Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lucille
It can get pretty down and dirty in the BOI as scammers are called on to account for their misdeeds. I think sometimes that sort of antagonism is appropriate if someone has grievously wronged another.
Hopefully, those who take time to avenge such misdeeds will be seen as ferreting out crime and not frivously antagonistic.
To answer your question about further possible infractions, what do you think of assessing a warning point for those who, like Shrillomn, deliberately hide their true identity?
|
Well, there would, of course, need to be a rule against someone creating a false name, and I believe this was addressed in another thread somewhere. The problem would be enforceability of such a rule. Not everyone is going to admit to such a thing, and certainly the effort to try to determine such a thing (or to rebut someone claiming it is or is not true) would prove to be a wasteful use of time and effort. Realistically, there is just no way to "beyond a shadow of a doubt" prove identity.
Suppose, for instance, that someone were to claim that Seamus Haley was in fact a false registration and in fact HE is I. Likely only he and I would know for certain that this claim is false. How could we prove it indisputably?
So what happens if a dozen people believe, perhaps erroneously, that someone is using a false ID and start throwing warning points at them because of it? This person, in turn, starts firing off warning points claiming THEY are abusing the warning point system with false accusations. Obviously this sort of retaliation sort of thing can happen with any warning points volley, but in many cases, the evidence of correctness should be much more easily determined by an unbiased observer.