SOCK PUPPETS BE GONE!!! RESPONSIBLE CACHERS UNITE AGAINST THIS WASTE OF TIME!!!

1.6k · June 24, 2003

Sock puppeteering seems to be at an all-time high in these forum threads, and it's getting to a point somewhere beyond stupid.

So, the poll today revolves around a suggestion I doubt I'm alone in wondering about.

Should newly created userid's be restricted from posting on the forums for a period of time?

5.9k · June 24, 2003

Like Van says, "No before after, yes after before.

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

1.6k · June 24, 2003

One only has to recall the likes of Soylent Green and other recent incidents to get an idea of what I am going on about here.

June 24, 2003

Oh...and here I thought you guys were bashing on Dinoprophet.

20.7k · June 24, 2003

I'm not sure this would solve the problem. If I wanted to run a few sock puppets, I'd just create the profiles and sit out the waiting period.

Voting is pretty close on this issue.

1.6k · June 24, 2003

True enough... the thing would be to have some method of control, rather than none.

Paired with a time restriction, some filter or report could be used to identify IP addresses that have created multiple userids... and while they are sitting out their waiting time, someone just turns them off!

38.2k · June 24, 2003

I liked Boblog and his great idea for a pharmacy cache, so unused prescription medicine doesn't go to waste. Mitsuko also brought a lot of joy (and fantasy) to some people's lives.

Actually, if someone wants to create a sock puppet, a 5,10 or 15 day waiting period isn't gonna stop them. The only real way to do so would to be to not allow throwaway e-mail accounts like Yahoo and Hotmail. I know it would be very unpopular, but I've encountered other websites that do not allow them specifically to address this issue.

"Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois"

20.7k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:...
Paired with a time restriction, some filter or report could be used to identify IP addresses that have created multiple userids... and while they are sitting out their waiting time, someone just turns them off!

There are plenty of valid reasons for IP addresses to create multiple userids. I created my niece's profile, for instance.

1.6k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
I liked Boblog and his great idea for a pharmacy cachem, so unused prescription medicine doesn't go to waste. Mitsuko also brought a lot of joy (and fantasy) to some people's life.

There is of course, a difference between genuine alternate id's, and id's created for one off's, rude flames, etc...

The point is to reduce the occurance of 'anonymous nuisances'...

(who will of course, likely show up here within a minute or two...)

[This message was edited by canadazuuk on June 24, 2003 at 09:42 AM.]

1.6k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:
There are plenty of valid reasons for IP addresses to create multiple userids. I created my niece's profile, for instance.

Obvious exception. I'm not wishing to create a laborious audit procedure or anything...

I still think simply restricting posting for a period of time will kill the majority of anonymous nuisances.

[This message was edited by canadazuuk on June 24, 2003 at 09:44 AM.]

2.3k · June 24, 2003

Why not have an ID number under the avatar, something that is unique to that user IP address? Wouldn't that tell you who has the same accounts?

1.6k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Actually, if someone wants to create a sock puppet, a 5,10 or 15 day waiting period isn't gonna stop them. The only real way to do so would to be to not allow throwaway e-mail accounts like Yahoo and Hotmail. I know it would be very unpopular, but I've encountered other websites that do not allow them specifically to address this issue.

Well, a waiting period will reduce them.

Your mention of throw-away accounts has merit, but obviously could impact too many genuine users of the site.

Probably too cumbersome to restrict userids that use a throw-away e-mail account to ONE per IP address...

1.6k · June 24, 2003

Open this up a bit.

Why do sock puppets exist?

Does ignoring them make them go away?

Does responding to them make them live on?

Are people afraid to say what they think?

3k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
Why not have an ID number under the avatar, something that is unique to that user IP address? Wouldn't that tell you who has the same accounts?

I don't know that it matters. They have IP tools that can track what IP belongs to what username so its sort of the same thing.

I agree that the waiting period wouldn't make too much of a dent and I think that the community has been doing a great job taking care of itself and the trouble sock puppets which popup from time to time.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....

20.7k · June 24, 2003

I agree with your intent. Certainly, the forums would be a better place without many of these puppets. (On the other hand, an argument has been made that sometimes puppets are used to make valid statements that one does not want to suffer rath for in the real world.)

I'm not sure whether the waiting period, in and of itself, will have much effect. We'll still be left with identifying these accounts after they post and zapping them.

9.5k · June 24, 2003

Although I agree there is some need for filtering;

The problem with any filtering you do, be it by time, Yahoo or Hotmail accounts, IP or ID numbers, is you will end up filtering out legitimate users.

That in and of itself will discourage those who maybe testing the waters of this hobby/sport with the tippy tips of their toes.

The reality is, check the registration date. If it is recent, and the subject seems inflammatory, then you probably have a sock puppet doing what they do best... attracting attention to themselves.

We just need to become more attentive to this issue and ignore the inflammatory messages. Like little kids, they will eventually find entertainment elsewhere when appropriately identified and ignored.

Cheers!

TL

3k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Open this up a bit.

Why do sock puppets exist?

Many reasons, one of which is if a team logs one way and a member of that team posts under a different account. Easier to keep track of whats what sometimes. Another reason is to **** people off and when you get a bad rep you can come back as someone else?

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Does ignoring them make them go away?

sometimes

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Does responding to them make them live on?

Sometimes, but then you have people like me and others around here that have fun feeding them and carrying on.

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Are people afraid to say what they think?

For sure, it can be a brutal enviroment in any forum because everyone has this thing called a computer to hide behind. For that reason there should be no worrys to speak your mind as long as you are within the rules of the forum. This sport is one where its participants get to meet one another so sometimes you do have to bite your tongue and if you don't and have to say it a sock puppet might be a way for some, right or wrong.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....

3.1k · June 24, 2003

I don't like the idea for forcing someone who's visiting the forums for the first time because they have a question being told they have to wait before posting. I once registered on a site that made me wait 24 hours, and I gave up on it immediately.

It's the online equivalent of, "Your call is important to us. Please stay on the line and the next available operator will assist you."

Well the mountain was so beautiful that this guy built a mall and a pizza shack

Yeah he built an ugly city because he wanted the mountain to love him back -- Dar Williams

June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:...
Paired with a time restriction, some filter or report could be used to identify IP addresses that have created multiple userids... and while they are sitting out their waiting time, someone just turns them off!

There are plenty of valid reasons for IP addresses to create multiple userids. I created my niece's profile, for instance.

I suppose that if TPTB were to adopt some form of control that involved using IP address 'point of origin' as a filter, they could always send a pro forma email to the *existing* account holder before activating any additional accounts from that same IP address. The pro forma email could simply advise the user of a site policy on 'sock puppets' (and 'trolls' for that matter) and serve notice that it has been noted that more than one user account has been activated from a given IP address; in other words, "...Here's your other account, but we know who you are and - if you don't want to lose your site privilages entirely - don't abuse it...". Before additional accounts are activated, the *existing* account holder could be required to acknowledge the pro forma email and agree to its conditions. Of course, in the event that there is no relationship between the holders of the user accounts (despite the same IP address), that would be an exceptional circumstance that the applicant would be free to take up with TPTB on case-by-case basis.

It probably wouldn't stop them all, but it would certainly give most a 'pause for concern' before using a bogus account for ill will. How taxing this would be on TPTB to make happen, I have no idea ...but my guess is that much of the process could be automated.

2.6k · June 24, 2003

I thought UMC was a sock puppet!?

Pepper playing nice!

Mokita!

20.7k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:Why do sock puppets exist?
Does ignoring them make them go away?

Does responding to them make them live on?

Are people afraid to say what they think?

I assume that the reason for sock puppets is the anonymity they offer. This is sought for one of two reasons:

First, an individual can incite chaos in the forums. No rationality of argument is required because no one knows who they are.

The second reason is so someone can say whats on their mind without fear from reprisal. I can see how this may sometimes be a necessary veil to hide behind.

As far as the puppet used to incite trouble, I think the best thing to do is to identify it as a puppet (even if you can't tell who it belongs to). Once it loses the power to convince people that it should be taken seriously, it will likely go away on its own. If not, it will alomst certainly be zapped by TPTB.

6.5k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Open this up a bit.

Why do sock puppets exist?

Does ignoring them make them go away?

Does responding to them make them live on?

Are people afraid to say what they think?

I don't think having a time limit is going to kill the socks... If they want to bother someone, or whatever, whats waiting a week or two to fix?? Besides, it could cause problems with new users trying to find out something

Why do sock puppets exist?

To do what a socks for of course. Either to say or do something they are too chicken to do when you know its them. Or they think its funny (I found Soylentgreen amusing, but Bolongs usually dumb, but thats just me), or they want to be a dink.

Does ignoring them make them go away?

If they want to start a flame war, yes. But otherwise not really, readying whatever they've said was the purpose I think.

Does responding to them make them live on?

If they are looking to cause arguments, then yes I think repling does urge them to continue.

Are people afraid to say what they think?

No, the is Canada whines alot

[This message was edited by welch on June 24, 2003 at 09:49 AM.]

24.7k · June 24, 2003

How do I know I'm not a sock puppet myself?

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

20.7k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:...
Are people afraid to say what they think?

Of course people are afraid to say what they think. We constantly come across extremely lame caches for which the bulk of the logs read 'Great cache, TNLN'. A few weeks ago I read a log for a micro cache that just said 'It won't let me leave it blank.' I howled.

[This message was edited by sbell111 on June 24, 2003 at 10:20 AM.]

3k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:
_I thought UMC was a sock puppet!?_

I am.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....

1.6k · June 24, 2003

With the ignorers clearly winning at this point, I am retiring for the night, and will arise to see the results after I have lost the election.

Actually, I don't like polls myself... I usually ignore them.

June 24, 2003

Think about it; Geocachers put stuff out all over the world and one common thing about ALL of it is a reference back to this website. It's completely amazing that rude little muggle-dorks don't show up more often than they do. I think we're quite lucky really.

Guess I've been on usenet too long to let that stuff bother me anymore.

-Dan

Team Kender - "The Sun is coming up!" "No, the horizon is going down."

June 24, 2003

You can't stop Sock Puppets in an open forum.

Not with time restrictions.

Not with IP checks.

Not with mail origins.

Not with authentication.

There are easy ways around all of the above.

Only by shutting down open registration can you shut down sock puppets.

Check my profile. Getting around all of the above mentioned checks and restrictions are as easy as what I did with my profile.

Simple as that.

1.4k · June 24, 2003

Perhaps the poll questions should have also included an option for:

- Ban users who create sock puppet accounts.

I certainly agree with Zuuk that sock puppets waste a lot of everyones time. And it's a bit obvious who some of the sock puppet creators are from the responses in this thread.

I don't think the delayed time restrictions are the answer but the admins can certainly find out easily enough if someone is a sock puppet and send an e-mail off to the offending accounts. I think Cache Canucks has suggested the best remedy so far.

Another possible solution would be to make paid membership mandatory -- I'll bet there'd be a lot fewer sock puppets if everyone had to pay 30 bucks to create one.

My biggest gripe about sock puppets is that they definitely take away from the discussion. It's rather frustrating when you've got good dialogue going and someone who is obviously a sock puppet steps in and creates a disturbance. It also does nothing to encourage new members to post to the forums, especially when sock puppets tend to flame people.

As for someone hiding behind a sock puppet veil because they are afraid to say something any other way -- if you are afraid to stand behind what you say then maybe it doesn't need to be said at all. Sorry, sbell111, using your example, if a cache is lame then either say so or don't say anything and live with it. If I visit a cache that I think is lame, I DON"T say it was a good cache. You don't need to be rude and say that it was a pile of crap either -- but if everyone visiting the cache leaves a log of only three or four words, it's an indication that people are not having a pleasurable experience and the owner should get the message.

Sock puppets show a lack of self respect, lack of a valid opinion, and are cowardly. Plain and simple.

*****

5.3k · June 24, 2003

Well, when you have a model that encourages people to use "alter egos" instead of real names, I don't see why anyone can be suprised when folks use yet another such ego to be twice removed from responsibility from their actions.

Also, as a former designer of TCP/IP stacks and understanding how they're used in the Real World, the above solutions involving IP addresses make no sense. In the world before NAT, DHCP, and dial-up, there was a relatively static mapping of users to addresses. Those days have been behind us for about 15 years. Without a court order to get AOL's records of "what account was connected to address X at 1:43 pm" you're not going to get that information from them. It's not a static/per-user thing at all with most modern ISPs and in fact, getting static IP addresses in the modern world frequently requires the equivalent of the sacrifice of a goat. IP address X for RoadRunner today may be assigned to Fred this morning and Bill this afternoon.

Authentication based on IP address is simply fallacious.

Every word I write has my name on it. I wish there was more of that on the 'net...

June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
Paired with a time restriction, some filter or report could be used to identify IP addresses that have created multiple userids... and while they are sitting out their waiting time, someone just turns them off!

wont work... every time you connect to the internet your IP address can be diffferent.

1.4k · June 24, 2003

quote:
graewulf wrote (and a few others mentioned it as well):
wont work... every time you connect to the internet your IP address can be diffferent.

But there are a lot of people with high speed access that do have static IP addresses (yes, I know there are many ways to get around this but there are many who don't have a clue about how to go about it).

*****

June 24, 2003

Do you really think that they wouldn't figure out a way to get back in?

Come on people! They are only wasting your time if you let them!!! If you buy into their fun and then complain about it you are part of the problem. I am not pointing fingers...sometimes going off on a sock puppet, troll or whatever lets off a little steam. I am guilty of it but I am not going to whine about it the time I spent doing it. You have a choice to respond or not.

Restricting new users is a bad idea.

1. New people cannot ask questions.

It's a message board for crying out loud! Should it really matter that much!? Is a Message Board dictating how you spend your time? If so that's pretty darn sad.

1.4k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Gonk and Geefel wrote:
Do you really think that they wouldn't figure out a way to get back in?

Come on people! They are only wasting your time if you let them!!!

I agree with this 100%. But the problem is that there is always someone who take them seriously and feed into their deceitful follies. When was the last time you saw a thread where someone says "Test" or "Oops, delete this thread" and it didn't get twenty replies.

Perhaps if everyone stopped responding to sock puppets it might make the biggest difference...

*****

June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by robertlipe:
Without a court order to get AOL's records of "what account was connected to address X at 1:43 pm" you're not going to get that information from them.

By mentioning AOL, you indirectly bring up the other problem: proxies. There's a good chance that two distinct AOL users will be using the same proxy to connect to a given website. So not only can one person have multiple IP addresses, but multiple people can have the same IP address.

(Oh, and I'm posting with a sock puppet account that's been around for a lot longer than 5 days. See if you can guess how I voted.)

June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by umc:
I am.

Well, only when Rusty or VM has his hand up your.....umm...nevermind. We'll just drop all the sock puppet jokes now.

UMC is an actual cacher, he just can't control his mouth.

June 24, 2003

It tookj me awhile to realize a "sock puppet" was a troll. Is thisw the new name for them, or just a GC thing?

Yeah, most of the time those posts are just ppl in need of more 50/55 caches so they're not in here as much, but deciding whats a valid argument and just crud is hard.

I belong to an XBox forum (I need to veg out sometimes!), and the sock trolls are even worse.

=====

It is the tale, not he who tells it."

1.3k · June 24, 2003

How about an option to hide your identity in the forums.

"The fertilizer has hit the ventilator"

3.1k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by The Falcon:
It tookj me awhile to realize a "sock puppet" was a troll. Is thisw the new name for them, or just a GC thing?

No, different things. Sock puppets are often used for trolling but not exclusively, and you can troll without a sock puppet.

sock puppet: account separate from your usual account intended to keep the main account's identity secret

troll: someone who posts intentionally inflammatory remarks

Well the mountain was so beautiful that this guy built a mall and a pizza shack

Yeah he built an ugly city because he wanted the mountain to love him back -- Dar Williams

June 24, 2003

In response to this thread I have decided to create a sockpuppet.

June 24, 2003

Two problems (at least) with restricting new user IDs to eliominate sock puppets:

1. It won't eliminate sock puppets

2. It would restrict new geocachers from being able to ask legitimate questions

June 24, 2003

Okay, so if I register my sock puppets now, do you think it will be at least 5 days before the new rules are enacted?

My vote is just ignore the sock puppets and don't feed the trolls.

Tell me, who has a higher need to ask legitimate questions than someone who just registered?

Excuse now, while I go find a two year old topic to dredge up.

Oh, sorry! That is a whole different rant...

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

1.8k · June 24, 2003

How do you know 'what is' and 'what isn't' a sock puppet? You have no way of knowing for sure when you are in the forums. Someone you think is a sock puppet could very well be a newbie with an alternative attitude, can you say alt.binary.(insert anything here). Enacting a sock puppet rule would kill some innocent and most likely newbies.

3k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by clearpath:
How do you know 'what is' and 'what isn't' a sock puppet? You have no way of knowing for sure when you are in the forums. Someone you think is a sock puppet could very well be a newbie with an alternative attitude, can you say alt.binary.(insert anything here). Enacting a sock puppet rule would kill some innocent and most likely newbies.

you can tell when they claim to be new and know more about the forum life than most of the regs.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....

2.3k · June 24, 2003

Uh, oh...I can see the "Premium Members Only" chat board section happening here soon....

3k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
Uh, oh...I can see the "Premium Members Only" chat board section happening here soon....

That would get old and boring really quick.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Caching without a clue....

1.6k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Dave_W6DPS:
Excuse now, while I go find a two year old topic to dredge up.

_Oh, sorry! That is a whole different rant..._

That was something I did as a humourous response to what I perceived as mediocre forum threads... since we ask the same things, over and over, why not bring back to life an old thread, and see who responds to it, just like it was brand new...

Of course, not everyone thought it was funny.

The biggest problem I have with sock puppets is that when a genuine thread is going somewhere, someone can create a bogus account, and jump in and ruin things... Granted, a real account can do the same thing, but at least you know who they are...

1.6k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by geosockpuppet:
In response to this thread I have decided to create a sockpuppet.

Exactly.

Except you were supposed to call your self anonymous nuisances

June 24, 2003

If you look at my home page my wife and kids all have caches out in our names. I don't know how many more to this to spread the fun around.

But if you blocked my IP then how could I work with multi accounts?

gm100guy

http://members.rogers.com/gm100guy/cachepage.htm

Ontario geocachers http://groups.msn.com/GeocachinginOntario/homepage

1.6k · June 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team Kender:
It's completely amazing that rude little muggle-dorks don't show up more often than they do.

That's an interesting point.

So far, it seems that creating any means by which we could reduce sock puppets would not go over too well.

So now what?

SOCK PUPPETS BE GONE!!! RESPONSIBLE CACHERS UNITE AGAINST THIS WASTE OF TIME!!!

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment