I am suspending an account for sock-puppetry--manipulation of supposedly separate member accounts--for two weeks (until Nov. 9). The user is a longtime member of the community, with a lot of books and has engaged in a lot of conversations. Much of this has been valuable to the community. We want such members. But they cannot pervert the system.
There is no doubt as to the facts. Most non-web-industry people are unaware that computers and browsers, while they don't send "personal information" about you, they do send quite a lot of meta-information that can be used to establish correlations between accounts. There are perhaps 20 relevant data points, and they ALL match up. I could prove in a court of law that the accounts all use the same computer. If the member in question protests that he uses a computer in a rooming house, he should wonder how everyone at the rooming house also used the same
account password.
Sock puppetry comes in various forms. The worst, I think, is using sock puppets to flag others' posts--to shout someone down wrongly. I don't see that here, and that's a relief. But the various accounts engaged in all sorts of manipulation. Some of the accounts pretended to
opposite opinions, and attacked each other, drawing others into the melee. This is very low business. As a user of the site, I am disgusted. As administrator, I must protect other members from such actions.
LibraryThing almost never bans someone outright. We even only suspended the guy who threatened me physically. Like Wikipedia, we err on the side of inviting participation. That said, the member only narrowly escaped removal for this offense alone. Any attempts to undermine this decision, for example by signing in under another name, will result in being banned from the site for life, and any future Terms of Service offenses will be treated most seriously as well.
LibraryThing is a very free and open community. As discussed elsewhere, we do not police content, but only personal attacks between members. We want members to have the sort of communication they could have in the real world, with their neighbors , not a limited subset, like that allowed between co-workers. But real exchanges must take place between real people, in a real community. Perverting this rule strikes at the core of the community, of members' trust and of my vision for the site.
Most importantly, this sort of thing wastes my time. I was going to spend the evening fixing bugs and improving features, but I was drawn into this sideshow. The community should know that members like this do everyone else a disservice.
Sincerely,
Tim
Message edited by its author, Oct 26, 2009, 10:29pm.
Aw, not Tuber the Global Joker! He was yanking my chain a bit, but no way would I wish him plugout. Who was he? He had no books as Tuber.
Oh, Tuber, Tuber, scarcely did we know ye! If you see this, drink a pint to my health, and don't forget to harass the barmaid!
edited to English my French--no, really, FRENCH--a littleMessage edited by its author, Oct 26, 2009, 10:41pm.
A-haa! My detective skills, second to none, and third only to the mystery-solving cat, have discovered another user unplugged: TURPENTINE! The same person? Jolly Tuber and Sarah Palin's innamorato? That would explain his attraction to me--no, wait, it wouldn't.
Ah, the complexity that is sockpuppetkind.
Frankly, I'm astounded that Abby would do such a thing. She always seemed so nice. Never really said much to anyone. Just kind of kept to herself.
It's the quiet ones you have to watch the most *G*
Contact Sarge, Bob, and Oakes and ask them about it.
6>
Those, like
this one, are almost certainly typos on sign-in, or someone misremembering their name, rather than attempts at impersonation.
Jesse,
The owner of that middle one was quite active here when I first joined almost three years ago. He was actually the first person to send a message to me. He doesn't fit the profile of a sockpuppeteer.
There's an empty account quite similar in name to my own. It was a typo done by MrsHouseLibrary quite a long time ago, and despite the fact that it has otherwise never been used, it persists. I hope that doesn't make you think that I would stoop to sockpuppeteering.
Golly! I think I just created two new words!
All three gentlemen are active members in good standing, and honorable men besides. Gotta be typos.
10>
I think the concern in #6 was not that Oakes or AsYouKnowBob were nefarious sockpuppeteers, but that someone was trying to impersonate them.
I'm happy to look at violations, but I believe most of these--and three you gave me--are just mistakes. If you recall, the site originally made it very easy to create new accounts. Even now, people sometimes do it. It's not sock puppetry if the sock is your face.
>6, Don't know the other people, but I too can vouch for Bob.
>11
Looking at the account details, they were trying to impersonate themselves. Impersonators don't know your password and use your IP address.
Gotcha. And yes, #11 summarised the concern.
14>
Yeah, I know. I don't think that -- which is what I said back in #8 -- but I was trying to describe what I thought #6's concern was.
But they cannot pervert the system.Of course the System must always come first...... God bless the System. We are all its servants. We commit to the System. The System rules!
(people of course are completely irrelevant)
Long live the System, incorruptible and pure. System, we devote ourselves to you!
(And I thought LT was the last bastion of individualistic humanism in depersonalised age....obviously wrong about that....)
Gentleman, and Ladies, I give you: The System!....Long live the System etc etc
Message edited by its author, Oct 27, 2009, 12:26am.
Tim,
I can understand why you didn't like the examples of sock puppetry you presented above, but I'm still not certain why you see "multiple characters" as a problem. And another issue, originally I created a wishlist account. Should I delete the account since we now have a folders option for that sort of thing? Might we have an LT option whereby we could create "fictional characters" who carry on storylines, etc.? I once asked you about this in a private email.
No, you needn't delete a wishlist account. I think the essence of the sockpuppet is what you do with the puppet--move you hand and pretend to talk. So long as you confined it and labelled it well, so people weren't confused, I see no insurmountable problem with fictional characters.
Ultimately, I don't want to get into better and worse uses of sock puppets. It gets into content I shouldn't have to investigate, and probably wouldn't do well. I can, however, often tell when someone is engaging in it. I know of no site that allows sockpuppetry.
I think the deeper justification would be this: sock puppets undermine people's assumption that people on LibraryThing are people in the real world too. This person had nine personas, with maybe 150 messages between them. (Most were from two.) Sometimes they appeared on the same thread. LibraryThing would be a very different place if users could not generally count on a thread with four apparently posters with different opinions really being a monologue. It would be different in the way that computers designed to write plausible reviews would make the review system different. And it would be different in the way that cocktail parties would be different if paying people to show up and say what you want them to say become common. All this gets worse when features come into play. Features are designed around people, not personae. This person had flags on six accounts--and a high total--and gave flags with two. It would become much harder to deal with high-flag accounts if users felt entitled to create as many personas as necessary to spread the flags around.
Message edited by its author, Oct 27, 2009, 12:47am.
Was the user in question talking to himself outside of the Going Rogue group he created? I concluded fairly quickly that this group was an attempt at political satire and that several of the posters were in on it, if not the same person. If the sock-puppetry was confined to that group it strikes me rather harmless. It's something else if he was using the same methods to stir up trouble in real groups.
However, I can see how Tim would want to apply the rules in either case.
However, I can see how Tim would want to apply the rules in either case.
So can I. I think I've laid down pretty clear markers about this topic.
Hmmm... while not engaged in sockpuppetry - I accidentally posted once (a bug report) from a secondary account (my intention was to have all talk posts come from this account, I got confuse/lostd).
Perhaps on our profiles we could have a section under "Connections" that was titled "related accounts" - accounts where the "relevant data points all match up. That way, anyone who questioned/wondered/cared enough - could double check (if this is too complicated, not automatable, then nevermind).
If you don't want people to know the contents of your wishlist (or whatever) then then second account could be "private".
For full disclosure - the name on our second account is PetruchioLong. For the time-being this is a private account.
PetruchioLong: Very sneaky!
Tim,
What would you consider to be appropriate labeling? If one is creating fictional characters, for example, it spoils the fun if people know who the puppeteer is. The guessing and the joking add to the fun, particularly if they're not saying mean things to one another under the cover of being real people. It really doesn't take long to figure out who is real and who is not. If one is a serious reader, one can tell a lot by another person's library and how that library matches up with the comments the person makes. I've ended up meeting some of my LT friends in real time, even visiting them.
P.S. I miss the Naughty Hottie.
I've ended up meeting some of my LT friends in real time, even visiting them.
Wouldn't it be weird if you planned a dinner party for them all, and they turned out to be one person? ;)
Wouldn't it be weird if you planned a dinner party for them all, and they turned out to be one person? ;)
Well, there would be plenty of leftovers, so I wouldn't have to cook for a while, which would be nice ;-)
Okay,
Think of Jasper fforde's books. Fictional "real" characters like Thursday Next interact with characters from "real" fiction. Sometimes the characters from the world of fiction escape into the "real" world and vice versa. It's fun. It's fiction. Welcome to the dinner party. There's room at the table for all! Even you Tim :-)
I know this is ~so~ out of character for me...
I miss catalog_theLTcat.
*Edited to make the name syntactically correct.
Message edited by its author, Oct 27, 2009, 1:41am.
Oh no. We used to have an LT cat? Tim, every community needs a cat if only to keep track of all those people manipulating their mice in computerworld.
I trust that allowances are made for dissociative identity disorder.
I would like to go out on a limb and say something that will offend the LibraryThing base more seriously than any political, religious or literary comment I've ever made:
I don't like cats. I'm allergic to them. And I don't like them either. They don't love you enough. They are lazy. They are scary. They tick me off. Cats suck.
Let the exodus begin!
A kindered spirit! (Full disclosure - I have no allergies to them. I'm just not a Pet Person.)
Don't worry. I'm sure cats don't like you either.
The horrible thing is that my 3 year-old son, who is the most loving soul on earth, loves cats and ignores dogs. The cats ignore him and the dogs try to lick his face but aren't allowed. Another reason to hate cats.
Tim,
I knew it. You're my long lost evil twin. When the our darling Chatty Catty came back for the 47th time (after you had thrown her out 47 times in various states of mutilation and trauma), you mysteriously vanished. All mother and I could find were tufts of fur on the carpet in your bedroom.
urania
P.S. Chatty Catty is still alive and sends her regards.
Ciao miao
Murrushka my love,
We must stop meeting like this. People will start to think we're socking up.
3: Ah - the guy who was always pretending to be English. I did wonder....
v
#31 - Oh, the humanity...
#31, I'm sure cat-hating is specifically prohibited in the TOS ... isn't it ... if my cat joins LT does that mean they could flag you ... or would you have to refer to them by name ...
Although, I have to say that #34 just kind of tugged at the heart strings a bit ;-)
#39 - I'm quite sure it is. I believe now is the appropriate time to begin posting pictures of Cat Sock Puppets all over LT.
#40 - I feel you could well be right ...
Add to the list: cats torture their victims. They really are sadistic little assholes. But in the course of my life I've grown very fond of several.
krolik, judging by your species, I'm not surprised that you think that ;-)
Sock puppet or actual cat? You decide.
Have we successfully derailed Tim's 'serious business' thread yet?
And now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast...
The really funny thing is, the cats don't care that Tim doesn't like them. They feed on it.
#49 - I believe his soul is near the top of their Harvest List.
I'm quite new to the web and not very knowledgeable about it. You can have no idea how intriguing I found the title of this thread - and how disappointing once I'd actually read it.
>51 Were you expecting a racier kind of sock puppet? They probably do exist.
NO, NO, PLEASE--NO PHOTOS!
Where's your sense of adventure?
I suppose I'd sign onto a member's only sock puppet group.
Will. Not. Google. Sock. Puppet. Fetish.
#55 Sorry Jesse, once you put the idea in my mind I couldn't resist it. And found this -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyErh8TTBJ0
>44
Yes, they're just like me. So we get along quite well.
Tim: are you also allergic to stuffed bobcats?
This message has been deleted by its author.
Ah, rankamateur. That is just so wrong on so many levels.
And so funny.
Pineapple! Pineapple!
That's just sick and sinister. And more than a little silly.
Just don't Google pink sock. Trust me. Really.
Sounds like a euphemism for something that I don't want to follow up on.
>63 Bingo. I've learned far more than I've wanted working for ChaCha.
Oh, that's nothing. You had me scared for a second.
#39 Sorry, cat children under 13 are prohibited from using LibraryThing. Check the TOS.
#66 Cat turned 14 this year ... ROFL LOLZ ... wud really like to meet other cats to discuss little know cat novel Twilight ...
>65 If that's nothing, I'm too scared to ask what you think something is. :D
#69
There are definitely some things that I can only say that I wish had never entered my field of vision.
68: As far as I know, parents can setup accounts for their kids. Kids can't use LT on their own (officially).
#71 - Yes I was allowed to create an account for Babyreadseverything's books but I have to be the one to maintain it for him until he is 13 and I've never used it to post messages in talk, although if he particularly seems to enjoy a book (he's 7 months old so I have to judge by how much he laughs or tries to eat a book) I will rate and review it under his account name.
I have a second username. She's for uploading pics of books I don't have. :)
I hate to be completely dense here, but I'm a newbie and am somewhat confused.
Can someone explain exactly what "sock-puppetry" is? I gather it is some form of going incognito on the board, but in order to do what? Why would anyone bother doing this?
Will this person be back? Are the suspended temporarily or are they gone for good?
It seems that there are legitimate cases in which you could have a second account: wishlist-only account, kid's account, etc. Are there any others?
Just trying to understand all this...
As mentioned in the first line of the original post (OP), the particular offender will be allowed back on the site on 9-Nov.
There are several people who have more than one account here, but that is not the issue. It's more of a question of ~how~ the account is being used. In this case it might have been used for spamming, or using particularly aggressive comments directed at another member. These are both violations of the Terms of Service, and Tim (this is Tim's site) has been more than even-handed about keeping the peace here.
I'm not sure of the particulars of the suspension, but I've blocked out several Groups where the chatter gets too offensive for my taste. I've also blocked certain users.
Oh! Welcome to Library Thing! I hope you enjoy your use of the site!
Sock puppetry is using a second account to make it seems as though it is a second person. Like if you were involved in an argument on one of the forums and you used the second account to make it seem like someone else supports you.
That's right.
I agree with #77.
>#78: sock puppetry for idiots.
Edited to clarify: the above statement was meant to indicate that post #78 is an example of an idiot doing sock-puppetry, as in, "sock puppetry: yur doin it wrong.". It was not intended to suggest in any way that the question back in post #72 was idiotic. I don't know if anyone interpreted it that way, but on re-reading i realised that there was a danger of being misconstrued. Therefore i added this explanation in order to avoid any risk of inadvertent offence.
There. Much better.
Light humour: yur doin it wrong.Message edited by its author, Oct 27, 2009, 7:05pm.
>#79: you take that back!
Mr A, I think you might have missed a teeny bit of the 'different accounts' part of the sockpuppetry definition.
what people don't know is, justjim is actually my sockpuppet. shhhh.
I am not. I am an Induhvidual, I am!
What's another word for using two straws?
(pop-sucketry)
sorry.
Message edited by its author, Oct 27, 2009, 6:54pm.
"We are ALL individuals"...
Sorry I'm late to the party (...and my apologies for putting this conversation back on track...) but my ears were burning since Jesse's comment #6.
Yes, that account was a simple typo. (Back in the old days of 'ought six, you could type any string of characters at all, type in any password, and LT would simply create a new account to match.)
Thanks to those (WholeHouseLibrary, MerryMary, lorax, fannyprice, etc.) who chimed in to defend my existence and my character.
bob is also my sockpuppet.
(Sssshhh!)
85> "We are ALL individuals"...
I'm not!
When my mom told me I was unique.
"I am not a 'nique!" *wails*
When I told my daughter to behave, she wailed, "I'm bein' hayve."
#85 Wot, both of me?
Message edited by its author, Oct 28, 2009, 7:38am.
Are there any bending of rules if a user has genuine
MPDDID? Not that I have
MPDDID. Just curious what the case would be if Jekyll_Phd and EdHyde turned out to be the same user, unknowing of such.
Edited to use more appropriate term.Message edited by its author, Oct 28, 2009, 12:15pm.
93> Good point. Though in today's psychiatric parlance, MPD is now identified as DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder). I personally think PFD (Personality Fragmentation Disorder) is a more accurate description of the malady myself, since it is one personality that has divided (or fragmented, if you will) into multiple parts making up one personality, rather than the one personality multiplying into many distinct and separate personalities.
I'm curious as to what libraries Jekyll_Phd and EdHyde might possess indepdently of each other. Or would the same books be input but with different ratings? At last, Tim, we've discovered a place where ratings are meaningful.
Since an LT library seems to be defined as "books with which you have a relationship" rather than "books which you own" there could be significant differences even if they would use the same physical library.
>95.
Perhaps Jekyll_Phd has many books on chemistry he keeps locked in a cabinet, while EdHyde has fitness books (etc.) that he keeps hidden under the bed. There would be some overlap of the bookcases in the reading room, though perhaps the specific data would differ between libraries (J might be very retentive about getting the specific EDITION right, while H might just only care that the cover is correct).
Stars would only be useful, though, if both identities rated them the same. It's not out of the question that they could both use very skewed star ratings systems (J could rate the book with 1 star being good, and 5 stars being perfect, while H could rate a book as 1 star being unreadable, and 5 stars being okay).
Keep in mind that though these two identities share the same home, computer, and body, they're VERY DIFFERENT people.
True. Setting aside the DID issues, I'm not sure the sockpuppets did anything wrong. Shouldn't the TOS not ban sockpuppets that hurl invective at each other, since they are not really invectivizing an "other" poster, but rather themselves? When in doubt, isn't it best to sit on our hands.
96, 97 -- Does anyone know of DID posters here? I'd like to see how these issues play out in an actual case. I see what you are each saying IN THEORY.
Message edited by its author, Oct 28, 2009, 1:53pm.
> 98: Not a clue about actual DID posters, but with c. 1,000,000 users worldwide there are bound to be some.
Does each personality get his/her own credit card?
>100.
That's an interesting question. My first inclination is to say no, unless they both can establish unique identities for themselves, as in the US, you generally need a SSN to get a credit card. But LT memberships, e-mail accounts, and the like, don't require that level of identification.
>99.
According to a 2006 study (Foote et al.), DID has a 6-10% prevalence in the US.
>31: yes all the way back there! I tried to let it go, but I can't!!!!
Tim, I hope this is not against the TOS:
http://www.cafepress.com/+real_men_love_...Cats are loyal, lovable, warm, OK lazy, but also they have a wonderful sense of humor.
LT would greatly benefit from having its own cat.
http://www.ironfrog.com/catsmap.html{goes back to work feeling huffy...}
k4k
Message edited by its author, Oct 28, 2009, 4:37pm.
Hey, i brought up DID back in #30. Or one of me did, anyway.
Skimmers.
Tim cleverly distracted everyone from this conundrum by bagging cats (so to speak).
I think Jekyll would have Hyde blocked, so there would be unlikely to start insulting or flagging each other.
>#102: loyal? LOYAL? And yes, they have a sense of humour. Like God has a sense of humour.
#101 - "6-10% prevalence in the US" - I think the figures were based on a survey of psychiatric outpatients, not one of the population at large.
>103 - I think my other self read that, not me. It happens some times.
My other self likes cats, but he's crazy.
Don't be starting rumors, Mr.A.
>103
Well, cats are gods, so, it kind of follows, doesn't it.
>105
Nothing wrong with crazy. Useful in dealing with all those painfully normal folks I keep running into.
Message edited by its author, Oct 28, 2009, 9:03pm.
>#106: what, that Tim bags cats? Maybe it's not a rumour...
Speaking of rumours, I heard that krazy4katz has a sockpuppet account called DID4cats.
Cats hate sockpuppets; they'll chew their little button eyes right off.
Just for the record, Tim is wrong about cats and Liam is right. They'll come around to him when he's a bit older.
:P
v
>111 Started! Bottom of left-hand column.
108>
"Speaking of rumours, I heard that krazy4katz has a sockpuppet account called DID4cats."
I might, but how would I know?
A friend of mine with DID, although not a LT member, does have an account at another site I'm on, and all her personalities share that account. Different text colors and ways of speaking make it fairly obvious who is who... There have been times when one hasn't liked the icon choice of another, etc, but I think for the most part sharing an account works okay. (Of course, it also helps that all the members of the forum are very open and understand, and most personas feel comfortable posting there).
>#113: You told me. Don't you remember?
>115: Remember what? Who are you, anyway?
>103.
Sorry, Mr. Andrew. In my defense, before Mr. Freeque pointed it out, I didn't realize that DID was the new MPD. I blame my DPD.
And for the record, I have two tortoise shell cats who actively try to ignore me, unless I'm ignoring them. I'll be reading, and suddenly, there's a cat sitting on my book, purring in my face.
117>
That's a manifestation of the Feline Anti-Literacy Conspiracy. Maybe that's why Tim doesn't like 'em.
#117 aethercowboy - it's amazing how cats need to sit on the book you're trying to read. Of all the square feet in a house available to sit on, it has to be that exact spot, doesn't it?
It's worse if I have any "important document" (that is, any piece of paper I seem to be reading) on the floor. Of all the square feet of soft carpet or cozy chairs and beds or warm sunbeams or cool tile, it's always the paper they seem to like to recline on.
I used to hate cats until I adopted one. I think they know hypnotism.
Also, for all you cat lovers: read
Cat Getting Out of a Bag and Other Observations. It's funny, because it's true.
look at it from the cat's p.o.v.:
when you are working at your computer or reading your book, it appears to them that you are worshiping the computer or the book.
when you are worshiping your computer or your book, you are not worshiping your cat, which is of highest priority.
they are just reminding you of the error or your actions. redirecting you to worship them.
WARNING: if you don't change your ways & worship the cat more than the book or the computer, the cat may render your computer or book "unworshipable" by using it as a substitute litter box.
My Maine Coon cat, with her giant fluffy tail will sit on top of my computer & let her tail hang over the screen & while I am trying to see the screen, what I see instead is this giant black tail swishing back & forth.
120: Thanks for the recommendation, aethercowboy. This book just went on my wishlist.
Also, I apologize to MrA for any rudeness. I got carried away with the whole theatricality of hijacking the thread.
Message edited by its author, Oct 29, 2009, 1:20pm.
Yes cats are loyal. When I was small our cat sliced open a babysitter who upset me, and she would also go after my parents if they tried to spank me.
We think she thought she was my mother, though we got her as a small stray kitten when I was 2-3. She of course became an adult very quickly, while I stayed small.
I also enjoyed
The Theory of Cat Gravity by Robin Wood. It explains a lot.
Casual acquaintance cats are more likely accept Liam when he is older, because small kids are unstable on their feet compared to adults, impulsive, and often loud.
If you have a family cat, then he or she will get used to and hopefully grow to love him.
um. an unexpected plethora of apologies. Please accept my embarrassed thanks. I wasn't really offended at any stage, sorry if it came off that way.
># 117: silly of me to type DID without any explanation. I did do that, didn't I? Or rather, I did.
heh. Mr. Freeque. If he was a superhero, he'd be SuperFreeque.
>#123: was that you apologising, or was it you? or you? I lose track.
I like how Tim's official thread has become a cat stories thread. That'll teach him.
>122 Hehe... I skimmed your post too fast and thought I read "Main Moon cat," which is the name of a Chinese restaurant in town and one of its alleged dishes.
For Tim: A Loyal Cat.
And hypo-allergenic, too!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-CHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
#129: Bless You!!
Matt! You old erm, dog!
So cute! But naughty... oh dear, the tags! The Tags!!!
#31 ... Cats suck.
You, Sir, are a sick pippet, emm, a sock poppet, .. a suck puppet, oh shucks!
>120 - That book is fantastic.
LMBFAO!~!~!
>131
"Chewed but unowned" sounds like the dog I had when I was a kid. Add in a love of swimming, and a taste for cheese (and horse poo), and I'd say she was reincarnated or something.
> 138: Bingo on all three accounts.
> 139
Congratulations! You're the proud person of a reincarnated yellow lab. ;)
Just keep clear of horse barns.
I'll try, but I live near the Royal Stables and they do take the horses for walkies.
You might be interested to know she's now a Kangal / Doberman mix.
Sorta like taking dogs walkies?
I suppose the breed is easy enough to change from one lifetime to the next. (When I had skin tests for allergies back when I got sick more easily, I had a single splotch that was for allergies to dogs of all types. Testing for cat allergies would have involved different tests for each breed.)
142> Really? I knew Siamese (and I'm told Abyssinians) have different allergens from most cats, but I didn't know other breeds differed too. I'm allergic to most cats but not to Siamese. I want to test with an Aby but haven't encountered one since I learned about the differential allergens.
I gathered that they were all different. Then again, it was fifteen? years ago and I was still in school.
It's odd that webmd doesn't mention anything about different breeds of cat having different allergens. It gives a iot of different advice about how to avoid it, but getting a different breed of cat wasn't one if them, which ought to be quite relevant. Wikipedia doesn't say anything about it either.
I don't want to say that I don't believe you, but it ought to be possible to find something on the web about it.
Domestic cats all belong to the same family. I have had allergy shots twice and they give you a skin prick test before they start. There was only one for cats. The major allergen from cats is in their skin and saliva, which is why the hairless breeds can still set people off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_allergyHuh. You're right, there's not much info available now - which is weird since there was quite a lot about 5 years ago, when I found out about Abyssinians. However - I have had Siamese and other cats most of my life, and react strongly to the non-Siamese (cough, totally stuffed nose, wheezing) and very weakly to the Siamese (occasional sniffle). Empirical evidence, in my case at least, that there are different allergens (or different levels of allergens) in Siamese. There are, apparently, 5 different allergens that cats produce, and it may be that Siamese produce less of whichever one I happen to react to. Dunno. But personally, I don't get non-Siamese cats any more (and do a sniff test on any cat I'm considering that doesn't have a pedigree - which is most, I have two rescue cats at the moment!).
The five different allergens thing must have been what was meant. As I said, this was a long time ago.
People who don't like cats are bad people and should be killed.
Sorry Tim. But I'll have to insist you drink a cup of hemlock. ;)
Horse poop, along with cat poop, and toilet water are actually extremely delicious delicacies. This is a secret known only to dogs.
I have composed a new terms of service agreement, with the help of a think tank of very intelligent siamese cats.
New TOS:
LT members who read books that LT member DavidX does not like or post comments that annoy LT member DavidX will be immediately suspended and executed. Sock puppets will be tolerated so long as LT member DavidX agrees with and is amused by their comments. All member comments must at all times be flattering and amusing to LT member DavidX. LT member DavidX can at any time and for any reason or no reason at all have any or all LT members executed without warning.
One other thing. Even though Tim will presently be drinking a cup of hemlock as his just punishment for not liking cats. He must still do all the work around here posthumously.
That about covers it. Be mindful of your comments. My secret police are everywhere.
Message edited by its author, Nov 10, 2009, 12:11am.
I don't mean to derail this thread further, but my wife pointed out a very interesting thing to me the other day: Disney hates cats.
In just about every Disney movie, cat's are either portrayed as villains, painted in a bad light, or shown to have certain character flaws other characters seem to lack.
Before anyone says it:
Oliver: Just watch the first 10 minutes. They totally abuse that poor li'l guy.
Aristocats: The Everybody Wants to Be A Cat song is racial insensitivity with song and dance.
Lion King: Those are lions, not cats. But, also, the chief villain is, surprise, a feline.
I blame the fact that their mascot's a mouse.
And a nazi maus at that!
Disney's heroic characters have to be cuter than the real thing and there's few things cuter than a real cat, so I reckon they are smart enough not to bother trying.
>150,
What about Figuero in Pinocchio? He's a little sweetie, although he may try to eat the goldfish, I don't remember.
I am the suspended member and I am back. My only posting will be to respond to the posting by the owner of LibraryThing that began this thread. I wasn't making any attempt to hide my identity. I certainly wouldn't have denied what I didn't even know was a violation. I didn't know that what he calls "sock puppetry" violates the terms of service, since I have never read the terms of service (nor have most members, I suspect). I know that identifying data is always transmitted to the receiving server. So his masterful detective work was a waste of time. He could have just asked. No reasonable person would have thought any of the identities were real. It was a joke. Just like the racist, bigoted, ill informed (left and right), and often pompous, commentary that populates these forums and which I was clumsily mocking.
Having said that, I understand his concern and apologize. I regret any inconvenience to all those posters who were forced to read and responsd to my posts, and thus, waste their time. LibraryThing is a great cataloging tool first and foremost. I am certainly sorry for "perverting" the noble mission of this great service.
As for the owner's threat:
"Any attempts to undermine this decision, for example by signing in under another name, will result in being banned from the site for life, and any future Terms of Service offenses will be treated most seriously as well."
The owner need not worry. I'll stick to cataloging. (BTW, I'd like my $25 back for the second paid account that was shut down and which never was used to post any comments or otherwise violate the Terms of Service, which I have now read).
I hate cats.
I'd just like to say I'd wager more of us have read the TOS than most sites. A lot of us feel we have a personal stake in the TOS, and we have dissected, discussed and parsed the statements therein to a fare-thee-well!
>155
Good for you. You are indeed a noble person.
My name is Legion.
Well, really, it's Mary Lou. I'm just sayin'.....
Just have to stick my 2cents in... If I want to become a member of a site and use their services, I realize that I am expected to abide by their rules. How can I know their rules if I don't read the Terms of Service?
I can't understand/imagine *not* reading the ToS, and then being surprised when something like this happens.
154:
Why be so grumpy? Just let it go.
>158
No reasonable person would have thought any of the identities were realI do not doubt you think so, but users
did think they were real. In a peculiar twist, you first accused by someone who thinks I'm partial to right-wingers, and dared me to look into whether you were a sock puppet. Neither he nor I—and I spent very little time reading your posts, the content of which is irrelevant to—were aware the right-winger was a joke persona, not real one. So, yes, people are mislead. I was. Another user was. And, generally, most users of a site don't imagine four members are really one person. Lastly, non-surface jokes are hard to pull of well online—tone is very hard to read in flat text.
Again, I think you're telling the truth about your intention. But I think you're wrong that it was as clear to others.
As for your participation, while I respect your desire to avoid discussion, it is certainly not any sort of requirement or even request. We have a rule against creating fake accounts and talking with them. We have no rule against vigorous discussion of any kind. Hamartein all you like.
Message edited by its author, Nov 11, 2009, 8:36pm.
We have a rule against creating fake accounts and talking with them.
So is it true that you shut down an extra lifetime account that hadn't been used to post comments?
161>
If the user broke the TOS, I think it's entirely appropriate for all their accounts to be shut down. If you created an _EvilZoe_ account and started spamming with it (which you'd never do, of course, it's just an example), you're breaking the rules, and I don't think it would be at all out of line to shut down both accounts rather than just the rule-breaking account; it's the person behind the accounts who's being shut down, not a username/password combination, after all.
If the ToS violation warrants shutting down the main account, then by all means any other accounts should be shut down as well. But the main account was only suspended.
>So is it true that you shut down an extra lifetime account that hadn't been used to post comments?
If so, I should look into it, un-shut it down. Whose account?
>If the user broke the TOS, I think it's entirely appropriate for all their accounts to be shut down.
Well, I was clear about the penalty, and when it ended. I kept the other accounts suspended because they were being used as sock puppets and were, I had though, empty. If that's not so, I'd be glad to bring such as should be brought back, back.
>If the ToS violation warrants shutting down the main account, then by all means any other accounts should be shut down as well. But the main account was only suspended.
Now I'm quite confused. I never "shut down" anything. I only "suspended" accounts. If someone thinks I deleted any accounts over this, that's quite wrong.
*cowering in fear at the thought of an _EvilZoe_*
;-))
I have no idea what happened beyond this comment:
BTW, I'd like my $25 back for the second paid account that was shut down and which never was used to post any comments or otherwise violate the Terms of Service, which I have now read
>165 *cowering in fear at the thought of an _EvilZoe_*
Am I not evil enough already? ;)
>159
I'm not grumpy at all. Sorry I posted anything (which I did only because the owner's original post implied that I was some kind of cyber terrorist intent on destroying his life's work).
I think the owner of the website handled this very appropriately. I have no complaints. LibraryThing is a great service and whatever the owner thinks he needs to do to preserve its integrity is ok with me. If I don't like it, I can stop using the service.
In fact, the owner can keep the extra $25. I would have paid much more to have such a great cataloging resource.
To end this thread (at least my participation), I want to reiterate:
1. I understand that I violated the terms of service;
2. The website's owner took appropriate action to redress the violation;
3. The website's owner punished me appropriately;
4. I have no complaints about what was done.
Enough said. Next topic.
164>
I was using the same terminology ("shut down") that _Zoe_ did. I didn't mean to imply deletion vs. suspension by doing so.
167>
That's very classy of you.
>168 And I was using the same terminology as hamartophobic. I assumed that a refund wouldn't be requested for an account that was merely suspended.
> 25 back for the second paid account.
Sorry. I didn't see this or didn't read it with my brain on. I've found your second account, and unsuspended it. It wasn't my intention to shut down non-sockpuppet accounts past the two-week suspension. Sorry to have done so.
Update: Another of your accounts has "wish" as part of the name, so many it was a wishlist. I've unsuspended all your accounts. Use what you want, so long as you talk with only one.
>>>>It was a joke. Just like the racist, bigoted, ill informed (left and right), and often pompous, commentary that populates these forums and which I was clumsily mocking.
I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around this - and I am being completely sincere here - you paid and extra $25 to play a joke?
I'm trying to understand, not make some veiled implied comment.
Dear #167,
Tim is a classics scholar, a simple "mea culpa" would do.
> 171
I guess he/she already had the other account for other reasons and then decided to use it for the sake of that joke.
No reasonable person would have thought any of the identities were real. It was a joke. Just like the racist, bigoted, ill informed (left and right), and often pompous, commentary that populates these forums and which I was clumsily mocking.
You were fun at first (tuberider). Then you turned bad.
In post 168, Tim makes the following statement:
In a peculiar twist, you (were) first accused by someone who thinks I'm partial to right-wingers, and dared me to look into whether you were a sock puppet.
On 10/26, I posted the following private comment to Tim, which he has graciously allowed me to reference here:
I strongly suspect that there is an virulent strain of deceptive sockpuppetry going around, particularly in the group known as "Going Rogue", and with a slew of users, most particularly Tuberider, Turpentine, subspeciesone and possibly a couple more as well. One might suppose that the purpose, if there is any, of this is to draw other users into heated arguments, possibly resulting in flaggable offenses.
Given your concerns with regard to site integrity, and your past concerns with sockpuppetry as a deceptive practice and violation of the TOS, you may wish to have a look at this.
And a follow-up, sent the same day:
To clarify, the aforementioned posters are not limited to "Going Rogue", but are also participating in "Pro & Con" and "Political Conservatives" threads.
As you may notice, I never “dared” him to do anything. (I don’t believe I’ve dared anyone to do anything since junior high). My request came soon after a public comment I had previously posted to Tim regarding another matter, so perhaps he has conflated the two. Regardless, I totally agree with Tim regarding sock puppetry. In my opinion, and it is purely my opinion, it is basically dishonest, and represents a breach of trust.
On a site such as this, the only thing we can reasonably expect to know for sure is that when someone is voicing an opinion, it is indeed their opinion. Arguments may ensue, but there has to be a good faith understanding that one is arguing an honest point. Sockpuppetry, especially in political and religious forums, completely destroys this trust.
With apologies to hamartophobic, I do not believe that, to the casual user, the idea that various posts attributed to Tuberider, Turpentine, and Subspeciesone were obvious jokes or parodies. As a matter of fact, I tended to agree with the apparently serious comments of Subspeciesone (the more left-leaning sock puppet). Being the very smart person I am, the posts in the “Going Rogue” group struck me as parody, but then, I have a pretty good nose for bullshit, having had some experience trading in it. It didn’t take long to check profiles, note that at least three or four users joined within a few days of each other, and note that these users have either entered no books, or only a few books of a farcical nature. I had narrowed down who I thought the mastermind was, but, to my chagrin, it didn’t turn out to be the person I most suspected. I will also say that I was chagrined when the perpetrator was summarily suspended. In a previous incident of rampant sock puppetry (which I had nothing to do with), the perpetrator was apparently given ample warning to cease. I had expected the same in this case. If Tim thinks I was pushing for suspension, then I owe him and hamartophobic an apology.
As it sounds as though hamartophobic just wants to put it all behind him, I’ll end it there. I will only offer him/her deepest apologies for any embarrassment or distress I may have caused. Much as I enjoy a good mystery, I’m out of the sock puppet investigation business from here on out.
#176
Ugh, I didn't want to get anywhere close to Tuber again, but, Makifat, I have to say, I don't understand why are YOU apologising.
I do not believe that, to the casual user, the idea that various posts attributed to Tuberider, Turpentine, and Subspeciesone were obvious jokes or parodies.
Right. As one example of the casual user, while I never took "Turpentine" for real, and haven't noticed Sub... at all, Tuberino didn't strike me as an obvious joke, quite the contrary. Why--simple: because there are people like that. People like that abused me and lots of others over the years, verbally and physically. So, yeah, laughing at "parodies" of such characters always costs me extra pain, what with my scarred ribs and compromised lungs. And this individual has the nerve to claim he was teaching us all a lesson? What an unspeakably conceited, narrow-minded creep.
If anyone else too young or stupid to know better without having this spelled out to them is following this discussion, and feels the itch to fuck with strangers' heads in a similar way: what you set up as a "parody" may well be someone else's reality. So first pull your head out of your comfy dark backside and consider that in the real world--the larger world inhabited also by people who aren't only your parents and friends--there are no obvious limits to striking hateful poses, and your "parody" is very likely to hit low and nasty.
Private note to harmatophobic: Thanks for your comment on my profile page. Yeah, I'm the fink. (Hey, I've been called worse!) As I stated, I actually thought the SP was someone else - in fact, I had a sneaking suspicion it might have been the person you mentioned in passing in your comment. Thank God it wasn't! THAT would have
really messed with my paradigm!
Lola, I won't assume any malice on the part of this particular person. It's just that I've felt "pestered" by other SPs in the past, and I hate to see others get drawn into a potentially emotionally draining exchange for bogus reasons. On one thread an antagonist, feeling humiliated, apparently, actually disappeared and within some hours or minutes another "new" user popped up to excoriate me for being so rude to the previous guy! It was entertaining as hell, but ultimately pointless. (To my knowledge, the second person never entered any books, and never commented on another thread) It's all part of the game, but it
is a game. "Talk" is not the real world.
Happy weekend to all!
Message edited by its author, Nov 13, 2009, 6:43pm.
#177 - May I just offer a standing ovation for that, Lola. *applause* And I also agree that Makifat need not apologize for anything. I'd like to think that many of us on LT would have done the same if we suspected sock-puppetry being put to such use.
Consider me enlightened. I thought sock puppetry had to do with sewing buttons on your socks, embroidering on eyebrows and annoying your significant other with silliness, then turning the poor puppet into a dust rag.
Varielle, I agree. The definition of sock puppet is not intuitively obvious. Must have been coined late one night by some half-drunk computer geek.
(apologies to all who think I am talking about them)
k4k
Hey—we get all-the-way-drunk!
Thanks for understanding, clamairy.
Makifat:
"Talk" is not the real world.
That's a cue for an interesting broader conversation, but insofar it concerns the specific events--it misses the point (And comes across as forgetful of individual experience too. Many people take their online interactions as seriously as any other.)
What does it even mean? Most of the time most people here seem to voice their opinions as actual ("real") people with actual ("real") personalities. I for one don't automatically disparage or mistrust the goings-on in the online setting more than I would any other communication. Especially on LT, which is not primarily a chat forum. Nor does this mean I "believe" everything and everybody--as in any other situation, I weigh and decide whether something is plausible, believable, or not, and in what degree. Naturally, this is going to depend on my previous experiences. I was pointing out that these experiences are going to vary in a large random group of people--what is worse, because they are complete strangers, one has no idea of the extent and quality of variation.
So if you wanted to "parody" racism or wife-beating, would you start posing in a large group of complete strangers as a racist and wife-beater? In addition, in a forum (thread) that had absolutely nothing to do with discussing racism or wife-beating or even politics or sociology or what have you? Seems to me you'd have to be a comedic genius of some stature to make it work--not exactly the case here. And then if someone in the audience turned out to have been a victim of--or even simply sensitive to--racism or domestic violence or whathaveyou--what, you'd be surprised at their reaction? Or are we all expected to be "unreal", as unreal as the joker?
The question is answered by the mere existence of this thread. As Tim says above, we have some matter-of-fact expectations of honesty and sincerity even in "Talk"... precisely because most of us ARE "real", whatever the conscious or unconscious distortions of signal in this medium.
183
Good points. What I basically meant by that was that is that I tend not to take things on LT as personally as I would if I encountered them in face-to-face encounters, especially if it's something said by some random bozo. As a matter of fact, I take the more insulting things as fodder for endless amusement, because it is so plainly obvious (to me) that the random bozos don't have a clue as to who I am.
With regard to personal experience, I definitely feel there are a small handful of people on LT with whom I share intellectual attitudes and taste in books, but I would be leery of claiming that I "know" these people, as well as I might know people in my everyday life. In LT, one's tastes in literature, politics, and religion become pronounced, while other aspects of personality become flattened. For instance, I have no idea which of my LT friends smell bad (although I could take a guess). In my everyday life, their stinkiness may definitely be a defining attribute of acquaintances, but in LT, such characteristics don't enter into the equation.
I feel that it is inevitable in a forum like this that we will adopt certain personas, small tweaks of emphasis in our three dimensional personalities. These masks are not a lie, but they may be a distortion of who we really are.
Some people who've read enough of my posts might think that I am a hopeless drunk, when the reality is that I don't drink nearly as much as I seem to suggest. It's only an exaggeration (although I do enjoy my Jamesons), but I can well imagine someone raised in an alcoholic family having some concern about poor ol' Maki's liver, not to mention the hell he must be putting his family through. I suppose I feel bad if my little jokes cause someone distress on that level, especially since drunk jokes haven't really been funny since the heyday of Foster Brooks. Still, sometimes in the evening I may post after having a little glass of whiskey. It may have been the only alcohol I've had for two days, but the mere fact of mentioning it may raise a concern that Maki is an irredeemable lush. Which I'm not. Really.
I guess we each decide how seriously we take things (based on context, how well we know the poster's consistency of persona, etc.), and how we let them affect us. But I can see your point. Having someone I respect - you, for instance - call me a hopeless idiot would definitely impact me more that hearing the same thing from Tim's brother (whose name escapes me at the moment, must be the booze).
I will say that I have known friends and aquaintances on this site who have become very upset about certain things. I feel for them, because I can tell that their distress is real, and that the upsetting things do not hurt less just because they've come through the computer. All I can suggest is that when things get that bad, the best thing is to log off the site and get away for awhile, find a broader perspective. Whatever works for you.
I'd like to spend more time on this topic, but as you may note from my profile page, I'm trying to minimize my Talk activities so that I may pay more attention to the pressing demands of my immediate situation. I offer my regrets for any lack of logical consistency - I'm really rather writing this on the fly....
Message edited by its author, Nov 16, 2009, 2:33pm.
Alright already, I'll take a shower. ;-)
185
I'm just sayin'...
It might be an interesting parlour game to play on LT. Comparing notes on what a particular user's circle of friends and acquaintances "know" about that user, how well they can reconstruct that person's "real" life. Might be eye-opening, especially for the user...
But if we do that, I might have to buy an extra box of quotation marks...
hearing the same thing from Tim's brother (whose name escapes me at the moment
He is named after a tree.
Yggdrasil Spalding.
lolz.
#190: MrAndrew Yggdrasil
You make me wish I could have another son.
(back to top)
