One of the thoughts that had crossed my mind many times in the past in the old TB2000 forum,especially when general yelling matches that took place from time to time when many posters objected to the OT-ness of someone's post,or the mean-spirit ness of someone's post, and then watching the deletions occur and then the subsequent questions, flames and general bad mouthing,etc. was this: why wasn't it a possibility that one or more of the moderators who might have had a personal war with one particular poster go underground and post anonymously or with a fake name and email to sabotage that thread expecially during a flaming firestorm and then deem it worthy of delettion? Please note that this is a question and not an accusation of any sort. Any thoughts out there?

This is a question I posed to Big Dog on the thread below, sorry not able to link it,not a techno/computer person. If interested, please see thread below. I had a second question which I asked of him or anyone else who might know and would be willing to explain but thus far have not gotten a response so thought I'd ask again, on another thread in case anyone else might care to respond.

Why would the moderators not be able to do such a thing? What would complete visibility into the IPS as Big Dog stated mean in terms of the moderators and their access to all postings of other moderators? Does it mean they would read every post of every thread to check? I am wondering this because the word "never" was used and I want to understand the truth of that. I am asking simply because I would like to know how it COULD NOT have happened rather than to speculate only about if it ever or (in this case as per Big Dog,) never did happen. Thanks for any input.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 05, 2000

Answers

Ma Kettle........I have checked your IP Address and it is clear that you are the same pevert who was arrested in Arizona for possession of a gigantic Cuban cigar and a large oblong German salami. God knows what horrors you may have inflicted on poor unsuspecting pure Texan beauty queens if we hadn't foiled your evil plans............

Therefore, you too are banned for your thought crimes. All animals are equal, but most animals don't have salamis. Ed Yourdon will have your spherical unmentionable organs for your crimes of imagination aforethought.

Moderators have the power......and the glory.......forever and ever...........AMEN.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), March 05, 2000.

Off wiccher head, ya unsercumscribed berbarian! Whadda ya noa salameez an spurical origins----ya godno def pursepshun wiccher mugga up inna doza tighta wazoos. G'wan anna wipa dat shit eatin grin!

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 05, 2000.

Craig is an idiot. Do we have to have him here?

~*~

-- (Ladylogic46@aol.com), March 05, 2000.

The fact that a moderators forum for TB2K exists on Greenspun is evidence enough for me. What honest usage is there for such a forum, esp one that ALWAYS gets more than the 7 posts per week that is required to keep it on the list of active forums at greenspun.com?

What?, the rules are so complicated that the moderators can't possibly figure them out without constant consultation with each other? BULLS**T!!!

Or maybe they were so reluctant to delete posts that they had to get together and discuss which posts would be deleted, thereby taking HOURS before a nasty post was deleted? Oh yeah, that's funny.

There was only one possible use for such a forum, and that use was to coordinate attacks on non doomers.

Impartial moderators on TB2000. That one is funny too.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), March 05, 2000.

Craig is an idiot. Do we have to have him here?

Yes, you have to have him here. Idiots are not only allowed, but welcomed. After all, you have Craig and your esteemed self here, just to name two. Of course, you could always threaten to "out" someone if you don't like what they say; after all, that's what free speech means to you, isn't it?

-- forget it (no@telling.now), March 05, 2000.

Enough, already, with the name-calling, Laura. Let's keep it civil and argue the ideas without attacking the individual.

-- Craig (sofpj@netscape.net), March 05, 2000.

There was only one possible use for such a <moderators> forum, and that use was to coordinate attacks on non doomers.

I can think of legitimate uses, such as coordinating schedules in order to provide a more consistent level of moderator coverage. I'm not claiming that it wasn't put to other purposes, I just don't think we have enough information to draw conclusions.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 05, 2000.

Maybe I'm naive, but I doubt there was much of that going on. In general it wasn't necessary, since there were many of like mind to do the deed.

The rather selective practice of identifying multiple posts from the same IP address, submitted under different names within minutes, was always amusing. I noticed whenever I tangled with Paul Milne, the pattern was fairly repetitive:

1) Milne would post an attack

2) I would reply, sometimes (gulp) in kind.

3) A WHOLE LOT of posts would show up, under aliases never before seen, "supporting" Milne, using the same words and style.

4) Milne would then repost under his own handle saying "See? Everyone else agrees you're a (insert insult) too!"

5) The moderators would remain silent. Requests from me and others as to whether these "supporting" posts shared a common IP address were not answered.

It got to be a game.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 05, 2000.

Enough, already, with the name-calling, Laura. Let's keep it civil and argue the ideas without attacking the individual.

Umm, it looked like a joke to me. You know, irony and all that.

5) The moderators would remain silent. Requests from me and others as to whether these "supporting" posts shared a common IP address were not answered.

Actually, I remember Diane did answer it once, but I wish I could find the post where she did. Her words were "there did seem to be some tongue-in-cheek responses originating from Paul's IP address" or something like that. In any case, she did admit that it was him, but rationalized it away as just "tongue-in-cheek" humor. After all, we all know what a comedian that Paul Milne guy is.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), March 05, 2000.

Craig, I didn't write that. I swear to you someone is imitating me, so in the future I'm going to finish my posts with a symbol that's a little difficult to duplicate. (I think? It's longer than the - on most keyboards.)



-- laura (Ladylogic46@aol.com), March 05, 2000.

"One of the thoughts that had crossed my mind many times in the past in the old TB2000 forum,especially when general yelling matches that took place from time to time when many posters objected to the OT-ness of someone's post,or the mean-spirit ness of someone's post, and then watching the deletions occur and then the subsequent questions, flames and general bad mouthing,etc. was this: why wasn't it a possibility that one or more of the moderators who might have had a personal war with one particular poster go underground and post anonymously or with a fake name and email to sabotage that thread expecially during a flaming firestorm and then deem it worthy of delettion? Please note that this is a question and not an accusation of any sort. Any thoughts out there? "

Ma Kettle,

to answer your question, all I can say is that the subject is now moot, as the moderators are gone to moderate another forum. I've had my own clean, well thought out replies disappear along with the entire thread because some posts within it were innapropriate and disruptive. That was not a good feeling, and I will not repeat this here, although I reserve the right to delete individual posts within a thread if they are too innapropriate and disruptive to the thread discussion. The author of the deleted post this way always has the chance and right to contribute appropriately to the discussion if s/he so chooses.

-- Old TB2K forum regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), March 05, 2000.

Laura and anyone else who has a problem with imitators, if you email me (so I can have your email address as reference and verification), you can then email me requests to delete posts from troll imitators.

Hopefully this will help with confusion.

Everyone was "forgiven" pasts "sins" and given the opportunity to start on a clean slate. It is not above some people to try to sabotage someone else's attempt at "reintagration".

-- Old TB2K forum regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), March 05, 2000.

Recently, Chuck a Night Driver posted his farewell message on the old TB2000 forum. He admitted to having posted under many different handles but that hardly makes him unique. Ive always admired Chucks attitude and here is my shocking call of the day:

One of Chucks alter egos is none other than Dieter.

I have suspected this for some time now and of course we will probably never know, but there you are. And no Chuck, this has nothing to do with your recent post over at the Haunted House of Angst.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 05, 2000.

Chuck was not Dieter, it was Uncle Deedah. Uncle D. outed himself as Dieter in the spring of '99 on one thread, but not many people made a big deal of it so it sort of went unoticed. I myself didn't see it until I stumbled on it in the archives last summer.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 05, 2000.

Chris, I had never heard that about Uncle D but Ill be looking in the archives unless you have it close at hand. BTW, have you considered that Chuck is also Uncle DeeDah?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 05, 2000.

...anything's possible. Come to think of it, I know I've never seen all three of them together at the same time.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), March 05, 2000.

Not to open old wounds "Old TB2K forum regular", but a subject was brought up here which I was very close to, and one in which I would enjoy throwing my 2 cents...

"hmm" wrote- Actually, I remember Diane did answer it once, but I wish I could find the post where she did."

Coincidently hmm, that thread was one of the few I had ever saved...

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Rek

Anywho, yes, I do see some evidence, that Paul, on that thread, did post some "other" tongue-in-cheek responses. -- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 22, 1999.

As Flint once pointed out, deliberating a false impression is "funny" and "tongue in cheek" when one of the Good Guys does it. But it's a lie if a Bad Guy does it.

Located on that same thread you will also see a quote made by Chuck which I found very interesting...

Well, on the thread in question, there was only one Paul, the rest are known to us...... -- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), September 22, 1999.

Of course there was only *one* Paul. [Using numerous fake names!] Not an outright lie, but definitely a deceitful "play on words" wouldn't you say?

These are just two examples of the many ways in which that sysop crew showed bias and inconsistency. Yet more reasons to appreciate the breath of fresh air that this uncensored forum has created.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), March 05, 2000.

Ra, trust me on this. I've been friends with them from the time I first got on TB2K, and as part of that FRL thread tradition. Chuck and Uncle are two different people with different ideologies. Uncle D. is a libetarian with an open mind and a very offbeat sense of humor, hence his dIEter persona.

dIETer came about when Unk went on a diet (I'll try to find the thread) and started playing the edgy/grouchy/off-the-edge type of guy in his replies. He developed it further with the now well known dIETer extra-terrestrial funny style. I always found a nugget of wisdom in dIETer's post, loved his mock derogatory/mean style of calling us names (hyenas! jackalls! fools!) and was a big fan of him ;-) He had style. I guess it was a way for him to vent without using the boring tipical flaming style, and he got noticed.

-- Chris (!@#$@.pond.com), March 05, 2000.

I liked Uncle Deedah too. He's the reason I joined the Libertarian Party. He and I, and a few other had a grand old set-to with Flint one time. It took all of us to keep up with Flint. That man just wore us down; I admire that in a man. Of course, you understand he was wrong, wrong, wrong!

And what was this earth shaking debate over? Hell, I don't remember.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 05, 2000.

I appreciate the thoughts and personal anecdotes on the original question and subsequent questions I asked. I want to add that the second question is the essential one, in case it's been overlooked--- and that question was : whether it was technically or physically even possible for the forum moderators to access all the postings, and to know from whom or where the postings originated--- even of those they or other moderators posted, anonymously or otherwise. And that info hasn't surfaced thus far. And may not.

I disagree that the subject is moot. It's the subject of my question and this being an uncensored forum, I chose to ask it. It has both a practical and academic value because it is a reasonable query and it's mine. That's enough for me as a poster. I don't know if the old forum moderators are gone, how can I know that? How can anyone except those moderators? It doesn't matter to me, just one of those intangibles one either accepts as fact or not.

I asked my question and subsequent followup question on a post of Big Dog. I thought he had been a former moderator of the old TB2K and maybe even is now at the other EZ forum. He replied it never happened so then I asked the subsequent--why-not-technically-speaking-that-is? of anyone but realized that the question would get a larger response if I posted it to the entire forum rather than only the readers of that particular posting by Big Dog. So there it is.

I have learned alot thus far. I'll think about it and maybe post again later. Thanks for input.

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 05, 2000.

gilda:

I can't remember exactly what that debate was about either, but I remember that it was great fun, especially since I am at least half Libertarian by heritage. As I vaguely recall, I was trying to point out that sometimes a mixed strategy beats a pure strategy (basic game theory), and apply that to politics. But who cares? It was fun.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 05, 2000.

By the way gilda and Flint, KOS had some fun remarks. And what ever happened to Lane Core?

-- Ma Kettle (mom@home.com), March 05, 2000.

And, by the way, a bit more evidence to stack up in favor of moderators doing some of the trolling and answering their own questions.

(Picked at random from the other forum)

Subject: Re: LOL!! The "uncensored" idiots already talking about banning each other! Posted By: Charles Underwood Farley (Global user) Posted At: 3/5/00 3:40:39 pm From IP: Reply Has anyone ever pointed out to you that you're embarrassingly literal- minded?

(END)

Note the FROM IP: field. Note that it is blank. AHEM!

A poster using several 'handles' will be exposed by that little field IF IT IS TURNED ON BY THE ADMINISTRATORS.

For those who BELIEVE in the purity of the 'gang of eight', please give me a GOOD reason, in thirty five words or less, for just WHY that field is turned off.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), March 06, 2000.

Ma- You wrote: I want to add that the second question is the essential one, in case it's been overlooked--- and that question was: whether it was technically or physically even possible for the forum moderators to access all the postings, and to know from whom or where the postings originated--- even of those they or other moderators posted, anonymously or otherwise. And that info hasn't surfaced thus far. And may not.

The short answer is that the moderators have access to view IP addresses. You can think of an IP address as being the Internet equivalent to a telephone number. By comparing the IP addresses, moderators can "usually" (but not in every case) determine if two seperate authors are in reality the same person posting under two identities. It is far more complicated than my simple little explanation portrays, but that should help to answer your question.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), March 06, 2000.

Rational 1,

I know Chuck and Unc are two different people because I've seen them both in live chat. I promise you, there's a world of difference between them. (Chuck is far more mature.)

~*~
-- laura (Ladylogic@......), March 06, 2000.