Kristie

AOL and MSN, dial ups like that, many people can share the same IP. I shared an IP with amie, and many other people no where even close to my state. Same with many other people I checked IP's on. I have seen up to 50 people that shared an IP, usually AOL or MSN.

ju'iblex

i have a feeling shes thinking of ISP, or providers or something.

Kristie

No I am thinking of IP's I was also a senior staff member, I had a list of all the IP addresses, AOL is dynamic and changes addresses often. AOL for instance routes their customers service to a hub or a proxy, therefore many people can share an IP.

207.65.28.75 for example could be shared by several people at any one time. I have seen up to 40 or so people share an IP address.

Cable and DSL are usually unique and localized to a city as far as I know.

And I don't believe GTX misrepresented Christianity, he may have misrepresented himself, but he seemed to post about the same as Badfish.

SULPHUR

I like you don't go away.

SULPHUR

I always thought that there was a real person there.

HelenM

It seems to me that the moderating here is 'better' than at CF because there are more 'checks and balances' here against unfairness, not because Christians are inherently unable to be fair moderators.

I think that allowing/encouraging sockpuppets was an unwise decision at CF. It seems to me that doing so is deceptive and sets up a big temptation to moderators since they are held accountable for what they post under their sockpuppet name. I think 'moderator hat on' is a much better and more honest way of transitioning from 'I'm a participant in this debate' to 'I am speaking as a moderator'.

I don't see that boards should have to have moderators whose beliefs are in conflict with their fundamental goals as a board. I thnk it's their call whether they exclude such people from registering or have clear rules limiting opposing views. However, to the extent they allow people with opposing view to participate and express them I do think that they should strive to treat them as well as participants who do share their views and goals. Edits, suspensions and banning should all be based on rules that can be pointed to and should be carried out as consistently as possible, imo.

A few years ago I was moderator on a board where moderators were allowed not to reveal themselves as moderators, so that others would still interact freely with them as 'normal' participants. I like how it is around here, that moderators seem able to be known and have no sockpuppets and both participate in discussions and speak/act as moderators when needed. I think it's to the credit of IIDB and the participants here that that works.

Helen

sakrilege

How did gunny know 2PAC was banned?

Grizzly

That's a great question. Not even the moderators knew he was banned. Only the admins (and the person posting as 2PAC) could have known that.

Grizzly

Helen,

I agree with you about the concern over moderator sockpuppets. Even if the original intent was to allow mods more leeway in interacting with regular members, the chance for abuse is too great. Why not create a number of users, then they can all agree with you? And if someone disagrees with you and starts winning an argument, you can always put on your mod sockpuppet and lock the thread or give out warnings. The potential for abuse is too great. Why not just be honest? People realize that mods are people too with opinions and attitudes. I don't think it compromises their position to also engage in a discussion. If a mod gets into a heated argument with someone then closes the thread, at least the user could complain to an admin that he felt the mod was not being partial. With mod sockpuppets, there is no such recourse.

Grizzly

I think the GTX/Badfish puppetry is a different scenario. First, it was no secret that GTX was Badfish. Secondly, I believe he did it to try out some new ideas that were not consistent with Badfish. Third, he's not a moderator, so it would not be possible for him to abuse power.