+kmartcachier Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I am working on a very special geocache series that will go along with some guerrilla art that Ive done around my city. It has been very well recieved and even made the local news once but it is completely anonymous. Im hoping to keep that anonymity up especially with my caching friends but If they see it as a cahce by me then I will be linked to it. So is it EVER okay to have a sock puppet account (for example if your local reviewer knows its you) or wilI have to give up the idea or give up my identity? Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 many reviewer accounts are sock puppet accounts. if that tells you anything. Quote Link to comment
+Ecylram Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I am working on a very special geocache series that will go along with some guerrilla art that Ive done around my city. It has been very well recieved and even made the local news once but it is completely anonymous. Im hoping to keep that anonymity up especially with my caching friends but If they see it as a cahce by me then I will be linked to it. So is it EVER okay to have a sock puppet account (for example if your local reviewer knows its you) or wilI have to give up the idea or give up my identity? I'm guessing that by "guerrilla art" you're referring to unauthorized graffiti. It's possible the local reviewer might have concerns about linking geocaching with an illegal activity. Maybe, maybe not. If authorized art, that could be an interesting series. Quote Link to comment
+kmartcachier Posted August 16, 2010 Author Share Posted August 16, 2010 I am working on a very special geocache series that will go along with some guerrilla art that Ive done around my city. It has been very well recieved and even made the local news once but it is completely anonymous. Im hoping to keep that anonymity up especially with my caching friends but If they see it as a cahce by me then I will be linked to it. So is it EVER okay to have a sock puppet account (for example if your local reviewer knows its you) or wilI have to give up the idea or give up my identity? I'm guessing that by "guerrilla art" you're referring to unauthorized graffiti. It's possible the local reviewer might have concerns about linking geocaching with an illegal activity. Maybe, maybe not. If authorized art, that could be an interesting series. I suppose that depends on your definition of graffiti. Some people believe that billboards are graffiti. Without giving too much away in the event people in my area are in these forums, I can tell you that it does not destroy ANY property and can EASILY be removed without ANY damage to the location. Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 many reviewer accounts are sock puppet accounts. if that tells you anything. That is incorrect. Groundspeak knows the real name of every reviewer, as well as their associated player account. It's not a valid analogy for this discussion. Turning to the OP, if you have a good working relationship with your local reviewer, and you tell them privately that you are the real person behind the "Mr. Mystery" hiding account, you should be fine. Be careful not to use the "Mr. Mystery" account for nefarious purposes apart from being the owner of that cache series. That will turn your "Alternate Hiding Account" into your "Banned Sock Puppet Account." Quote Link to comment
+kmartcachier Posted August 16, 2010 Author Share Posted August 16, 2010 many reviewer accounts are sock puppet accounts. if that tells you anything. That is incorrect. Groundspeak knows the real name of every reviewer, as well as their associated player account. It's not a valid analogy for this discussion. Turning to the OP, if you have a good working relationship with your local reviewer, and you tell them privately that you are the real person behind the "Mr. Mystery" hiding account, you should be fine. Be careful not to use the "Mr. Mystery" account for nefarious purposes apart from being the owner of that cache series. That will turn your "Alternate Hiding Account" into your "Banned Sock Puppet Account." Your informed and authoritative help is always appreciated! Thanks! Quote Link to comment
dwlover Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Sounds a bit like Turk 182! go for it! if its getting positive feedback from the community i dont see why it would be bad for geocaching. Quote Link to comment
+brslk Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I am working on a very special geocache series that will go along with some guerrilla art that Ive done around my city. It has been very well recieved and even made the local news once but it is completely anonymous. Im hoping to keep that anonymity up especially with my caching friends but If they see it as a cahce by me then I will be linked to it. So is it EVER okay to have a sock puppet account (for example if your local reviewer knows its you) or wilI have to give up the idea or give up my identity? I'm guessing that by "guerrilla art" you're referring to unauthorized graffiti. It's possible the local reviewer might have concerns about linking geocaching with an illegal activity. Maybe, maybe not. If authorized art, that could be an interesting series. I suppose that depends on your definition of graffiti. Some people believe that billboards are graffiti. Without giving too much away in the event people in my area are in these forums, I can tell you that it does not destroy ANY property and can EASILY be removed without ANY damage to the location. I tend to define graffiti as people spray painting things without permission. I tend to define billboards as paid for space to place an advertisement. I dislike them both. Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 (edited) many reviewer accounts are sock puppet accounts. if that tells you anything. That is incorrect. Groundspeak knows the real name of every reviewer, as well as their associated player account. It's not a valid analogy for this discussion. it's not incorrect, they're still sock puppet accounts. not in Groundspeak's view of course, but in everybody else's view. in the context of regular players: no other regular player will know another player's real name, sock puppet or not. from Groundspeak's point of view: Groundspeak will still know real name of each account, sock puppet or not, assuming the real name has been entered for both on signup. i don't think the definition of "sock puppet account" is "false real name on signup", because nobody other than Groundspeak would know that anyway. on the other hand, in the context of publishing caches, it's probably a bigger factor. Edited August 16, 2010 by dfx Quote Link to comment
dwlover Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 doesnt the fact that you posted here link you to the graffiti? Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 many reviewer accounts are sock puppet accounts. if that tells you anything. That is incorrect. Groundspeak knows the real name of every reviewer, as well as their associated player account. It's not a valid analogy for this discussion. it's not incorrect, they're still sock puppet accounts. not in Groundspeak's view of course, but in everybody else's view. in the context of regular players: no other regular player will know another player's real name, sock puppet or not. from Groundspeak's point of view: Groundspeak will still know real name of each account, sock puppet or not, assuming the real name has been entered for both on signup. i don't think the definition of "sock puppet account" is "false real name on signup", because nobody other than Groundspeak would know that anyway. on the other hand, in the context of publishing caches, it's probably a bigger factor. In my last post, I politely tried to steer the thread back on topic, while being forgiving of the insult. Now, I will tell you flat out to stop this line of posting. Thank you. Quote Link to comment
dwlover Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 looks like someone woke up on the wrong side of the forums. what exactly did dfx say to tick you off so bad? do reviewers have accounts other than there reviewer accounts? if so then those would be socks just as much as kmartcachiers would be once he tells his reviewer mr mystery belongs to him. to everyone but the reviewer its a sock. or am i just being dense? Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 In my last post, I politely tried to steer the thread back on topic, while being forgiving of the insult. Now, I will tell you flat out to stop this line of posting. Thank you. insult? maybe that's where the problem is: there was no intention of any insult. "sock puppet" is simply another way of saying "alternate account". there's nothing negative about it per se, at least not in my book. if you think of it otherwise, then my apologies. Quote Link to comment
dwlover Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 In my last post, I politely tried to steer the thread back on topic, while being forgiving of the insult. Now, I will tell you flat out to stop this line of posting. Thank you. insult? maybe that's where the problem is: there was no intention of any insult. "sock puppet" is simply another way of saying "alternate account". there's nothing negative about it per se, at least not in my book. if you think of it otherwise, then my apologies. i dont think you insulted anyone. somebody is just being really sensitive. Quote Link to comment
+Snoogans Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I may or may not have a generic account or two that may or may not have hidden a cache or two. Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 In my last post, I politely tried to steer the thread back on topic, while being forgiving of the insult. Now, I will tell you flat out to stop this line of posting. Thank you. insult? maybe that's where the problem is: there was no intention of any insult. "sock puppet" is simply another way of saying "alternate account". there's nothing negative about it per se, at least not in my book. if you think of it otherwise, then my apologies. You seem to be using a non-standard definition of sock puppet. Sock puppets are fake online identities created with the intent to deceive. Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 (edited) You seem to be using a non-standard definition of sock puppet. Sock puppets are fake online identities created with the intent to deceive. nope, that's exactly what they are. they appear to be a seperate, third party entity to the general public. there's many more examples in the geocaching world: people having seperate accounts for their dogs, 2-year-old kids or even fictious characters from books they write. and there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of them, which was the whole point of my original post. Edited August 16, 2010 by dfx Quote Link to comment
dwlover Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 wouldnt creating a seperate account so that you can review caches without people knowing that you are a reviewer be deceitful? it doesnt have to be meliscious in nature. there is a good reason not to want everyone to know you are a reviewer when you are posting in the forums. but it is still a sock account. so i dont see where anyone insulted anyone here. Quote Link to comment
+roziecakes Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 (edited) looks like someone woke up on the wrong side of the forums. what exactly did dfx say to tick you off so bad? do reviewers have accounts other than there reviewer accounts? if so then those would be socks just as much as kmartcachiers would be once he tells his reviewer mr mystery belongs to him. to everyone but the reviewer its a sock. or am i just being dense? As for reviewers' accounts; usually they have a regular caching account. Some use that account as their reviewer account, but generally they have two; one for caching, one for reviewing Edited August 16, 2010 by nymphnsatyr Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 You seem to be using a non-standard definition of sock puppet. Sock puppets are fake online identities created with the intent to deceive. nope, that's exactly what they are. they appear to be a seperate, third party entity to the general public. there's many more examples in the geocaching world: people having seperate accounts for their dogs, 2-year-old kids or even fictious characters from books they write. and there's absolutely nothing wrong with any of them, which was the whole point of my original post. So the point of your comment is that reviewers and Groundspeak *are* intending to deceive people, which is obviously false, and Keystone has every right to find that assertion offensive. Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 So the point of your comment is that reviewers and Groundspeak *are* intending to deceive people, which is obviously false, and Keystone has every right to find that assertion offensive. of course they're deceiving people, they're pretending to be somebody else. they also have good reason to do so (as do the other people mentioned in the examples, and also the OP), which is why there's nothing wrong with it. there's no reason to be offended, unless i had been implying that using sock puppet accounts was generally and universally a bad thing, which i didn't. Quote Link to comment
GOF's Sock Puppet Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I'm almost afraid to post in this thread. Quote Link to comment
dwlover Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 that is just crazy. its no more offensive than to say that the people with accounts for their dogs are being deceitful. they are but not in a bad way. the fact that most forum posters dont use their real names is deceitful to an extent. but no sane person would consider that offensive. what dfx said was not insulting. the moderator just took it the wrong way and probably owes dfx an apology. Quote Link to comment
+dfx Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I'm almost afraid to post in this thread. Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I am working on a very special geocache series that will go along with some guerrilla art that Ive done around my city. It has been very well recieved and even made the local news once but it is completely anonymous. Im hoping to keep that anonymity up especially with my caching friends but If they see it as a cahce by me then I will be linked to it. So is it EVER okay to have a sock puppet account (for example if your local reviewer knows its you) or wilI have to give up the idea or give up my identity? As Keystone said, maintain communication with your local reviewer. As for your plan, it seems a bit short lived to open a new account just for a cache series. I wouldn't make it a habit. Quote Link to comment
jholly Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 many reviewer accounts are sock puppet accounts. if that tells you anything. That is incorrect. Groundspeak knows the real name of every reviewer, as well as their associated player account. It's not a valid analogy for this discussion. Turning to the OP, if you have a good working relationship with your local reviewer, and you tell them privately that you are the real person behind the "Mr. Mystery" hiding account, you should be fine. Be careful not to use the "Mr. Mystery" account for nefarious purposes apart from being the owner of that cache series. That will turn your "Alternate Hiding Account" into your "Banned Sock Puppet Account." I have a sock puppet account that I hid a cache with. In the reviewer notes I told the reviewer my real player account. The cache was promptly published without comment or question. And yes, there was a valid reason for using a sock puppet account. I have a couple other sock puppet accounts that mirror the placed by on caches I own. I established the accounts simply so some poor smuck does not come along and use the names and then get email because the person sending it did not click through to the real owner but instead looked up the placed by name. Quote Link to comment
jholly Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 (edited) Some times I should not use a computer. Edited August 16, 2010 by jholly Quote Link to comment
GOF's Sock Puppet Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 many reviewer accounts are sock puppet accounts. if that tells you anything. That is incorrect. Groundspeak knows the real name of every reviewer, as well as their associated player account. It's not a valid analogy for this discussion. Turning to the OP, if you have a good working relationship with your local reviewer, and you tell them privately that you are the real person behind the "Mr. Mystery" hiding account, you should be fine. Be careful not to use the "Mr. Mystery" account for nefarious purposes apart from being the owner of that cache series. That will turn your "Alternate Hiding Account" into your "Banned Sock Puppet Account." I have a sock puppet account that I hid a cache with. In the reviewer notes I told the reviewer my real player account. The cache was promptly published without comment or question. And yes, there was a valid reason for using a sock puppet account. I have a couple other sock puppet accounts that mirror the placed by on caches I own. I established the accounts simply so some poor smuck does not come along and use the names and then get email because the person sending it did not click through to the real owner but instead looked up the placed by name. This all just makes me wonder how many cachers there really are out there. Quote Link to comment
jholly Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 many reviewer accounts are sock puppet accounts. if that tells you anything. That is incorrect. Groundspeak knows the real name of every reviewer, as well as their associated player account. It's not a valid analogy for this discussion. Turning to the OP, if you have a good working relationship with your local reviewer, and you tell them privately that you are the real person behind the "Mr. Mystery" hiding account, you should be fine. Be careful not to use the "Mr. Mystery" account for nefarious purposes apart from being the owner of that cache series. That will turn your "Alternate Hiding Account" into your "Banned Sock Puppet Account." I have a sock puppet account that I hid a cache with. In the reviewer notes I told the reviewer my real player account. The cache was promptly published without comment or question. And yes, there was a valid reason for using a sock puppet account. I have a couple other sock puppet accounts that mirror the placed by on caches I own. I established the accounts simply so some poor smuck does not come along and use the names and then get email because the person sending it did not click through to the real owner but instead looked up the placed by name. This all just makes me wonder how many cachers there really are out there. more than zero and less than infinity. Quote Link to comment
+puppymonster Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I am working on a very special geocache series that will go along with some guerrilla art that Ive done around my city. It has been very well recieved and even made the local news once but it is completely anonymous. Im hoping to keep that anonymity up especially with my caching friends but If they see it as a cahce by me then I will be linked to it. So is it EVER okay to have a sock puppet account (for example if your local reviewer knows its you) or wilI have to give up the idea or give up my identity? As Keystone said, maintain communication with your local reviewer. As for your plan, it seems a bit short lived to open a new account just for a cache series. I wouldn't make it a habit. Making a sock puppet account to hide a series is going to be a problem, I can tell you. Invariably, issues are not dealt with since you are not using your main account. The caches tend to be ignored and eventually get archived for lack of attention because you ignore the account. I've seen it happen more than once. While it seems like a fun idea, it seems to always lead to disaster in the long run. Quote Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Why does my post say puppymonster? Quote Link to comment
jholly Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Why does my post say puppymonster? Yes, makes it very official coming from a very knowledgeable poster. Quote Link to comment
GOF's Sock Puppet Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Why does my post say puppymonster? 'cause your evil twin found your passwords again? Quote Link to comment
jholly Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I am working on a very special geocache series that will go along with some guerrilla art that Ive done around my city. It has been very well recieved and even made the local news once but it is completely anonymous. Im hoping to keep that anonymity up especially with my caching friends but If they see it as a cahce by me then I will be linked to it. So is it EVER okay to have a sock puppet account (for example if your local reviewer knows its you) or wilI have to give up the idea or give up my identity? As Keystone said, maintain communication with your local reviewer. As for your plan, it seems a bit short lived to open a new account just for a cache series. I wouldn't make it a habit. Making a sock puppet account to hide a series is going to be a problem, I can tell you. Invariably, issues are not dealt with since you are not using your main account. The caches tend to be ignored and eventually get archived for lack of attention because you ignore the account. I've seen it happen more than once. While it seems like a fun idea, it seems to always lead to disaster in the long run. The one I hide with a sock puppet account I also put a watch on so I see the logs. Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 (edited) I am working on a very special geocache series that will go along with some guerrilla art that Ive done around my city. It has been very well recieved and even made the local news once but it is completely anonymous. Im hoping to keep that anonymity up especially with my caching friends but If they see it as a cahce by me then I will be linked to it. So is it EVER okay to have a sock puppet account (for example if your local reviewer knows its you) or wilI have to give up the idea or give up my identity? As Keystone said, maintain communication with your local reviewer. As for your plan, it seems a bit short lived to open a new account just for a cache series. I wouldn't make it a habit. Making a sock puppet account to hide a series is going to be a problem, I can tell you. Invariably, issues are not dealt with since you are not using your main account. The caches tend to be ignored and eventually get archived for lack of attention because you ignore the account. I've seen it happen more than once. While it seems like a fun idea, it seems to always lead to disaster in the long run. I do know of someone listing caches under another active cacher's account fully stating that the listed cacher was not the true owner and nana-nana-booboo. After the jig was up the caches were adopted over. Edited August 16, 2010 by BlueDeuce Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 So the point of your comment is that reviewers and Groundspeak *are* intending to deceive people, which is obviously false, and Keystone has every right to find that assertion offensive. of course they're deceiving people, they're pretending to be somebody else. they also have good reason to do so (as do the other people mentioned in the examples, and also the OP), which is why there's nothing wrong with it. there's no reason to be offended, unless i had been implying that using sock puppet accounts was generally and universally a bad thing, which i didn't. What is the deception? Cache reviewers always clearly identify themselves when they are acting as reviewers. "Sock puppet," as it is widely used, has a pretty specific, usually negative connotation. There's certainly nothing wrong with adapting a word to meet your purposes, but it shouldn't come as a surprise when your non-standard use of a word is met with confusion or offense. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 So the point of your comment is that reviewers and Groundspeak *are* intending to deceive people, which is obviously false, and Keystone has every right to find that assertion offensive. of course they're deceiving people, they're pretending to be somebody else. they also have good reason to do so (as do the other people mentioned in the examples, and also the OP), which is why there's nothing wrong with it. there's no reason to be offended, unless i had been implying that using sock puppet accounts was generally and universally a bad thing, which i didn't. In that light we're all deceiving people unless we are using our real name. Who the heck are DFX, Keystone, BrianSnat, Narcissa etc? They are made up names and by your definition, sock puppets for ourselves. Sock Puppet is generally a derogatory term. Let's call them alternate accounts instead Unless you are using your alternate account(s) to stir up trouble or support your main account's posts, you shouldn't be considered a sock puppet. Quote Link to comment
+the family bu Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 sorry couldn't resist it Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 I am working on a very special geocache series that will go along with some guerrilla art that Ive done around my city. It has been very well recieved and even made the local news once but it is completely anonymous. Im hoping to keep that anonymity up especially with my caching friends but If they see it as a cahce by me then I will be linked to it. So is it EVER okay to have a sock puppet account (for example if your local reviewer knows its you) or wilI have to give up the idea or give up my identity? As Keystone said, maintain communication with your local reviewer. As for your plan, it seems a bit short lived to open a new account just for a cache series. I wouldn't make it a habit. Making a sock puppet account to hide a series is going to be a problem, I can tell you. Invariably, issues are not dealt with since you are not using your main account. The caches tend to be ignored and eventually get archived for lack of attention because you ignore the account. I've seen it happen more than once. While it seems like a fun idea, it seems to always lead to disaster in the long run. As long as the sock puppet account is associated with a real email address and the cache owner is responsive to maintenance issues sent to that address why would it matter if it's a separate account created just for a series. The Trail of the Gods power trail, with over 600 caches used a sock puppet account for all of the caches (NGA) to represent the several geocachers that hid them all. As far as the term "sock puppet" goes, the term pre-existed geocaching forums by many years and on other online communities, it does have a negative connotation. Historically, it is an account created by a regular participant of the forums, often as a shill to support something the regular has written. To me, deceit is all about intent. In the original definition of sock puppet, it was an account created specifically with the intent to deceive. User names like Keystone, Briansnat, and NYPaddlecacher are merely pseudonyms. Quote Link to comment
GOF's Sock Puppet Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 So the point of your comment is that reviewers and Groundspeak *are* intending to deceive people, which is obviously false, and Keystone has every right to find that assertion offensive. of course they're deceiving people, they're pretending to be somebody else. they also have good reason to do so (as do the other people mentioned in the examples, and also the OP), which is why there's nothing wrong with it. there's no reason to be offended, unless i had been implying that using sock puppet accounts was generally and universally a bad thing, which i didn't. In that light we're all deceiving people unless we are using our real name. Who the heck are DFX, Keystone, BrianSnat, Narcissa etc? They are made up names and by your definition, sock puppets for ourselves. Sock Puppet is generally a derogatory term. Let's call them alternate accounts instead Unless you are using your alternate account(s) to stir up trouble or support your main account's posts, you shouldn't be considered a sock puppet. But "GOF's Alternate Account" just doesn't have the same ring. sorry couldn't resist it Cousin Fred? Quote Link to comment
+roziecakes Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Sock Puppet DOES have a negative connotation. Some caching friends of ours when they first started were accused by others of being a sock puppet account of another cacher for a while. Thankfully the end result of this was that they were able to make a joke about it, and in fact have a cache called "I'm not a sock puppet" and another friend even had a "I'm not a sock puppet" coin made for them... but imagine what could have happened if they took it more seriously. Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Sock Puppet is generally a derogatory term. Let's call them alternate accounts instead Unless you are using your alternate account(s) to stir up trouble or support your main account's posts, you shouldn't be considered a sock puppet. its never been intended to be a derogatory term, at its origins was just an additional account, either by a current user or a banned user like everything of course over time people took it upon themselves to twisted into something else and make it derogatory to call it an insult for using it against someone its plain overreacting IMO many users here have sock puppet accounts and if Groundspeak had such a big problem with them they certainly have the means to find them and delete them sock puppet An account made on an internet message board, by a person who already has an account, for the purpose of posting more-or-less anonymously. sock puppet An attempt by a person banned from a forum to circumvent the ban by creating a new account under a new identity. Quote Link to comment
+roziecakes Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 You make an interesting point. It would seem that the negative connotation of the word 'sock puppet' comes from people using their sock puppet accounts in a negative fashion, ie to forum troll, etc. Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 The term carries a connotation of intentional deception that does not apply to a Groundspeak reviewer's choice to use separate accounts. It is the manner in which the alternate account is used, not the mere fact of its existence, that makes it a "sock puppet." Quote Link to comment
dwlover Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 Sock Puppet is generally a derogatory term. Let's call them alternate accounts instead Unless you are using your alternate account(s) to stir up trouble or support your main account's posts, you shouldn't be considered a sock puppet. its never been intended to be a derogatory term, at its origins was just an additional account, either by a current user or a banned user like everything of course over time people took it upon themselves to twisted into something else and make it derogatory to call it an insult for using it against someone its plain overreacting IMO many users here have sock puppet accounts and if Groundspeak had such a big problem with them they certainly have the means to find them and delete them sock puppet An account made on an internet message board, by a person who already has an account, for the purpose of posting more-or-less anonymously. sock puppet An attempt by a person banned from a forum to circumvent the ban by creating a new account under a new identity. exactly. the simplest definition is merely an account for posting anonymously which is the way dfx and the op used it. there was never an attempt made to insult anyone. it doesnt matter anyway. the moderator and the puppymaster has said it is ok as long as you tell the reviewer. Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 (edited) exactly. the simplest definition is merely an account for posting anonymously which is the way dfx and the op used it. there was never an attempt made to insult anyone. it doesnt matter anyway. the moderator and the puppymaster has said it is ok as long as you tell the reviewer. yet a certain moderator in this thread reacted in a highly questionable manner, more precisely took it too far really sad to see such overreaction from those that are supposed to "guide" us Edited August 16, 2010 by t4e Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 exactly. the simplest definition is merely an account for posting anonymously which is the way dfx and the op used it. The "simplest definition" (which doesn't appear to have a source) is an imprecise adaptation of the more usual use of the term. Most of us use handles on this site, giving us relative anonymity when we post. By this imprecise definition, any account is a "sock puppet." To use such an imprecise definition makes the term virtually meaningless. A sock puppet is an additional account created and/or used under the guise of being a separate individual. A sock puppet account is often used to give the appearance of another person contributing to a discussion. For instance, if someone wishes to make it appear as though they have support for an idea, they could create a sock puppet to come in to a discussion and agree with them. Reviewers do not use their separate accounts in such a manner. Some reviewers hold more than one account, but that alone does not qualify them as "sock puppets" under the widely-accepted use of the term. Were a reviewer to comment in a forum discussion with two separate accounts under the guise of being separate individuals, the term "sock puppet" would make sense. I imagine that Groundspeak would not tolerate such behaviour from reviewers, and I doubt that most reviewers would engage in such behaviour. Calling a reviewer account a "sock puppet" insinuates deception. This insinuation may be unintentional, but this sort of confusion is always a danger when you choose to use imprecise or non-standard definitions. Quote Link to comment
dwlover Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 it really is sad. but i dont have time to worry about it. if i dont leave here my boss might catch me. ha ha Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 The primary reason for my posts was that the analogy to reviewers was off topic. The recent posts have taken the thread even further off topic. This thread is about using a secondary account to hide geocaches. Last warning to return to the topic. Thanks. Quote Link to comment
dwlover Posted August 16, 2010 Share Posted August 16, 2010 that analogy was not off topic. it was entirely on topic. dfx was just saying that it was ok when used for a good reason. you took it off topic when you assumed an insult that wasnt there. why not just apologize instead of threatening? im going back to work before i get in trouble. i dont know why its so hard to for some people to admit they are wrong. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.