Impersonating users deleted/perm-banned, including most notably "Leuders"

Isn't identity theft criminal? Pretending to be someone else in order to discredit that person or to hide behind that identity while attacking others. Seems to me to be pretty clear cut.

Isn't identity theft criminal? Pretending to be someone else in order to discredit that person or to hide behind that identity while attacking others. Seems to me to be pretty clear cut.

Identity theft usually refers to stealing and using information, like, say, social security numbers, banking details, etc, and is absolutely criminal.

As for impersonating people on the Internet, one would have to prove defamation (libel). This is harder to prove when you are dealing with Internet pseudonyms, but impersonating people using their actual names is not criminal but civil (at least in the US). One would have to know who was doing it so he or she could sue them in civil court. One would have to get a subpoena from a judge to unmask the impersonator in order to sue them for damages for defamation/libel.

Perhaps at last, some of you are beginning to realise what moderating a ψ forum involves! It isn't that people come with different viewpoints, it is that some come with the intention of messing up the forum. We had endless trouble from those people on Skeptiko, but ultimately what can you do - there aren't the hours in the day to fully investigate these idiots.

I want this forum to succeed, because it has attracted so many Skeptiko regulars, and I feel that if it goes under, it will scatter our whole community. I think your Achilles heel will be your moderation policies. There are people here who don't seem to approve of any moderation, and I can understand their viewpoint in an abstract sense, but you can already see the beginnings of the wave of problems that inadequate moderation will bring. Already Laird has probably banned more people than I did in this year up to the point when things got nasty at Skeptiko! I don't blame him for that, but perhaps you can now see the problem, and why I did some of the things I did.

I would strongly suggest that you pre-screen new members, roughly in the way we do at Skeptiko. Each new member has to engage in a short email discussion with a moderator, and the moderator can decide to accept them, or not. I was amazed how useful this was at Skeptiko. This would be the biggest improvement you could make, and would involve far less moderator time, than trying to sort out the mess afterwards.

I would suggest that anyone who misbehaves to a level that means he is banned, loses the right for his posts to continue to appear. In some cases this may involve removing an entire thread, if it mainly related to the banned individual.

I suggested more than once to Alex, that we refuse to let people join if they want to use bizarre names, such as "Laird pseudoscience promoter" - why the hell should we give such a person the time of day? Obviously, this is best done in the pre-screen.

The problem is, that initially these people can be seen as vaguely amusing, but the volume of trouble quickly grows, and the forum becomes utterly tedious.

I would also suggest that verbal abuse towards other members of the forum - or the use of more than the odd rude word should be dealt with too. I was criticised for insisting on this - as though I was an old fuddy duddy. However, I had seen how letting this pass, progressively degrades the level of conversation, and undoubtedly puts off some people from joining. Imagine if you have kept the details of some incident - say and NDE - secret for many years. Are you going to wish to join a forum to discuss its significance, if people are swearing at each other?

Finally, I would suggest that discussion/criticism of the actions of moderators should be done privately by PM or email. It was very very wearing to have to deal with trouble makers, and then with endless wrangling as to whether I made the right decision.

David

Perhaps at last, some of you are beginning to realise what moderating a ψ forum involves! It isn't that people come with different viewpoints, it is that some come with the intention of messing up the forum. We had endless trouble from those people on Skeptiko, but ultimately what can you do - there aren't the hours in the day to fully investigate these idiots.

I want this forum to succeed, because it has attracted so many Skeptiko regulars, and I feel that if it goes under, it will scatter our whole community. I think your Achilles heel will be your moderation policies. There are people here who don't seem to approve of any moderation, and I can understand their viewpoint in an abstract sense, but you can already see the beginnings of the wave of problems that inadequate moderation will bring. Already Laird has probably banned more people than I did in this year up to the point when things got nasty at Skeptiko! I don't blame him for that, but perhaps you can now see the problem, and why I did some of the things I did.

I would strongly suggest that you pre-screen new members, roughly in the way we do at Skeptiko. Each new member has to engage in a short email discussion with a moderator, and the moderator can decide to accept them, or not. I was amazed how useful this was at Skeptiko. This would be the biggest improvement you could make, and would involve far less moderator time, than trying to sort out the mess afterwards.

I would suggest that anyone who misbehaves to a level that means he is banned, loses the right for his posts to continue to appear. In some cases this may involve removing an entire thread, if it mainly related to the banned individual.

I suggested more than once to Alex, that we refuse to let people join if they want to use bizarre names, such as "Laird pseudoscience promoter" - why the hell should we give such a person the time of day? Obviously, this is best done in the pre-screen.

The problem is, that initially these people can be seen as vaguely amusing, but the volume of trouble quickly grows, and the forum becomes utterly tedious.

I would also suggest that verbal abuse towards other members of the forum - or the use of more than the odd rude word should be dealt with too. I was criticised for insisting on this - as though I was an old fuddy duddy. However, I had seen how letting this pass, progressively degrades the level of conversation, and undoubtedly puts off some people from joining. Imagine if you have kept the details of some incident - say and NDE - secret for many years. Are you going to wish to join a forum to discuss its significance, if people are swearing at each other?

Finally, I would suggest that discussion/criticism of the actions of moderators should be done privately by PM or email. It was very very wearing to have to deal with trouble makers, and then with endless wrangling as to whether I made the right decision.

David

Has anyone checked whether this is really DaveB, or do people think it's sufficiently obvious? 

[Laird]

Thanks for weighing in, David.

The problem with a pre-screening interview is that it wouldn't have prevented any of this. Our troublemaker is adept at misrepresentation and fakery - all he would have done is made up something plausible-sounding and gotten in anyway. A bit more effort for him, but he wouldn't care.

Re deleting a banned user's posts: yes, ordinarily we do that (when there are few posts), but to do so for Fake Leuders would disrupt too many conversations, and this seems to be the consensus among the community - and we aim to go with what the community wants.

Policy on swearing is something that we haven't discussed yet - but then, it hasn't been an issue so far. Probably you're right, though, and we should have that conversation before it becomes an issue.

Tolerance (and even welcoming) of criticism of moderators is a principle which I think all or at least the majority of founders believe in - based on our desire for this forum to be community-driven.

Finally... I've mentioned this before but you seem to have forgotten: I'm not the only moderator here, and in fact I didn't ban most of the users listed in the OP - another moderator took on that task and invited me to make the announcement. We're a team, and we work as a team. :-)

As usual some very sage advice from DaveB. Thanks, DaveB. Keep it coming!!!

Identity theft usually refers to stealing and using information, like, say, social security numbers, banking details, etc, and is absolutely criminal.

As for impersonating people on the Internet, one would have to prove defamation (libel). This is harder to prove when you are dealing with Internet pseudonyms, but impersonating people using their actual names is not criminal but civil (at least in the US). One would have to know who was doing it so he or she could sue them in civil court. One would have to get a subpoena from a judge to unmask the impersonator in order to sue them for damages for defamation/libel.

I have a hard time believing that there is much property rights attached to internet handles. And of course you have to prove some sort of economic loss which would be near impossible for the vast majority of people.  

On the other hand as one of the people who had been impersonated by this guy quite a bit I say: pay up bub!

I have a hard time believing that there is much property rights attached to internet handles. And of course you have to prove some sort of economic loss which would be near impossible for the vast majority of people.  

On the other hand as one of the people who had been impersonated by this guy quite a bit I say: pay up bub!

 Arouet. I don't know if you're currently ignoring me (or not ) but could you possibly point me in the direction of those
impersonations, I'm genuinely curious to see them.

[Ninshub]

I want this forum to succeed, because it has attracted so many Skeptiko regulars, and I feel that if it goes under, it will scatter our whole community. I think your Achilles heel will be your moderation policies.

The incredible irony here. I've tried to stay neutral about this here, as best as I can, but really David you don't seem to have a clue. And you're coming on here with the same sort of paternalistic attitude you had over at that other forum, and complete lack of self-awareness. The difference here, fortunately, is you don't have any power.

(And these Skeptiko-related posts of yours are getting a little tiresome, except for entertainment value, as well as a little out of place.)

Perhaps at last, some of you are beginning to realise what moderating a ψ forum involves! It isn't that people come with different viewpoints, it is that some come with the intention of messing up the forum. We had endless trouble from those people on Skeptiko, but ultimately what can you do - there aren't the hours in the day to fully investigate these idiots.

I want this forum to succeed, because it has attracted so many Skeptiko regulars, and I feel that if it goes under, it will scatter our whole community. I think your Achilles heel will be your moderation policies. There are people here who don't seem to approve of any moderation, and I can understand their viewpoint in an abstract sense, but you can already see the beginnings of the wave of problems that inadequate moderation will bring. Already Laird has probably banned more people than I did in this year up to the point when things got nasty at Skeptiko! I don't blame him for that, but perhaps you can now see the problem, and why I did some of the things I did.

I would strongly suggest that you pre-screen new members, roughly in the way we do at Skeptiko. Each new member has to engage in a short email discussion with a moderator, and the moderator can decide to accept them, or not. I was amazed how useful this was at Skeptiko. This would be the biggest improvement you could make, and would involve far less moderator time, than trying to sort out the mess afterwards.

I would suggest that anyone who misbehaves to a level that means he is banned, loses the right for his posts to continue to appear. In some cases this may involve removing an entire thread, if it mainly related to the banned individual.

I suggested more than once to Alex, that we refuse to let people join if they want to use bizarre names, such as "Laird pseudoscience promoter" - why the hell should we give such a person the time of day? Obviously, this is best done in the pre-screen.

The problem is, that initially these people can be seen as vaguely amusing, but the volume of trouble quickly grows, and the forum becomes utterly tedious.

I would also suggest that verbal abuse towards other members of the forum - or the use of more than the odd rude word should be dealt with too. I was criticised for insisting on this - as though I was an old fuddy duddy. However, I had seen how letting this pass, progressively degrades the level of conversation, and undoubtedly puts off some people from joining. Imagine if you have kept the details of some incident - say and NDE - secret for many years. Are you going to wish to join a forum to discuss its significance, if people are swearing at each other?

Finally, I would suggest that discussion/criticism of the actions of moderators should be done privately by PM or email. It was very very wearing to have to deal with trouble makers, and then with endless wrangling as to whether I made the right decision.

David

I definitely agree that allowing this stuff to smolder, will lead to fires. And it will not only keep people from joining, but even more importantly it can be the reason for good and smart people leaving. 

Some may say, "good riddance, we don't need that guy, he's not tough enough to hang with us". That is a load of BS, and we will loose good solid contributors taking that attitude. You shouldn't have to be "tough enough" to spend time here. Just knowledgeable enough, and smart enough, and maybe most importantly, civil enough to participate. Just my 2C.

BTW- You guys on the moderator side are doing a tremendous job, and are for the most part, invisible, which is the way it should be when it's done well.