Sephiroth has recently given postdiluvium (http://www.totse.com/community/member.php?u=143837) and mvpena (http://www.totse.com/community/member.php?u=139854) 10 point infractions for multiple accounts, although the last post by the former was April 18. The specific posts for which he was given infractions are listed in the profiles.

He's a solid contributor to the BBS and has been here since 2004. Recall what Enigma said about infractions: Someone posting something you don't like reading is not an infraction.

I've reversed them, which may or may not reverse the ban.

Regardless of his status as a poster, multiple accounts are a ban-worthy offense, jebuonag. They have both been active recently, or so their user profiles say.

That aside, there is no proof that these two users are the same, so I support your decision to reverse the infraction.

See these two posts:
http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?p=8154478#post8154478
http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?p=8175604#post8175604

Other than an IP check, we cant know if mvpena set up postdiluvium.

the last post by the former was April 18.

See above.

I don't think they're the same poster. Firstly, I've talked to Post a lot on the forums(never off them), and he was always one of those people that was serious about being honest and forthright. I don't think he would use a second account.

Secondly, the mvpena account was created two years before post's account was. Why would he sparingly use that account, then switch to another account in 2006 and rack up a lot of posts, only to stop using that account and switch back to the old account? Makes very little sense. I think it's just someone fucking around with post. They seem to be from the same area, so maybe they're friends or something. I don't know...

I'll check IP's when I get a few free moments, and set bans accordingly. I've been swamped with work, both at real work and fire work, so it may be a day or two, but I'll get a round tuit.

I'll check IP's when I get a few free moments, and set bans accordingly.

The problem is that those users should not be banned.

Doesn't matter if the are the same user. The last post by postdiluvium was almost three months ago, yet Sephiroth decided to ban him now?

If it is using multiple accounts, it should be banned.

But even if it was him, he wasn't using multiple accounts. He would've been posting with one account, then switched to another.

We should really be looking at the spirit of the law here. Neither of those two are bad posters. They aren't spammers or flamers. They contribute good posts to the forum.

Well, nevermind. Jeb obviously knows what should be done, and I'll go by his orders.

I'd like to hear from Sephiroth as to why he believes these two people are the same person before we start adding and removing bans and infractions. It's not that I don't care and I don't want things to be taken care of right away, I just don't think that taking action without knowing everything about the situation is a dumb idea. So maybe when we see Seph on IRC next we can direct him to this post (if he doesn't find it himself). I'm sure he had a reason, I'd just like to hear it.

I don't know if this is the right place for it, but I'm really pissed off that moderators can remove infractions placed by other moderators.

Where has any trust value gone?

One branch of government checking the other branch, eh? :D

One branch of government checking the other branch, eh? :D

I know that it's not a perfect analogy, but one branch is never allowed to outright undo another branches choices... Also, branches of government are composed of groups of people who vote on things, not one guy who does what he thinks is right (well, that's how it used to be at least :p )

We all make mistakes.
To be honest, I'd probably infract someone who it seemed clear was using two accounts to evade ban, ect.


Again, being able to check IPs would be awesome because situations like this could be avoided.

Would you just unban the guy already?

There are a number of valid reasons for why someone might create a new account, and recall that only one of them is active. The "Last Activity" metric is not a reliable indicator of whether the account is active, since the user may have tried to login to the old account after realizing that his active account was banned, possibly by mistake. Why don't we go ahead and ban Gus and several other regulars for having more than one account? The circumstances are analogous.

And what more is there that we need to hear from Sephiroth about the "situation?" Sephiroth's reason, according to the infraction notes, is multiple accounts. If there were any other valid reason for this user to be banned, he would have been given a different infraction. The list is pretty comprehensive.

Yes but there could be many unknown factors as to why he banned them. Maybe he got an email from one of them saying that he was using two accounts, maybe one of them accidentally posted with the other's sig, maybe someone else knows the guy in real life and told seph that they're the same person. There are SO many possibilities I can't even list them all.

We have the exact same rule in IRC - Do not remove bans that you did not set. The reasons are the same. Someone might be banned for a reason that you do not know about.

I know he or they are probably bugging you about it, but as I said: I want to hear from Sephiroth before undoing his actions.

I applied the infractions because mvpena signed one of his posts "postdiluvium" I later got an email from a "Marshall Pena" (postdiluvium@hotmail.com) claiming that the reason he was using mvpena was because he had been locked out of postdiluvium during the period when the mailserv was down. I knew of this, having been the one who reported his account trouble, however, he had been notified when the mailserv came back up and so would be able to access postdiluvium once more. Postdiluvium is actually a younger account than mvpena, which means he has switched to a different account once before and kept the other as an insurance policy. They are indeed the same person, and given the relative lack of space between his last use of postdiluvium, which predictably was after he complained to me that he was unable to access his account and his usage of mvpena, I was able to deduce that he was using both accounts pretty much at the same time. Now, naturally, because it is impossible to use two accounts to post at the same time, even the most brazen violator of the multiple accounts rule "alternates," so it is rather difficult to interpret such evidence in the best of circumstances, but that was my call and I stand by it.

The following are screen shots of the posts in question:

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7578/postdilij2.png
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/4923/postdil2va7.png

Mvpena signed as postdiluvium and made specific reference to an earlier thread in which he had posted. I was unaware they were the same user until that time.

Postdiluvium's last post was on 4/18. mvpena's first post in like a year was on 4/19.

I think it's safe to say they weren't posting at the same time. I don't see how he would've been using both at the same time, and post's complaint about his account being locked out would appear to be valid.

No, there are no other possibilities. No other unknown factors, at least none that are relevant. He was given a "multiple accounts" infraction ergo he was using multiple accounts. If the user in question was using multiple accounts, we should have been able to locate recent posts from both users. Nothing else is relevant.

I'd rather not argue with you on the basis of 'you shouldn't remove infractions that you did not set,' because then it might become an ethical dilemma, and I prefer the absolute. I'm sure Jeff Hunter was aware of this feature in the transition to vBulletin, and I see no rule against it on the BBS. I'm all for it: if any moderator can give an infraction to any user in any forum, then any other moderator should have the capability to reverse it. Personally, however, I wouldn't reverse an infraction that I did not set unless I was absolutely certain that it was inordinate.

And actually, I haven't even spoken to this guy. I'm helping him out on principle.

Postdiluvium is actually a younger account than mvpena, which means he has switched to a different account once before and kept the other as an insurance policy.

I see no causation here, Sephiroth, and that he was using the other account as an "insurance policy" is a pretty extreme conclusion. Here is where other factors do become relevant. Regardless, and pardon my terminology here, but a 'statute of limitations' comes into question. You speak of a "relative lack of space" between account use and "pretty much at the same time." Can you come up with some approximate parameters here? I personally believe that giving an infraction to a user for an event that occurred nearly three months prior is unreasonable, notwithstanding that an infraction should not have been given at all for reasons already discussed, and if that isn't enough, you use "switched to a diffferent account once before" as justification for giving an infraction in July 2007?

No, there are no other possibilities. No other unknown factors, at least none that are relevant. He was given a "multiple accounts" infraction ergo he was using multiple accounts. If the user in question was using multiple accounts, we should have been able to locate recent posts from both users. Nothing else is relevant.


Just because you don't think anything else is relevant, doesn't mean that it's true. As you said, he was given an infraction for "Multiple Accounts" which as you've pointed out to us, can be executed in many different ways outside of posting at both simultaneously. Therefore there are other factors that go into this - including different interpretations of what "multiple accounts" is. We've never needed to decide exactly what multiple accounts consists of because we've never had a debate about it. I'm just saying that these rules are not infallible.

As you said, why don't we ban gus and a few others for having more than one account? Well, Gus stops using his old accounts. Technically I should ban him for making accounts and then abandoning them because it's against the rules - but I'm not that much of an ass. But choosing to switch between the two accounts whenever you want is a different issue. I even told Gus that when he moved to his new account, I would lock his old one if he started using that at the same time.


I'd rather not argue with you on the basis of 'you shouldn't remove infractions that you did not set,' because then it might become an ethical dilemma, and I prefer the absolute. I'm sure Jeff Hunter was aware of this feature in the transition to vBulletin, and I see no rule against it on the BBS. I'm all for it: if any moderator can give an infraction to any user in any forum, then any other moderator should have the capability to reverse it. Personally, however, I wouldn't reverse an infraction that I did not set unless I was absolutely certain that it was inordinate.

Well, you can certainly infract people on forums that aren't yours. I think there were 2 or 3 threads complaining about that very thing, actually. I think it goes without saying that there are many features that neither Jeff, acidmelt, nor I know about - things that probably shouldn't be enabled but are anyway. If you hadn't noticed, features and options such as that have been steadily disappearing after they've been discovered. So I don not think that "An open door is an invitation" (or in this case: because I can, I should be allowed to) is a very good way to look at this situation.

But without regard to all of that shit. Since I've heard from Sephiroth now I can make a decision. Because the posts were back in April and the infractions are rather fresh in comparison, I'm willing to remove the bans. If our goal was to keep him from using more than one account, I'm pretty sure he's figured out that we're on to him and won't continue. If not, oh well, we'll catch him next time.