User Accounts Policy Discussion

Author: Barney
MEEP
Accounts
Feedback

Posts

Total: 11
Topic's author
#1
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,462
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
I'm seeking feedback on a couple issues, to determine what the general user base would prefer (results of this may end up in a MEEP).

Users may only have one account active at a time. I have worked hard to be respectful of the multitude of reasons someone may wish to switch accounts, and not be the person who says X is now Y. However there's no clear rule for what us moderators should do.

Worse, there are users who are strongly suspected of being previous users. I have generally clarified if there are no credential matches, but this gets into an ugly area when there are such matches but the person privately insists it's a coincidence. I have stuck to advising users to not talk to so-and-so if they're worried, but I have refused to outright share the match; I do however tell the other to keep their distance:
Regarding X,

I must ask that you strictly minimize any interaction with them. Without knowledge of your matching credentials to a certain former user, they identified you as said user; to which there was a very negative and prolonged experience.

There is no loss to this situation, since if you are not that person, then you have no investment with the aforementioned user. If you are whom they believe you to be, then ignoring them will help avoid old habits from which you wish to differentiate yourself.

Out of respect for privacy, the credentials match has not been revealed.

A related problem is when there is a strong match, but the connection is denied, we have not banned the former accounts. It's a damned nuisance. For this I would like to have a simple policy of the suspicion creating a light RO between the connected accounts, and if asked we openly tell people the details of the match with a clarifying statement that it may be a coincidence. ... Whereas if they admit to the connection, their privacy is maintained, but we moderators can properly use context from their past actions and relationships.

So what say you? I'm open to any ideas.
Topic's author
#2
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,462
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
A related matter, how do you all feel about privacy of reports?

I would like to be open and transparent on who is doing the reporting. There's even been a couple times I have come very close to revoking reporting privileges (such as the reports which inspired this thread).
#3
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Barney
I dont envy mods this problem.  I have some sense of how persistent, even compulsive some users can be when trying to get away with multi-accounts.  Ultimately, the only real arenas for harm are in voting, gaming, and leaderboards. 

  • I can't think of a solution for leaderboards but the harms seems fairly minimal.  A user might improve his short term debate rating by resetting his  position but that's not likely to make him a better debater.  Reset offers no improvement for most of the leaderboard stats, which elevate cumulative contributions.
  • In gaming, a single user running multiple players is an obvious cheat.  I think the creator of the game controls the rules and should be free to prohibit any player from any game of that creator's making for any reason, including unsubstantiated suspicions.  I would have no problem with moderators who discretely share their strong suspicions regarding a user with the maker of any game for the purposes of exclusion or even just monitoring.  No user has a right to participate in games just because they are a user in good standing on the site.
  • In debate voting, manufacturing extra voters for the purpose of modifying the vote outcome is an obvious cheat.  Fortunately, the subset of active voters is fairly small at present so we might hope that any preferential voting by users who are also strongly suspected of multi-accounting should be fairly evident under current circumstance. 
    • I think such a suspect may be reasonably advised to refrain from preferential voting and if a second instance is detected prohibited from voting altogether for a probationary period (say, 3 months).  Such a prohibition might allow us more time to recognize multi-users by language, habits, oversights, etc.
      • New violations after probation should qualify for site restrictions.
  • User testimony regarding their own conduct is generally unfalsifiable and so makes a poor standard on which to base user membership.  If Mods have good reason to suspect some multi-accounter, I think mods let them know and judge them based on their conduct on this site.  Any multi-account worth using has to eventually engage in conduct that should expose the violation over time.  Those who don't try to take advantage in games and voting aren't really much of a problem.

#4
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Barney
If a report is evaluated as spurious or tactical, the reporter should be advised and cautioned.  More than say, 3 spurious reports in a ten day period might qualify for site restrictions.
Topic's author
#5
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,462
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@oromagi
As usual, well said.


leaderboards
I personally don't mind people resetting their score. As much as it seems fairly pointless, for the reasons you said.


gaming
I'm only familiar with one instance of concern regarding this. It was not multi-accounting, but it did harm a couple games of mafia as moderation side players limited their speech when a claimed new player was being suspicious...


voting
Thankfully in the last six months, I can only think of one potential violation of this, and at that it was a low impact violation (no attempt to sway the outcome).


User testimony
Any thoughts on the related issue of stalking? As a more minor example, we've had at least one person create new accounts at least in part to tag people again after they blocked him.


report
Do you believe who issued which reports should be kept private? Something which frequently happens right now, is third party reports from outside the conversation; which gives the reported person reason to believe the other person reported them (via all the green reports handled which begin to appear). ... Don't get me wrong, some such reports are very good, but it can still distort perceptions inside a conversation.
#6
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
All I can say is that I remember that YYW guy and he was a total asshole.  
#7
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Any thoughts on the related issue of stalking? As a more minor example, we've had at least one person create new accounts at least in part to tag people again after they blocked him.

I don't care whether there's evidence of multi-accounts in this case or not.  A new user who jumps on and immediately starts some unwanted over-engagement should be quickly cautioned and ejected upon persistence.  It seems a core necessity of a debate site to have thick black lines between the artificial controversies, objections, insults of a well-engaged debate and the brotherhood of debaters that should guide our conduct outside of debate.  We're not looking for new debaters who mistake harassment for argument and our fuse ought to be short with those new users who can't demonstrate their understanding of that difference.

Do you believe who issued which reports should be kept private? Something which frequently happens right now, is third party reports from outside the conversation; which gives the reported person reason to believe the other person reported them (via all the green reports handled which begin to appear). ... Don't get me wrong, some such reports are very good, but it can still distort perceptions inside a conversation.
I'd live by Moderator's discretion, I suppose.  If Mods are convinced some user is merely abusing reports to razz some other user then that the abuser loses the presumption of any courtesy of  anonymity.   If Mods suppose a little public humiliation might tame the troll, have at it.  However, I think Mods position on reports should default to privacy, with the privilege of publicizing  abuse or overuse as a means of improving the focus and quality of genuine problem reporting.
#8
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
I think this stems from the conversation we had earlier in the Kaepernick thread. We need to more strictly define multi accounting. It should not be considered multi accounting if 2 people who inhabit the same body have 2 different accounts , right now according to what I have been told, siamese twins would have to hold the same account t because they reside in the same body. This is prejudicial towards them as well as those of us who have multiple personality disorder, are demon possessed or who are practiced in the art of tulpamancy. Also if some sort of body switch frequently occurs such as  a "freaky friday" scenario it is also prejudicial towards those individuals.  A freaky friday even that is non recurring may be no big deal but if it happens frequently than there is no reason the people should have to share accounts merely because a new person resides in the body 
Topic's author
#9
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,462
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Singularity
I think this stems from the conversation we had earlier in the Kaepernick thread.
It does not.
#10
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
From my understanding of the coc. Multi accounts is ban worthy. If you suspect a link and more than 2 people recognize the typing or conduct of the person to connect them, thats solid enough evidence for murder cases. Just ban em if 2 or more people are convienced its the same person, unless they apologize and you see attempts at reform.

Or at the very least. Tell them to pick an account and ban the other ones.

#11
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Barney
A related matter, how do you all feel about privacy of reports?

I would like to be open and transparent on who is doing the reporting. There's even been a couple times I have come very close to revoking reporting privileges (such as the reports which inspired this thread).

The issue in the OP is complex and I have put very little thought into it, therefore I have no opinion on it. On this issue however I do have an opinion. I think that reports which fulfill both of the following should become open reports to discourage report harassment:

1) Blatantly unmerited due to the reported post being very obviously not a violation (borderline cases where it would be reasonable to think the reporting party could conceivably have incorrectly believed it to be a violation would not fit this requirement).

2) More than one of the reports are from the same user and frequent in nature (an exact definition for the word 'frequent', if one is even necessary, would probably be something like once a month or more).

Anything fulfilling one of these requirements but not the other should remain confidential in my opinion. Though I am sympathetic to the fact that these might be annoying for the mods even if they fulfill only the first I don't think that should be enough to reveal the identity of the reporting party.