...kindly allow for the possibility that the mutiple aliases correspond to multiple personalities unaware of each other and that the conversations are real.
Why do some people have (multiple) aliases in ET?
- Thread starter Thunderdog
- Start date
I don't know how cost effective it would be for Baron to vet new subscribers. Charging would be one way to reduce the nonsense, but as others have pointed out it's his business model and it apparently works for him as is.
Technical solutions seem equally farfetched. Cookies and/or tying a subscriber to an IP address won't work. Most IP addresses vary, those that don't can be legally spoofed via Anonymizer, GhostSurfer and other such products, and cookies can be managed.
Here's one idea I haven't seen mentioned in my brief stay.
How about separate "post levels" of chat (and other social forums) that permit only subscribers with 250 or 500 posts (some number, the exact number isn't my point here) to participate read/write? Those with fewer posts could read-only.
This would diminish the incentive of those who invent new aliases simply to flame, vent, or double/triple team. Today, it's just too easy to get aboard a thread and dominate with all manner of idiocy. By the time one has posted 250 times, others have had plenty of opportunity to put them on an Ignore List. By then, you know how a person approaches social interactions and whether or not they are a value to you.
Current chat could still exist, but we'd all know it was the haven that it was and could avoid it for serious discussions, even on the topics of simple chat. I'm guessing it would be technically simple to implement such a check since the code for it already exists on the product-related forums; the overhead to Baron afterwards would be nearly non-existent.
I think this would improve the quality of posts for those who are interested in dealing in conversations whose participants aren't engineered to stack a pov.
Technical solutions seem equally farfetched. Cookies and/or tying a subscriber to an IP address won't work. Most IP addresses vary, those that don't can be legally spoofed via Anonymizer, GhostSurfer and other such products, and cookies can be managed.
Here's one idea I haven't seen mentioned in my brief stay.
How about separate "post levels" of chat (and other social forums) that permit only subscribers with 250 or 500 posts (some number, the exact number isn't my point here) to participate read/write? Those with fewer posts could read-only.
This would diminish the incentive of those who invent new aliases simply to flame, vent, or double/triple team. Today, it's just too easy to get aboard a thread and dominate with all manner of idiocy. By the time one has posted 250 times, others have had plenty of opportunity to put them on an Ignore List. By then, you know how a person approaches social interactions and whether or not they are a value to you.
Current chat could still exist, but we'd all know it was the haven that it was and could avoid it for serious discussions, even on the topics of simple chat. I'm guessing it would be technically simple to implement such a check since the code for it already exists on the product-related forums; the overhead to Baron afterwards would be nearly non-existent.
I think this would improve the quality of posts for those who are interested in dealing in conversations whose participants aren't engineered to stack a pov.
The only way that I can think to deal with multiple aliases is to have one person (Baron/moderator) responsible for deleting them as soon as they become known. Members can "report" a suspected alias and if the Dictator(for lack of a better word) agrees, he simply deletes that username. The only people that I think would disagree with this method would be those that use multiple aliases or those that have been banned and are trying to get back on ET. The person would kinda be like ET's bouncer.
u r so right LS. i agree with everything you say. ur also the best trader here...
Juz messin' wid yuh, holmes!
Yes,
But I'm not personally offended by posters known by many names.
I think its much more irritating to wittiness a thread get derailed, just for the fun of it by the derailers.
ET is not the US government, so why protect a poster from themselves? I don't see how their hurting anybody else.
Content is another story.