|
Post by echnaton on Jul 24, 2011 10:19:53 GMT -4
This one is reminds me of the attempts of far to many HBs to count. Fortunately they have all failed with this.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 24, 2011 12:50:55 GMT -4
[That is only a part of what attorneys do Most legal work involves contacts. That practice requires identifying contingencies and planning for them and in a manner that all parties can agree on, even if one is working to favor the client. Mostly legal professionals need to be liked and trusted by their clients, something that is hard to imagine Moonman ever achieving. Not only that, but a good prosecutor is interested in prosecuting the right person, not just the person it's easy to convict.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 24, 2011 20:14:32 GMT -4
[That is only a part of what attorneys do Most legal work involves contacts. That practice requires identifying contingencies and planning for them and in a manner that all parties can agree on, even if one is working to favor the client. Mostly legal professionals need to be liked and trusted by their clients, something that is hard to imagine Moonman ever achieving. Not only that, but a good prosecutor is interested in prosecuting the right person, not just the person it's easy to convict. Under certain definitions of good.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 24, 2011 22:32:28 GMT -4
I'd argue it to be true under any. It's an important aspect of doing the job right--getting the right person--and a good person wouldn't have it any other way.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 25, 2011 10:18:29 GMT -4
I think the best way of expressing it is that an *effective* prosecutor can convict anyone. A *good* prosecutor convicts the guilty, and avoids convicting the innocent. Seeing as that is really his or her job.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 25, 2011 12:44:13 GMT -4
Okay, that works.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 25, 2011 14:55:33 GMT -4
I know this might be a minority view here, but I think we get too wound up by the subject of sock puppets. I'll explain.
Whether multiple identities are bad or not really depends on how they're used. People have already listed a number of clear abuses, such a one person deceptively creating an illusion of support from others for his opinions.
But there is also a grey area. Some forums, such as Youtube, give the power to censor and block comments, and this power is often abused to censor completely legitimate criticism. I think many of us have been blocked by various Apollo deniers. Alternate accounts can be used to circumvent this.
Alternates can also be used when, after presenting a view that is shot down by the others, the participant realizes he was wrong but for whatever reason (excessive ego investment, etc) would prefer to just let the matter drop instead of openly conceding. He would also like to continue participating on the forum with other topics without being continually associated with the previous topic. If the guy is well behaved with his new identity, what's wrong with his wanting to jettison the baggage of his previous discussions?
In an ideal world, people debate ideas -- not other people. They only present confirmed facts in support of their positions and draw only logical inferences from them. Views are criticized without attacking the persons presenting them, ideas are promptly withdrawn when they're shown to be wrong, and no one takes offense.
But we live in the real world with real people, very few of whom behave like that. So we have to cut human nature some slack and evolve forum rules that recognize it.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 25, 2011 17:13:25 GMT -4
We really only need one rule. Anyone that does something to annoy our fearless leader should be banned. It straight to the point and no can effectively argue against it because L.O. is the final authority on whether he is annoyed. Then with a royal "We are not amused," the banning begins. We must respect the authority bestowed on him as our leader in the hoax coverup.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 25, 2011 20:12:29 GMT -4
People have already listed a number of clear abuses, such a one person deceptively creating an illusion of support from others for his opinions. There are really only two uses of sock-puppets that I will not tolerate: 1) creating the illusion of support; and 2) circumventing a previous ban. The first is dishonest, the second is intended to defy me. In cases like that I would ask that the person delete their original account so that they won't be tempted to post using both accounts.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 25, 2011 20:17:46 GMT -4
We really only need one rule. Anyone that does something to annoy our fearless leader should be banned. Sounds good to me. The only person who would be entirely safe would be me... and only because I can't ban myself.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 25, 2011 23:44:15 GMT -4
We really only need one rule. Anyone that does something to annoy our fearless leader should be banned. Well....yes. But I was thinking more generally about the question of multiple accounts on other forums where you may not always have a wise moderator with lots of time to spend. Lawrence Lessig is fond of saying that in the computer world, code is law. The software that implements an online forum creates a set of rules. Sometimes these rules can be modified by the judgment of a human moderator, but more often than not the forum runs itself and the users have to adapt to (and maybe work around) the computer's default rules. Computer time is cheap but human time is expensive (especially when doing things the human considers "not fun").
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 28, 2011 7:52:47 GMT -4
Just as an amusing (or is it just sad..) aside... Here at BAUT, you will see someone totally new {cough} taking up fattydash's tranquillity base inanity. He apparently has had a problem creating a new identity here - perhaps LO should make a special exception for him!!! Or not. Isn't it amazing that there are so many people who all sound alike? There's been DoctorTea, MaryB, BFischer, BSpassky, Sicilian, fattydash, briskwalk, MVinson and now HighGain, Oh, wait... Added: Baut is playing up (or down) again at the moment. Good luck getting on. About time Phil paid his bills...
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 28, 2011 8:53:52 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 28, 2011 9:00:44 GMT -4
There seems to be a common link to all his posts, namely his level of respect for NASA... {thinks}maybe he applied to them wanting to be an astronaut, and they knocked him back..{/thinks}
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 28, 2011 9:53:11 GMT -4
Just as an amusing (or is it just sad..) aside... Here at BAUT, you will see someone totally new {cough} taking up fattydash's tranquillity base inanity. He apparently has had a problem creating a new identity here - perhaps LO should make a special exception for him!!! Or not. At least in the above thread, our correspondent has defined what he thinks the problem is, without spewing pages of data, all to prove that there were several different measurements of where Eagle was. I was unable to respond well to fattydash because, honestly, I had a hard time figuring out what all that boiled down to.
|
|