Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday January 03 2023, @10:04AM (14 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 03 2023, @10:04AM (#1284913) Journal

    Reports from various ACs who have been banned from commenting, and have attempted to register a user name on SoylentNews, is that as soon as an account is activated (they log in), the email is changed by admin, the password changed, and the account is for all practical purposes banned. So what we know so far: The vast majority of new accounts equals ....

    Only 1 person is banned - so who are these 'various ACs ' that you claim to have also been banned from commenting?. You can comment freely - you are doing so now. The next step would be simply to disable AC posting completely for those who are not logged in - but we would rather not do that. Why punish others for the sins of one idiot?

    Where are you seeing these 'reports' - you know, the ones that you do not write yourself? Must be on another site, because they are not on ours. May I suggest that you move permanently to that site and then you can at least be be among friends?

    But the only way we can tell if two Soylentils are the same Soylentil, is if both of them downmod Runaway, or say things critical of janrinok.

    If your allegation is correct (which of course it isn't), they never get to log in, so the detection of sock puppet accounts cannot be based on how they respond to other users. I've downmodded Runaway as have many other accounts - that doesn't make somebody a sock puppet. The accounts are disabled as soon as they are identified - it has nothing at all to do with whether they log in or not.

    The log-in is only significant with fake accounts created by a bot (which are NOT blocked at all). Very little data is added to the database by creating an account. Almost all the records are created when an account logs in for the first time. As fake accounts do not do this they cause us no problems whatsoever.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2023, @10:51AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2023, @10:51AM (#1284917)

    janrinok seems to be bothered by reports of the facts that there are no new accounts on SN. He also said Ncommander has halved the expenses, by halving the servers, but neglected to mention that this also reduced posting by over 80%, banned AC posting, and hid journals, and IRC log files. Soon, SoylentNews will be on a paying basis! For a free public-propaganda site.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @05:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @05:29AM (#1285616)

      So, you are saying, no new accounts are allowed on SoylentNews? How ever will we grow to out populate the Green Shite?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:32AM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:32AM (#1285636)

    I have personally heard from over a hundred ACs who have been rejected and bannished when trying to establish new user accounts on SN. Not sure how that ranks as a sample of the total number, which will have to remain unknown. The depths of janrinok's censorship are deep, but how deep no one knows. 6-700 new accounts rejected? On what basis? Were they all aristarchus, or "aristarchus friendly"? Very telling, as far as tells go.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:36AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:36AM (#1285637)

      Correction: You've posted over 100 AC comments pretending to be a victim because your sock puppets keep getting banned.

      Earth to aristarchus: GROW THE FUCK UP

      • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:46AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @07:46AM (#1285641)

        aristarchus is gone, he no longer posts here. Trust me, I know, for I am he.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday January 08 2023, @08:58AM (1 child)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 08 2023, @08:58AM (#1285801) Journal

          for I am he.

          Therefore he has not gone and he just has posted.

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2023, @07:26AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2023, @07:26AM (#1285926)

            Janrinok knows his logic! Can't get anything passed him with mere double negatives or Cretan paradoxes! If only we had such a wise and temperate editor, more fair than a Sumner's day.

            Invalid form key: ZrEUba4KKK

            Strange, there it is again!

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday January 07 2023, @08:51AM (6 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 07 2023, @08:51AM (#1285648) Journal
      I asked:

      Where are you seeing these 'reports' - you know, the ones that you do not write yourself? Must be on another site, because they are not on ours.

      You replied:

      I have personally heard from over a hundred ACs who have been rejected and banished when trying to establish new user accounts on SN

      Evidence? None at all - you are just repeating your own claims. Or do these people contact you while you sleep, or via a ouija board perhaps?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @10:36AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @10:36AM (#1285654)

        Evidence? None at all - you are just repeating your own claims.

        Learned from the best! SN admins! Sure aristarchus sockpuppeted! Of course he doxxed some unknown goat farmer! And, most damning, aristarchus disrupted discussions! This I all know, because janrinok tells me so!

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday January 07 2023, @11:14AM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 07 2023, @11:14AM (#1285659) Journal

          Both aristarchus and Runaway1956 created sock puppets - they were seen and identified by numerous community members. The SN comments by community members identifying them are still there for you to see.

          The doxing was in aristarchus' own submissions, under his own username. That is hardly circumstantial and was clearly attributable to the person responsible for it. The doxing is the ONLY reason that aristarchus was banned.

          I don't care what usernames are disrupting the discussions - they are unwelcome and will all be treated the same. There was more than one real account responsible - although usually posting as AC - so all ACs were prevented from commenting on the front pages. There was no alternative - there is only 1 AC account.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @11:44AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2023, @11:44AM (#1285662)

          Aristarchus posted a comment in reply to Runaway, which contained what appears to be Runaway's real name. Runaway has indicated which county he lives in, and this repeated at least on one occasion by the aristarchus account. Given Runaway's name and county of residence, a search of properties from the assessor's office identifies a single individual. This amounts to doxxing, and it was done in a comment posted by the aristarchus account.

          It doesn't really matter whether the individual really is Runaway. The comment has targeted a single individual for harassment. Runaway did not provide his name in any of his comments, but it was disclosed by the aristarchus account. Again, whether it's actually Runaway is irrelevant. The fact that a single individual has been targeted by aristarchus is a form of intimidation, threatening, and harassment. There is no doubt about who is responsible, because this was all done from the aristarchus account.

          I am not a staff member, but I have done some searching on my own, and I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. I will not link to the evidence because I do not wish to encourage further harassment, but it is still present in the site's comments. Let's just say it's not too hard to find with a bit of searching.

          The individual behind the aristarchus account had better hope that he has been careful enough to cover your own tracks. If anyone can identify who was behind the aristarchus account, if they go to law enforcement, there might well be some serious prison time involved.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2023, @09:17AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2023, @09:17AM (#1285802)

            Let me get this straight:

            Aristarchus posted a comment in reply to Runaway, which contained what appears to be Runaway's real name. Runaway has indicated which county he lives in,

            So, you took one piece of info from a reply to Runaway1956, and another from Runaway his own self, and you doxxed the poor bastard dead to rights? You think if it was that easy, anyone could do it, like even a House Republican. And this is a crime, how? Since you have evidently committed it. And you didn't even share!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2023, @09:53AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2023, @09:53AM (#1285806)

              Holy shit, I didn't realize you were this stupid.

              The issue isn't that I looked up the identity of the person aristarchus purports is Runaway. There's nothing illegal about a public records search. I haven't posted any laws because I haven't posted anyone's personal information, let alone inciting harassment against them.

              However, Runaway's name is not readily determined from his comments. Aristarchus went to some lengths to obtain that information. Moreover, instead of merely searching for the information, aristarchus chose to post it publicly. Aristarchus' intent is to incite harassment of the individual whom he believes is Runaway. The name of this individual would not have been known to me except that aristarchus chose to post it publicly in a comment under the aristarchus username, posted it a few times as an anonymous coward, and even created a sock puppet with the name. Again, this information would not have been available to be if aristarchus had not posted it publicly to see.

              If anyone finds out who is behind the aristarchus account and turns the information over to law enforcement, aristarchus may well be looking at some serious prison time for harassment, threats, and attempts to incite violence. I don't believe your excuses, and you can bet the police won't, either.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2023, @10:50AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2023, @10:50AM (#1285808)

                Local police, FBI, and other law enforcement would not care about generic online harassment and indistinct threats, even if they had all the evidence in the world and the perpetrators' identities handed to them. The bar for prosecuting these things is high because of the First Amendment, and they have bigger fish to fry. Throw in true threats or swattings and they might start to care.

                This is for the communities themselves to take care of, and SN has. Sort of. aristarchus is still using the site every day like the boring troll he is.