What constitutes in real life information and what is the punishment?

[_Trevor]

As I interpret this rule, sock-puppets cannot be revealed. In my opinion this constitutes behind-the-scenes information. Am I interpreting this too broadly, or is this correct?

[_Yoda]

As I interpret this rule, sock-puppets cannot be revealed. In my opinion this constitutes behind-the-scenes information. Am I interpreting this too broadly, or is this correct?

You are correct.

Also, only Moderators have the ability to see IP matchings, and definitively know who is using what sock puppet. As Moderators, we are under solid obligation to keep sock puppets confidential.

[_marg]

As I interpret this rule, sock-puppets cannot be revealed. In my opinion this constitutes behind-the-scenes information. Am I interpreting this too broadly, or is this correct?

You are correct.

Also, only Moderators have the ability to see IP matchings, and definitively know who is using what sock puppet. As Moderators, we are under solid obligation to keep sock puppets confidential.

I was under the impression that Shades had left the decision making to the board on this whole business or in real life information and behind the scenes information, that it was to be a democratic process, rather than his or any moderator's decision making. And yet it appears you and/or Shades have made a decision 're "sock-puppets" are not to be revealed'. I don't have any problems with whatever decision is to be decided, but it doesn't appear to be have been done democratically. Most of the time sock-puppets are light hearted fun, but it is possible that sometimes it would not be and I see little reason that under all circumstances they should be protected.

If Trevor & maybe a buddy or 2 of his (as a for instance) decide to set up a sock-puppet in order to harass Scratch and Scratch finds out via pm what is going on, why on earth can't he blow the whistle on malicious game playing? Why would he be punished when he's simply protecting himself and letting the board know the sort of game playing going on if that is what was happening?

If I was a Mormon, I wouldn't want to participate on a board which is heavily stacked with critics which protects critics in their possibly game playing against me. Someone like DCP (as a for instance) should never if he's got any sense post here under such circumstances.

[_MCB]

If I was a Mormon, I wouldn't want to participate on a board which is heavily stacked with critics which protects critics in their possibly game playing against me. Someone like DCP (as a for instance) should never if he's got any sense post here under such circumstances.

Given the support that the -10's give me, I won't even question who and where they are. Or who enjoys the protections of MPD.

[_Yoda]

Marg---

Good grief...Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

All I was trying to say was that although Mods know for a fact who sock puppets belong to, we feel an obligation to the board to keep this knowledge to ourselves.

Leave it to you to turn something that I think should be seen as a positive courtesy into some type of negative conspiracy.

(I would insert a roll eyes emoticon here if I wasn't posting from my phone).

[_Dr. Shades]

Would what happened to Eric be covered under this rule?

I don't exactly know what you mean by "covered," but I think you're referring to punishment for what DCP and rcrocket did to Eric. The answer is no, neither one would receive punishment, since this board is considered to be hermetically sealed from the outside world when it comes to in real life information, in both directions. In other words, if anyone revealed Eric's true identity here, then yes, that person would be punished. But meddling with it elsewhere would garner no punishment, since, again, when it comes to this rule, this board is to be considered hermetically sealed from the outside world.

Besides, let's think about it: Wouldn't we want both of them to be around in order to account for their actions? To be available to field questions from the rest of us?

As I interpret this rule, sock-puppets cannot be revealed. In my opinion this constitutes behind-the-scenes information. Am I interpreting this too broadly, or is this correct?

You're interpreting it too broadly. Sock-puppets cannot be revealed by those "in-the-know." They can most assuredly be guessed at and discussed by everyone else otherwise lacking behind-the-scenes information.

[_Trevor]

They can most assuredly be guessed at and discussed by everyone else otherwise lacking behind-the-scenes information.

OK.

[_Paul Osborne]

Rambo:

I have received permission from Lord Anubis to reveal the fact that he is absolutely **NOT** a sock puppet of Paul Osborne.

Thank you for clearing this up. I AM PAUL OSBORNE and none else!!!!

I swear by the throne of God that I am not the lord Anubis. I swear by Satan. I swear by my own throat! I swear by anything and I will cut my own head off if I'm found to be lying.

Paul O

[_Mica Hunt]

Bite my wire.

I would advise against trying this. My toddler bit a wire one time and was electrocuted. Thankfully, it was mild.

[_Lord Anubis]

How do you know this shades? I would think most people on the board would agree with me. Paul always seems to post after Lord Anubis. Oh well I was just having some fun :)

FOOLISH CANADIAN! YOUR MIND IS TOO CORRUPTED BY INDULGING IN KRAFT DINNER AND BACK BACON TO RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH!

RENOUNCE YOUR INSULTS AGAINST THE GODS, LIKE YOUR SO-CALLED BOOK OF ABRAHAM! AND HOCKEY!

MY PATIENCE IS GREAT, OH ONE CALLED RAMBO, BUT IT IS NOT INFINITE!