a question from Psychobabble

Comment by danial tijuana [mod] on April 13, 2012 at 12:20am

The question operates on multiple levels.

The first level is a thinly veiled insult embedded in the code words "or just you"

I will not address that issue, that is PB's attitude problem, not mine

Comment by danial tijuana [mod] on April 13, 2012 at 12:24am

The second level is a question of "legal" or "permitted activity"

embedded in the words "are the rest of us allowed to have a sock account"

AND the answer is Yes, the "rest of us" (myself included, since I refuse to accept PB's exclusionary language) are permitted

WHICH "permission" you will see contained in sections of the GP which I will quote hereafter

Comment by danial tijuana [mod] on April 13, 2012 at 12:26am

Article 1. Membership

Anyone can become a member of VloggerHeads under the following conditions:
The applicant must establish his or her identity and age, and consent to the provisions of the TOS and the Governing Procedures.
Persons under the age of 18 cannot become members of VloggerHeads.
Persons not consenting to the TOS and the Governing Procedures cannot become members of VloggerHeads.
VloggerHeads does not verify the identity information presented, but applicants who are obviously giving false identity informations will not be accepted as members.

All members enjoy the same rights on VloggerHeads, except for the rights reserved for the registered voters of
VloggerHeads.

Comment by danial tijuana [mod] on April 13, 2012 at 12:33am

NOW, reading carefully, you will see the last words say that "All members enjoy the same rights" (except for those reserved for registered voters [more about that later])

And THEREFORE, it is NOT only one person (or only "me" whom the bully implies is alone) who is permitted to have a sock account

HOWEVER, there is a catch

"applicants who are obviously giving false identity informations will not be accepted as members"

AND SO, if PB were blessed with administrative powers he would be able to check and see that my sock account is actually registered in my own name with my own birthday, even though the name up front may be different (in this case Charlotte Duston or whoever I may change it to as I see fit)

.

Comment by danial tijuana [mod] on April 13, 2012 at 12:44am

Originally I was not so honest, and I was, like many other socks, hidden behind a false name. In the past two years, however, I have gradually swung around to the position that if I am going to play the game of sock accounts, I should at least honestly record my ownership of those accounts with the administration of the web site.

NOW this decision is not simply because I am such a good little boy, no, not at all. It is purely self-protective. By honestly admitting my "ownership" of those accounts by registering them under my own name, I believe I give myself a legal leg to stand on when it comes to defending my right, and my power, under the GP, to possess and use multiple accounts. Or "socks" as they are commonly called.

Comment by danial tijuana [mod] on April 13, 2012 at 12:48am

FURTHERMORE, the FACT that several members HAVE multiple accounts, or MAY from time to time have multiple accounts, and that such multiple accounts are a de facto reality of this website, is confirmed by the much more strict limitation to registered voting, contained in the second paragraph or section of

Article 2:

...

The “real” person holding the account can only hold one citizenship and only with the registered account. Transfer of "registered voter" status to another account held by the ”real” person must be applied for publicly and will lead to the account being considered a new "registered voter".

.

This article actually implies that sock accounts are "permitted" or perhaps only "tolerated" BUT THAT a "real" member may have only one voting account.

I have furthermore used this article myself, personally, in order to transfer my voter registration from Danial to Charlotte and then from Charlotte to Gene Tarento whose name I then changed back to Charlotte before transferring my voting a third time back to Danial Tijuana (the account which I believe is speaking to you now.

Comment by danial tijuana [mod] on April 13, 2012 at 12:50am

SOCK ACCOUNTS SHOULD ONLY BE ILLEGAL when

1. they mis-represent their "true" registered owner to administration -- which registration is a secret, private, "doc" not available to the general membership, OR WHEN THEY

2. violate TOS or GP.

Comment by danial tijuana [mod] on April 13, 2012 at 12:53am

ONE FINAL POINT

Aesthetically, using a sock to project a separate personality or character should be no more illegal than writing a short story for a blog and changing the names or even inventing a fictional narrator or person or whoever.

.

Comment by sillysillytom on April 13, 2012 at 1:36am

a good read but wasted I fear as any answer would not likely suffice

Comment by Jay1p on April 13, 2012 at 3:00am

I agree. Daniel's sock was never a question of who it was, no matter who didn't catch it.

I made a sock once, but realized none was needed to be free to be an ass if I wished. (Not that Charlote is an ass >) I also decided that like "Popeye", "I am what I am," and it would show through.  

Besides, Syd refused to welcome me to vloggerheads .  Good call.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page