Trolls and multiple account deception

[Kate]

We've just recently had a case of a user creating multiple accounts to troll at least one discussion with psychologically manipulative posts. The user deliberately played deceptive mind games on vulnerable members and provoked emotional responses.


Please watch out for unethical people/trolls/spammers on the boards. As the community grows the number of people with questionable agendas will also increase.

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person,[1] like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet.
In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."[2]
The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym (sometimes termed an "alt" which is short for alternate, as in alternate identity) is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer....


U.S. legal implications of Lori Drew verdict for misrepresenting identities online

In 2008, 49 year-old Missouri resident Lori Drew was prosecuted and convicted in Los Angeles for creating a fake MySpace account where she claimed to be a 16 year-old boy named Josh Evans. Drew's goal had been to create a relationship with Megan Meier, a 13 year-old girl who had been fighting with her daughter. After "Josh" broke up with Megan, Megan committed suicide.
Drew's conviction was for misrepresenting her identity, in violation of the MySpace terms of service. The Los Angeles US Attorney successfully claimed that this was covered by federal computer fraud legislation against "accessing a computer without authorization via interstate commerce."[22][23] Drew has appealed the verdict, saying that her use of a false identity did not constitute unauthorized access to MySpace, based on a 1973 breach of contract dispute where a court of appeals ruled that "fraudulently induced consent is consent nonetheless."

Sockpuppet

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet))


One of the effects of trolling is a loss of trust and confidence in a community. If people constantly doubt who can be trusted it can cause the breakdown of the society.







I'd be grateful if an admin or mod could look into having something put into the forum rules about the acceptability of multi accounts. I know some people can have multis for genuinely honest reasons and make their identities known but there is nothing to cover for malicious users.

[wanderlust]

Any open dialogue/exchange of ideas is "cheapened" by such deceptive practices and should be discouraged at the administrative level. Without rules it just all descends to the equivalent of a drive by shooting. With no accountability there is often no responsibility and what might start out as "fun" can quickly end up a mess.

[Elendil]

psychologically manipulative posts. The user deliberately played deceptive mind games on vulnerable members and provoked emotional responses.

?? How does what someone posts on a forum emotionally effect people? I don't mean to be rude, but if you could be considered a "vulnerable" member, perhaps you should be elsewhere.............

[Kate]

... yep, away from useless trolls and flamers, good point.

[nineguns]

Maybe,..and I for one, find this to be the best forum out there..instill a yearly membership fee and 1/2 goes to the ECA to defend out rights...trolls don't like to pay...

[exogenesis]

Would have thought this was the easiest of things to detect & stop,
multiple accounts on a single IP address, use of proxy-servers etc.

Actually I thought the God thing was initially the most interesting
thing to happen to that thread - but I unsubscribed before it got
inflammatory.

Seems the 'guilty' party was putting quite a lot of thought & effort
into it, quite different to the usual troll-type stuff.

Possibly a 'fun idea' that went wrong, rather than a deliberate
attempt to insult/de-rail.


Other forums I visit are far stricter on single user per IP address,
and seem more civil for it. Proxy's are a sure sign of mal-intent (mostly).

[Kate]

Thanks for the suggestion Nine, that might be something that SmokeyJoe (the forum owner) will consider an option at some point. Restricting access to everyone because of a few bad apples would be a pity.

My intention here was just to raise awareness among members of what can go on and suggest to admins that they might want to establish reasonable controls on accounts.


EDIT

Yeah, God was interesting at first Exo but he just wouldn't go away and was using multis to engineer the debate among other things. It might have worked out and I didn't refer to that thread here because I'd rather make a general point about multis than be specific about what got me worried about it.

[MonkeyMonk]

I agree with Kate. I have noticed a lot of very "wierd" posts and have wondered if the poster's are wolves in sheeps clothing... the most recent post was by a person who said that they had turned their non-smoking girlfriend into a zerro nic vaper... the posts that followed were emotional and rightly so, in that, this type of post is what would be used against keeping e-smoking legal. Thus, I, too, question who is really posting in some of the threads.

Months ago, there was minimal negativity... now, people often post rude and hurtful things. And, we are often seeing "server busy"... Is the server too busy because of us or have the "haters" banded together to make the server too busy and skyrocket the cost of maintaining the forum.

Consider this, if e-smoking were to become banned, the supplier's part of the forum would become empty... Considering they pay the lion's share of the costs for this forum...what would happen to the forum?

Somehow we need to find a way to address these issues.

[Elendil]

I agree with Kate. I have noticed a lot of very "wierd" posts and have wondered if the poster's are wolves in sheeps clothing... the most recent post was by a person who said that they had turned their non-smoking girlfriend into a zerro nic vaper... the posts that followed were emotional and rightly so, in that, this type of post is what would be used against keeping e-smoking legal. Thus, I, too, question who is really posting in some of the threads.

Months ago, there was minimal negativity... now, people often post rude and hurtful things. And, we are often seeing "server busy"... Is the server too busy because of us or have the "haters" banded together to make the server too busy and skyrocket the cost of maintaining the forum.

Consider this, if e-smoking were to become banned, the supplier's part of the forum would become empty... Considering they pay the lion's share of the costs for this forum...what would happen to the forum?

Somehow we need to find a way to address these issues.

While I like this forum very much and am a supporting member. I find it troubling that limiting what people can say (pro or con ecigs) is being discussed. Certainly SJ can decide to mothball the whole deal tomorrow, but if you want to start limiting opinions, that will empty out the forum just as quickly as an outright ban on ecigs would. Ignore is sometimes the best option.

Who exactly would be on the committee that decides what can or cannot be posted (assuming it is not hate speech, or profane, I'm not referring to obvious situations that require a mod). It certainly seems that we have enough folks already lined up to be on the committee, many have appointed themselves already.......

Person "A" being able to express their opinion is the only way you can be sure that you will get to express yours.

[surbitonPete]

While I like this forum very much and am a supporting member. I find it troubling that limiting what people can say (pro or con ecigs) is being discussed. Certainly SJ can decide to mothball the whole deal tomorrow, but if you want to start limiting opinions, that will empty out the forum just as quickly as an outright ban on ecigs would. Ignore is sometimes the best option.

Who exactly would be on the committee that decides what can or cannot be posted (assuming it is not hate speech, or profane, I'm not referring to obvious situations that require a mod). It certainly seems that we have enough folks already lined up to be on the committee, many have appointed themselves already.......

Person "A" being able to express their opinion is the only way you can be sure that you will get to express yours.

I am thinking the same thing as you lendil.