Feedback Questions for the Admins

Here's the difference, a VPN does not require a lot of money, and can allow anyone to participate simultaneously with multiple accounts.

Here's an example of what someone can do with a VPN:

• PersonA connects with their real IP on their main account "UsernameA" and gets into an argument with LarryS.
• 10 minutes later, PersonA connects with a VPN via Country1 on "UsernameB" and jumps into the argument to support UsernameA against LarryS.
• 20 minutes later, PersonA connects with a VPN via Country2 on "UsernameC" and jumps into the argument to support UsernameA and UsernameB against LarryS.
• 30 minute later, PersonA connects with a VPN via Country3 on "UsernameD" and jumps into the argument to support UsernameA, UsernameB, and UsernameC against LarryS.
• 40 minutes later, PersonA connects with a VPN via Country4 on "UsernameE" and jumps into the argument to support UsernameA, UsernameB, UsernameC, and UsernameD against LarryS.
• 50 minutes later, PersonA disconnects their VPN, reconnects with "UsernameA", and posts in the thread thanking UsernameB, UsernameC, UsernameD, and UsernameE for their support while taunting LarryS for his lack of support, leading an uninformed reader to believe UsernameA is right and LarryS is wrong.
• LarryS is now arguing against 5 different accounts, but they are all the same person. And it only required a VPN that costs less than $5 a month.

Without a VPN, a person can't easily do the above. Of course, if they get banned, they can go to a different city, create a new username, and use that one until the ban on their original account is lifted.

But that requires a lot more than $5 a month and is only good for 1 extra account that can't even be used simultaneously with another account.

So does this mean that prohibiting VPN's results in no person ever having multiple accounts here? Of course not, it just makes it a lot more difficult and a lot more expensive, which means that prohibiting VPN's significantly reduces the number of members with multiple accounts.

If you have one member so intent on having multiple accounts that they will travel to different cities to do so, then just imagine the chaos that would ensue if we permitted VPN's that allowed them to instantly connect from 50 different countries all from the comfort of their own home.

Administering a community isn't about the 100% elimination of Spam, Multiple Accounts, etc. because 100% elimination is simply not achievable. It's about minimization and we have the tools and expertise in place to achieve an unparalleled minimization which is precisely why you don't see a lot of spam or members with multiple accounts here. As most of our members know, we aren't quick on the ban trigger, and we do give our members the benefit of the doubt as we prefer to have a few disruptive users with multiple accounts from different cities than risk banning an innocent person that we suspect without hard evidence.

It's precisely because of the fact that we aren't quick on the ban trigger that our members here feel more at liberty to express their opinions than at other communities, and that is just one of the many benefits of our uncensored nature.

 

So they would have to keep physically moving around from one destination to the other without being able to repeat the destination on a different account, keeping track of which account they use at McDonalds, which account at the Casino, etc. and if they make one slip, then they are busted. Not to mention they would not be able to have near-simultaneous participation due to the travel time between destinations. All for what, to win an internet argument? A very small percentage of the population would go to such lengths to win an internet argument. Now, again, compare that to a the ease and convenience of a VPN. Two clicks and you're a different account. Two more clicks and you are now yet another account. So on and so forth. All for less than $5 a month from the comfort of your home. A much greater percentage of the population would be willing to click twice to help win an internet argument. That's why we prohibit them.

Not a dead giveaway as the possibility of it being an acquaintance is still real. Unless we start asking our members for their ID's, a new account jumping in to support someone is not necessarily a sock puppet. It could very well be an acquaintance, and that acquaintance would have every right to join our community and share their opinion.

We're not going to do that as one of our unique selling points is our openness. Of course, that openness has consequences, and that's why we look for balanced approaches such as prohibiting VPN's to minimize disruptions.

LovePotion9 just has to click their mouse a couple of times to disconnect their VPN to be able to post here again. Yet they refuse to, and even more bizarre, they are absolutely furious at not being allowed to post here even though they are 100% in control of that and it would only take a couple of clicks to be allowed to post here again. Presumably, a person would only get upset at not being able to post if they actually saw value in posting here, but all that anger somehow doesn't translate to a few simple mouse clicks to disconnect their VPN to be able to post again? One cannot be so upset and obsessed at not being able to post here that they would join yet another community to complain incessantly about it, yet not be willing to click their mouse a few times in order to continue participating here. Their story simply does not add up.

 

The probable cause is typically what you stated above:

If someone is using multiple accounts, but isn't furthering an agenda or being disruptive, then there isn't really much harm to the community, so it's not the end of the world if they go unnoticed. However, when different usernames begin to collude on a particular agenda or to disrupt, that's when we become suspicious and that's when they normally get busted if they're the same person. Of course, if they are going through all the trouble of covering their tracks by moving around from one destination to the next and keeping track of which account belongs to which destination, then sure, they might be "safe", but who is mentally unstable enough to do that in the long-term when there is no tangible benefit to be gained? Only a very small percentage of the population, which is why we aren't too concerned about it. We don't intend or expect to win all battles, just the important ones that actually matter.

Precisely.

 

We hinted at this above:

However, we do not wish to discuss the particulars of an ongoing investigation nor how we investigate such suspicions for obvious reasons.

All circumstantial evidence.

Assuming they are the same person, we doubt they are laughing because it would mean that we forced them to travel.

Because the latter claimed to be a friend of the former, and the former is the clear subject of discussion.

 

Yes, and how many people would be willing to go to that trouble -- constantly pestering their buddies every single day at the racetrack -- in the long-term just to try to win an internet argument? Right now, we only suspect of one that may be willing to go to that kind of trouble. If possibly allowing that one sock puppet (again, no hard evidence) means not unfairly banning other innocent members that we may wrongfully suspect are sock puppets based on their "writing styles" and "timing" (e.g. a "hunch"), then we are fine with that because we know that the percentage of the world's population willing to go to the trouble of constantly traveling to different destinations -- near and far -- and constantly borrowing friends' computers and keeping track of which accounts belong to which destinations/friends just to try to win an internet argument is incredibly small. Even then, in our experience, that incredibly small percentage of the population willing to do that tends to eventually give up after a few weeks as they realize it's more trouble than it's worth.

That would be a VPN, which we don't allow.