False registrations...

[WebSlave]

Seems like we have been getting a flurry of bogus registrations lately. From the number of emails I have gotten, apparently others have noticed as well.

** I just deleted a whole BUNCH of typing when I came to the realization that I was walking down the very same path I walked down before I implemented the paid requirement for posting on the BOI. That was done when I believed that it was the only feasible way to verify members, and automated the process to boot. And that failed spectacularly.

So, there is no real solution to the problem as far as I can see, and we just have to put up with it as best we can. If anyone wants to find those old threads and link to them, it will probably stop some people from posting ideas that have already been addressed in the past.

I just got hit by a jolt of crankiness when I saw such blatant evidence of it today....

 

[dprince]

I appreciate what you do to try and monitor it, Rich. The false registrations and subsequent useless posts make lots of us cranky.......

Thanks for the heads up.

 

[The BoidSmith]

Rich,

How can you tell they are bogus?

Regards,

 

[Chameleon Company]

I think I noticed at least a couple that you addressed, in the thread about Providence Reptile and the drug involvement. Two things came to mind:

1) The full name etc requirement is a BOI only thing, is it not ? If so, then is it not possible to suggest a topic that seems to want continued discussion could be moved, or at least suggested as a way to continue, to a forum where anonimity is tolerated ? ; and

2) Assuming that Fungus is a fake name, etc. Under the circumstances, ie. wanting to blow the whistle on someone busted in a large steroid ring, anonimity has its legitimate advantages. Not saying there is a perfect answer, and linking someone to their recent drug busts is not common in the BOI, but it is of value to the community AND stifled by the BOI format in this circumstance.

Rules are rules, but in this circumstance, I think suggesting a shift to another forum, or a moderator initiated move, is warranted. That would be within the rules.

 

[varnyard]

I had another user name long, long ago, I don't remember the name or the password. I was not that active here then, and it was on another ISP and IP back then.

But I only use/have this one since the join date on this account.

 

[nora]

Would it be possible to request proof of ID? like asking a person to email a copy of their Driver's license or passport if a person's identity is questionable by staff?

 

[Jim O]

Would it be possible to request proof of ID? like asking a person to email a copy of their Driver's license or passport if a person's identity is questionable by staff?

I'm sure that it's possible. That will drive registrations way down for two reasons. First, who in their right mind is going to bother to do that to join a forum? I don't even like showing my license at a new doctor's office. Second, who is going to spend the hours required to review the documentation? Even 30 new registrations each day would be a lot of work.

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

What about a Question Verification thing?( i had one that asked me When it rains, what does it get? and had wet or dry *case sensitive* as what you had to answer) They cant be that difficult to implement into the forum registration forms, and while annoying to an extent, they can help decrease the number of fake registrations.

I know they have the smart bots now that can figure out the response/answer in those jumbled letter things, but maybe one of them instead/too. if its gonna help. *shrug*

 

[hhmoore]

Doesn't prevent people from using false names on their registrations, though.

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

Doesn't prevent people from using false names on their registrations, though.

i dont think there is anything that CAN prevent that. not unless you want to go to extreme measures.

 

[The BoidSmith]

Really, how much does it bother to have some people post with a bogus names. If they don't have what it takes to post their name that's their own problem. It's very simple, don't engage in conversation with those with fake identities.

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

Really, how much does it bother to have some people post with a bogus names. If they don't have what it takes to post their name that's their own problem. It's very simple, don't engage in conversation with those with fake identities.

im not sure if people care so much on the general forums ( i know i dont so much on those areas of the site, maybe others do) but the BOI instead. I WOULD have a problem with people posting under fake names there.

 

[hhmoore]

I think the point is that there have been a number of false identities posting on the BOI, for whatever reasons (bypassing a suspension, trolling, anonymity). It isn't so much a matter of interacting with them, as it is them violating the rules of the BOI and making accusations under an assumed name.

 

[nora]

I'm sure that it's possible. That will drive registrations way down for two reasons. First, who in their right mind is going to bother to do that to join a forum? I don't even like showing my license at a new doctor's office. Second, who is going to spend the hours required to review the documentation? Even 30 new registrations each day would be a lot of work.

no im not saying they submit the proof at the time of registration.. Just only when its been questioned.

for example that guy in the BOI that had his posts deleted in the Tim Lofton thread that had the bogus name. rich couldve told him "hey you need to send me a digital image of your ID to validate who you are and I'm giving you only 24 hours otherwise your account will be suspended and your posts deleted."

Its kinda like a POA concept (proof of age) when buying cigarettes or beer at the store and the clerk asks to see your id. No ID no booze.

 

[The BoidSmith]

I'm not sure how many members are there right now but can you imagine checking all the picture ID on each member? That's a full time job in itself.

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

I'm not sure how many members are there right now but can you imagine checking all the picture ID on each member? That's a full time job in itself.

if you read it again, she said that if anyones Identity was in question. ^_-

 

[Jim O]

if you read it again, she said that if anyones Identity was in question. ^_-

And just who should decide who is "in question"? Is it anyone who is new to the forum who posts something that "insiders" don't like or don't agree with? It's a dicey issue and I would have a uniform policy. Require verification of all users, or not of any. Anything else is blatantly discriminatory.

 

[Mooing Tricycle]

And just who should decide who is "in question"? Is it anyone who is new to the forum who posts something that "insiders" don't like or don't agree with? It's a dicey issue and I would have a uniform policy. Require verification of all users, or not of any. Anything else is blatantly discriminatory.

I dont think verification COULD happen without going to some sort of extreme measure. It was not my idea to start, so youd have to ask Nora that one.

 

[WebSlave]

Rich,

How can you tell they are bogus?

Regards,

By context and content it's normally pretty easy to figure out. It's not foolproof, of course, but how many times have you read posts and thought they seemed suspiciously similar to what someone else has said?

The problem is, attempting to prove it takes up someone's valuable time....

 

[WebSlave]

I think I noticed at least a couple that you addressed, in the thread about Providence Reptile and the drug involvement. Two things came to mind:

1) The full name etc requirement is a BOI only thing, is it not ? If so, then is it not possible to suggest a topic that seems to want continued discussion could be moved, or at least suggested as a way to continue, to a forum where anonimity is tolerated ? ; and

2) Assuming that Fungus is a fake name, etc. Under the circumstances, ie. wanting to blow the whistle on someone busted in a large steroid ring, anonimity has its legitimate advantages. Not saying there is a perfect answer, and linking someone to their recent drug busts is not common in the BOI, but it is of value to the community AND stifled by the BOI format in this circumstance.

Rules are rules, but in this circumstance, I think suggesting a shift to another forum, or a moderator initiated move, is warranted. That would be within the rules.

I would lean towards thinking that that suggestion would cause more problems than it would cure. Once you have a thread spiralling out of hand on the BOI, and into areas dangerous for the participants, and needs to be moved to the unrestricted forum (I actually used to do something like this, but for a different reason, associated with the HELL forum), how do the existing members then drop their publicly visible identities without creating new bogus accounts? And how many of those accounts would bleed back over into the BOI? So far there seems to be no real effective and free method of reducing bogus registrations, and I would prefer to not encourage it a reason for people to do so here. The basic premise behind the BOI was that if you don't have the guts to state your case and put your name on your claims, then what you say is just not wanted here. Evidence is really only worth the credibility of the person stating it

Further, with anonymous posting, there is no ownership of the words, and anyone at all can virtually say anything they want about anyone they want with absolutely no recourse for the person being targeted. The BOI is bad enough as it is without trying to promote an even worse atmosphere of complete hayhem.

As for someone being justified trying to remain anonymous because of the illegal nature of the situation and the people involved, quite honestly, some things are just going to have to be outside of the focus of this site if that sort of thing REQUIRES people to remain anonymous for their own safety. Perhaps there are other sites for this sort of thing, but this one, unfortunately, can't cover everything for everyone.