I do think that if a suspended person comes in under another name, thumbing one's nose at a suspension is enough to warrant discipline, because it shows flagrant disregard for the community. And really, it gives them a chance to take the Spike role and set us up in the Scoobies' roles in a community theatre production of The Yoko Factor.

I understand and agree with ita's point a few days ago, that we shouldn't talk about unnamed posters here. I was wrong to do so then. I am so sorry. I was trying to determine whether or not we could investigate before any accusations were made, but good intentions yada yada road-to-hell cakes - that doesn't make me less wrong. I agree with ita that I was wrong to do so. I would have deleted, but we both felt it was better to leave a record standing. I'm sorry if/that my earlier post exacerbated the situation here. I'll state for the record that I don't talk back-channel to Hec, Elena, or Sophia, and as far as I know, our suspicions were independent. I did share my suspicions with a few others before I ever mentioned them here. But I don't think I've seen any of them voice the suspicions, so I'm not going to out them.

Despite suspecting him, I tried to take a very gentle hand with him and the one time I remember calling him on anything, I did so (I think) delicately. I also tried to respond to his on-topic posts, despite my suspicions, hoping that even if he was mieskie, he'd just mellow out and feel like he fit, and we could close our eyes to it all. Then the similarities (to me) got to be too blatant.

I understand, agree and affirm that we can't condemn or discipline anyone without any proof. If a suspended person came in and was a positive addition, we'd never suspect him and there'd be no problem, no need for proof. But if in the future, a suspended person came in and flew just low enough under the wire to evade an official warning, but performed enough stunts to get everyone all edgy and independently suspicious, we'd be his or her bitch.