jusun says we should get the staff to decide on this because apparently sharing an account is too detrimental to cB...see:


should sharing accounts be allowed for official members? the rule was set back when james was snooping backstage on nicki's account, but if we were all even as official members, why should it be frowned upon to share an account? there is nothing to take advantage of. shouldn't it be our decision who uses our account?

But what happens when two people are sharing an account, and one of them spams or breaks rules? The person who did it is going to blame it on the person... and there would be no way to prove which person did it. And if an account being shared gets banned, what about the person(s) who use the account that didnt do anything?

It just seems like it'd be too much trouble for sharing to be allowed.

^ Then the people that do that take that risk, I guess.

I don't think it matters - there are tons of people who "share accounts" mainly in the graphics submission end of it. Layout Affiliates team together and submit under the same username, so I really don't see a problem with it.

What's the pros of sharing an account? I can clearly see a con being, snooping through people's private messages.

On top of that, now I don't trust mods... cuz that means if a mod gets involved in a debate, and can't handle what they started, they'll look for someone else to take care of their debate. If that's the case, then maybe I should let my mentor have my username/password so he can out debate everyone, even atheists, with their own ammunition, science.

As for the group account, moderators can figure out which post belongs to which member.



Snooping through private messages? What the hell are you talking about?

Oops, merge please.

That is true - IP addresses give away who is who.

None of that made any sense to me, but OK.

The problem is accountability, or rather follwoing through once accountability has been established. Yes, one could manually go through and cross reference each post to establish who did what, but that takes quite a bit of time and effort. In any event, it does no good to only punish one member of the group using a username, because if you disable their account, they can still post under the shared account, which cannot be limited because it would be unjust to those who hadn't been part of the rule breaking.

Oh, and as far as the Nicki thing goes, she didn't know that I was using her account. So really, that is about as relevant as you guys 'sharing' Rico's account, which didn't end so well either, despite you being in the same user groups.

Ummm, why would we need to snoop each others messages? We would be sharing the account, ergo knowing what was going on with it...

Is there a way to ban a specific ip address from a specific username?

^ That I genuinely do not know, but I'll try and find out.

^ Was it hard to understand what I'm saying?

Say if you have a lil uh... online crush, and they send you a private message with context of which you don't want others to know. And you forget to delete it for whatever reason. The person that's sharing that account, won't they just see it? And know about your lil crush that you don't want people knowing about?


If that's definitely not the case, then disregard my post.




Ahhhh understood.




Gotcha!

We will be sharing an account that doesn't belong to anyone specifically. It is not like we are sharing our personal accounts.

No, there's not. We can only ban an IP from the entire site.

And, while with you two it isn't really a problem (yet? ), it can be with other members. This would easily be a way to evade suspension, and then what do we do? We can't punish the other person too.

It's just too risky to condone it, and we can't really make it on a case-to-case basis, because that's not really fair. What would we say? "We think that you guys may become troublemakers so we can't let you"?

Well the rule for sharing accounts sure makes it seem like it's on a case by case basis.


We just want an approval.

Actually if this were to happen, both are at risk. Meaning, if a person posting from a shared account goes insane and starts going postal on the forums and gets punished and what not, that's just too bad for the other person (who wasn't going postal). So know that if something like this happens, you both get suspended (as a punishment example), not just that account. Also, ANY account associated with either of you would get suspended.

I see this as being more problematic than it's worth, quite frankly.

Why did this even come up?

It's not really more problematic, you guys are just making it seem that way.

We decided that we should have a group account to keep the members who use that account a secret.

I think that you are misunderstanding.

It's problematic for those sharing the account. We are not going to IP check every single post if someone starts breaking rules. That account will be punished accordingly. (Not that it will do anything wrong. I'm just trying to convey worse possible scenario here).

Also, if that account truly becomes unruly, more consequences will have to be shared. If warn level gets to the point were suspension is necessary, guess what? Then we will have to cross reference IPs and EVERYONE associated with that account could possibly face suspension.

It's a weakest link thing. So if you are one of those sharing the account, just be prepared for that and make sure people keep in check.

Well, if it genuinely didn't cause us any potential problems, why would we object to it? Funnily enough, we don't actually do stuff just to make you miserable.

How hard is it to look at the IP address of the post that breaks the rule, and then run an IP check?

It's not hard. But we shouldn't have to monitor one account because all of a sudden people want to start sharing.

Also, not everyone can IP check as specifically as Admins can and we cannot guarantee that either myself or Kiera will be on.

You'll have to take responsibility for who is using the shared account.

Jesus Christ. Monitor an account? Why would you have to monitor it? You guys swear like we're going to get all crazy because it isn't our personal account. The only difference when going to warn is running a quick ip check.

I don't see the big deal.

*sigh*

I said earlier worse possible scenario. :[

I think that it is terribly important to make sure all the consequences are well known, that's all. I'm not intentionally trying to doom anything. I'm actually looking out for your guys in the long haul.

^ Well, the first thing I saw you do was bash. And then i had to work out who it was, which was tedious. Hardly an excellent start or a reason for confidence, is it? Come up with another way to have fun. Sorry.

Yeah, but that wasn't the first thing I did

why are you so against loosening up on a rule that you had had put in place in the first place?

Because he's a moderator now, duhhh

I don't see what the big deal is. If people who were to use that account were held equally accountable, it would be doing things at their own risk and if they f**ked up then everyone who used the account would receive equal punishment.

I'd say get rid of the rule that says you can't, but at the same time don't officially support it so that it's not like people can turn it around and shove it in your face that you supported it.

jusun saw the potential in it, but then i'm sure james cried to him about how it would cause the downfall of cB.

sorry james, but if you're the one that is the cause for the rule, you CAN'T ARGUE AGAINST IT! hypocrite.

regardless, i think rebecca seemed ok with it and we'll move on with that.

I actually was considering it, until your cohort decided to jump all over me when I started talking about responsibility. Not a good way to convince someone to allow you to have a group account, I must say.

That and the fact that I learned that that account already has a verbal warning.

I'm not shutting the door on it yet, to be fair and it is still being discussed. I just think you both need to know that we are going to have to start seeing more respect. Not just towards staff members but towards community members as well. We'd like to trust you and yes, this isn't that big of a deal (group account). It's that track record that I think is holding some folks back. You both have a record for bashing, name-calling, spamming, etc. And you want a group account? Surely you can see why we'd be a little cautious about it.

(anyone makes a "and don't call me Shirley" comment, ala Airplane and I'm going to start the rum early. It's been a rough day)

Also - I just snuck on for a few minutes. I can't guarantee that I will have to time to read through the forum threads (including this one) over the next couple of weeks. If there is something that you think I missed, or some point you want to make sure I read, just PM me so I can go right to the quote.

which was unjustified. we get a warning for calling someone fat and pudgy, but he just kindly reminds someone that they can't use 'daft' when describing someone. we hadn't even done anything wrong on the account up to that point yet, either.

Spencer, the rule already existed before I used Nicki's account, it just hadn't been written down. If there had been no rule prior to that, I could not have been punished for it. And, once again, being as Nicki didn't know I was using her account, the situations aren't totally parallel.

As for why I'm so against loosening up on the rule, that would be because of the reasons which I have mentioned here. The ones you chose to ignore and call me a killjoy and try to get uppity about my 'past' or whatever instead of actually rebutting or trying to prove my concerns unfounded. Which you have failed to do.

I know this is covered, but it changed, and I think originally she was referring to if someone was suspended on their personal account, the shared one would have to be suspended as well.