Multi-Accounting and the COC

Multi-accounting is against the site's COC. I consider it one of the more serious categories of offenses because it allows a user to cheat on debates (by self-voting) and in mafia (by playing both sides of the field). Moreover, it allows a multi-accounter to skirt the sanctity of PMs by soliciting other user's private thoughts which those users may not have shared with the multi-accounter had they known who the multi-accounter was. Multi-accounting is deeply problematic and prohibited. However, as with most offenses, there is room for leniency based on the severity of the crime, the contrition of the violator, and the various situational factors at play in any given case.

Virt and I have noticed a significant amount of multi-accounting occurring among certain users. Much of this multi-accounting stems from a lack of understanding of how the rules work or from users simply changing to new accounts in order to have a fresh start. We therefore wish to clarify a few things and then propose a solution which we hope will be agreeable to individuals guilty of unintentional, misdemeanor/mild, or accidental multi-accounting.

Let's begin with the clarifications. First, credential-sharing is a form of multi-accounting. Do not ever give your log-in credentials to another user. Second, because DART does not allow users to self-close accounts when they decide to start over, moderation must be asked to those close the old accounts. This prevents both the appearance of multi-accounting and the ability to use both accounts simultaneously (as one might be tempted to do, even if that was not one's original intent). You will not be in trouble if you want to switch accounts, but it is problematic if you switch accounts without notifying moderation. Third, accounts created for specific purposes (e.g. an account for voting, an account for posting) are still multi-accounts.

In order to address the panoply of multi-accounting violations we've encountered, we will be offering a one-time amnesty to multi-accounters who have created fewer than 3 total accounts AND either: (a) created multi-accounts only to "start over" and have therefore not been actively using more than one account at any given time OR (b) created multis but never self-voted and have only one account with 50+ posts. To claim this amnesty, you MUST come forward to moderation by sending them a private confession (identifying all accounts you've ever had on DART) on or before 11:59pm, EST, on January 2, 2019. Moderation will close all your multi-accounts, but you will be permitted to retain a single account of your own choosing. You will not be punished for your offense, nor will it be held against you in any future proceedings with moderation (unless you recidivate as a multi-accounter). Moderation authority for this action comes from our ability to issue and withhold punishments based on our discretionary judgement of the severity of the offense committed.

If you share an IP address with another user (e.g. a sibling, spouse, classmate), you should also come forward. This is not against the rules, but you will be subject to additional restrictions and moderation scrutiny (as it may not be possible to verify that you are, in fact, different people). Restrictions include not being able to debate someone who shares your IP address and not being able to vote on debates in which someone with your IP address was a participant. Additional restrictions may be imposed based on moderation's confidence in your honesty.

TDLR: if you multi-accounted accidentally or non-maliciously, let moderation know and we'll give you a one-time pardon. Also notify moderation if anyone (like a spouse or a friend) might be sharing (or have ever shared) your account's IP address. And please, remember these two key points: do not multi-account, and, if you want to start afresh with a new account, let moderation know within 12 hours of creating that new account so that we can close your old one.

Who specifically has violated your cock?

That's not particular relevant here. Certainly, at least one prominent case of multi-accounting was publicly discussed in recent weeks. What is relevant is that multi-accounting is against the COC, and, if you don't want to be banned for it if caught, you should come forward.

This is excellent to see. It's about time Dart cracked down on serial multi-accounters, like Zeichen. They cause nothing but trouble to sites.

Also good to see that you're giving a chance to people whom already have multiple accounts to come forward and be honest.

This is admirable moderation.

I'm sorry you feel this way

Thank you. It has to be made clear that multi-accounting is not permitted.

I think you guys are too dumb to differentiate between actual multi accounting and room mates signing up because they want to see what their friend is doing online. I also heard you guys were recently dumb enough to confuse device identifiers of people with similar laptops as IP addresses. You guys should let somebody like mike who actually knows about computers look into these things instead of inserting your own incompetence into the process.

No one was ever banned or threatened with a ban due to device-type matches. If you think we are incompetent, perhaps you could actually identify a case where a wrongful ban was imposed as regards multi-accounting.

Wrongful suspicion in multiple cases is more like it. Wrongful suspicion is still harrassment and disrespectful at some level.

You guys hace also routinely banned people with no ecplanation as well so who knows how many times you have fucked up. 

This is kinda why I’ve been pushing for a mod log

Virt has been cautioned not to approach users based on device-type alone again; frankly, I did not know that he was doing that. That said, wrongful suspicion is hardly the same as incompetence. Indeed, verification and investigation of clues is the hallmark of thoroughness and competence. That suspicion was laid to rest is beneficial both for the suspect and for the investigator.

I still would be handling things much better than bsh1 if I was in charge. That being said, I do not believe for one second that bsh1 just went and banned anyone willy-nilly like that considering that the schoolkids Wylted is referring to all got to keep their accounts.

You're argument in this thread is this:

So, where did moderation go wrong? Moderation never wrongly banned anyone on the basis of an erroneous multi-accounting charge, so we didn't go wrong there. Moderation never accused any user of multi-accounting based on a device-type match, so we didn't go wrong there. Apparently, we went wrong simply for asking the question of whether someone had ever multi-accounted because there was circumstantial evidence that they might have multi-accounted. First, that's a laughably petty accusation to make, because literally nothing of consequence happened. Second, it's not like a mod asked the user out of the blue; the question was spurred by the circumstantial evidence which the mod wanted to address out of an abundance of caution. And third, the moderator who engaged in the practice was told to desist, so the situation won't repeat itself.

Also, fyi, most of our bans have been publicly explained.

So do you think the police investigating OJ Simpson did him no harm just because their investigation failed to prove him guilty? 

No his reputation has been harmed tremendously. Accusations and even investigations should not occur unless their is an astronomical amount of suspicion. You sound like McCarthy with all your suspicions.

Anything done out of an abundance of caution is improperly done. I have never been a part of a forum where the majority of users thought the mod team was incompetent. It should tell you something that even mortal enemies like me and RM can set aside our differences because of a common problem that is harming the community. You can bet when Superman and Lex Luthor team up, it is because there is a great threat to humanity.

As you yourself said, the harm done to OJ was his reputation. Since I've never revealed the name of the user, the user has not had their reputation harmed. The comparison to OJ is a false equivalency, and demonstrates further the absurd lengths to which you are going to try to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I don't think you know the effects of accusations even if those accusations are not made public. I sincerely believe that we have not eradicated wrongful convictions yet, because the police are allowed to investigate in ways that are more conducive to finding the bad guy than in ways more conducive to never making a suspect of an innocent person. If police applied a ton more caution to even choosing who they consider a suspect and prosecuting Ttorneys applied a lot more caution in what they take to trial, than we would make huge strides toward eradicating wrongful conviction. You need to ask yourself if you are taking steps towards eradication of injustice or if you are taking steps that someday may lead to an unjust act on your part or because of your role. Do you want to eliminate all possible abuses of power or allow some of that to exist?  Which world is preferable to live in?

@Anal,  

Do you recall when you made this account on DDO? (https://www.debate.org/Combustible.Fairy/)

Your Zarroette account was open at the time of you creating and using Combustible.Fairy. I also know you made other accounts in your many years of using DDO. Like a disease, you’ve spread yourself around. 

Awww, Zeichen is following me around, like a lost, lil puppy.

Look at his post history.

Poor, wittle Zeichen :<

Police investigate when there is reason to believe a crime may have occurred. The operative word there is "may." Investigations are not the same as accusations, and so it is incorrect to suggest we accused anyone of anything based on a device-type match. What that match did is spur one mod to investigate. If you're claiming someone was hurt because we made an accusation, you're wrong because (a) no accusation was ever made and (b) you cannot plausibly demonstrate that any harm occurred as a result of the non-existent accusation (you are not the accused, so anything you have to say is just you speculating out of your ass). If you're claiming someone could be hurt by an investigation, then tough luck. Rules can only be enforced by investigations, and if the bar were as high as you would seem to want it to be before an investigation could be triggered ("an astronomical amount of suspicion," since you're conflating accusations and investigations), then an investigation could only occur when there was enough evidence to convict, which couldn't happen without an investigation.

Moreover, you don't want accusations/investigations without "an astronomical amount of suspicion," yet you bridle at the notion of wrongful suspicion. If the suspect is innocent, you would only have them accused if an astronomical amount of wrongful suspicion was directed at them, despite insisting that wrongful suspicion is harmful. Better to investigate when there is only a little suspicion in order to quickly quash any cases wrongful suspicion then to let that wrongful suspicion fester and grow to "astronomical amounts" as you now say you want it to. Your statements, taken together, render each other incoherent.

Let's also remember that the moderator who engaged in the practice--Virt--was told to desist, so the situation won't repeat itself. This makes it even more absurd that you are continuing to blather aimlessly. Not only are your accusations against me unfounded, as I did not commit the act you are objecting to, but your concerns (devoid of worth though they are) have already been addressed to the extent they are addressable. 

Ultimately, you've said nothing of value here, and have instead made arguments which are obviously specious and without merit. I will not be engaging with you here further, because all you have to say is precisely nothing. Remember that this is the sum total of your argument:

You guys need to desist. 

@Anal, 

Please do not send me any more messages. I will have to consult with moderation, if you do. You have a history of stalking people — including myself — and on this site that kind of behaviour is not tolerated. 

(http://i.imgur.com/FUG5H3S.jpg)

Lol people being stalked don't follow their stalkers around on forums.

Everyone can see your post history, Zeichen -- you're not fooling anyone.

Now shush. Bsh has had enough of this nonsense.

If you don’t want to receive messages from her, just block her.

There was at least a month gap between her activity on both accounts. She simply just forgot to close her Zarroette account.

I have blocked him. 

I have no additional accounts and never have so my comment is completely pointless, but I am posting to say that if you do not hold a gun to Mike's head and demand that he allow links in Propaganda announcements I am not taking the trouble with another of your url's are we PRIMITIVES.

I was accused also, because of an accoubt that was opened about a month prior to the accusation for and which never even made a post. Tge accoubt wasn't mine but even if it was, there was literally no harm in an open unused account just sitting there needlessly. It's my sister in laws account so hopefully it has bot been closed, in case she does want to do more than just be a rail bird at some point. To say it does no harm is silly. I was investigated by the FBI because I was reading a large amount of books on how national security operates and I assure you it has made me more self conscious of my actions. So the accusations do have an effect. Most people want to remain above suspicion and are incredibly self conscious when not. Alsp you are just about wrong on every account above. Police investigations do not erase wrongful suspicion. More often than not they increase it. Just look at reddit during the early stages of a widely known crime. Anyone questioned by police is getting phonecalls from anonymous strangers making threats and interrogating them. As if the threats from police were not enough. So not o ly do you behave more self consciously the people who know you begin to look at you with suspicion. I understand operating with respect to and an assumption of innocence wll mean more guilty people get away with crime that prosecutions may be slashed by about 90% but it would almost entirely eradicate false convictions which still to this day occur. What this has to do with modding is that we should eradicate all forms of injustice everywhere which will not only prevent many of the small injustices that take place but may also spark bigger decisions that influende justice. I ask you again what is your aim in modding? What is your number one value when it comes to modding, and if you don't know you should. When at work my number one goal is to maximize profit. When around people I care about my number one goal is to never ever do any possible action which could possibly cause even a tiny bit of harm. My goal when gambling is to always make the mathematically correct play. You need to have a number one focus so you can be sure that goal comes firsr and at the expense of every other thing. 

In your case, there was an IP match. More than enough reason to justify an investigation. And while Virt handled that exchange, merely asking questions is not accusing. It's investigating.