• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Addition to the sock-puppet rule

Status
Not open for further replies.
AKM sama

AKM sama

Waifu Connoisseur
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Human Resources
11,134
14,117
This thread is specifically made for regulations about the involvement of regular members in case of sock-puppets. I'd like to make our rules clearer.

Our current rules say the following:
  • Using sock-puppet handles is strongly forbidden, especially to circumvent blocks. Doing so will result in the block duration being greatly increased for all of the relevant accounts.
It should be self explanatory but I would like to propose an addition to this rule due to lack of clarity:
  • In case a blocked user is using a sock-puppet to get around the ban, if other users are also working to maintain it a secret or are encouraging this action, they will also be held accountable.
The wordings can be changed but you get the general idea. If a regular user knows and simply chooses to not get involved with the sock, that's a different matter which can be excused. But if they know and are still working with or are supporting threads the sock is active on, that's a different issue where they are participating in or are encouraging the act.

NOTE: THIS IS STRICTLY STAFF ONLY.
 
I don't want us to get overly harsh with the punishments against people who simply know about sockpuppet accounts and don't want to get a friend of theirs in trouble though. If we start going on permanent banning or demotion-sprees it can easily eventually cripple our community.
 
This is generally similar to a rule discussion we had some time ago regarding proxies being used to get around one's ban, which I was in favor of. So, I am still in favor of such things, including this one, as was mentioned on Discord.
 
I agree with this rule. While there is nothing wrong with talking to banned users off site or collecting valuable scans that happened to be founded by banned users, people should not lie about them coming from banned users. And encouraging users to make socks to get around the ban and lying about them not being socks is also a no go and is considerably much worse than simply gaining information from them. And also just as bad as being their shill/100% uncensored spokes person.

I'm willing to forgive a few users who used to do it years ago given it was in the past and long before clairification, but from now on this should be a strict rule indeed.
 
Last edited:
I mean I agree, but I think it should be more specifically about staff

Normal users who are just casuals and overhear someone else has a sock, but don't report it should not be heavily punnished, but as a staff, it's obviously our job to smoke out the people who are breaking the rules
 
DemonGodMitchAubin said:
I mean I agree, but I think it should be more specifically about staff

Normal users who are just casuals and overhear someone else has a sock, but don't report it should not be heavily punnished, but as a staff, it's obviously our job to smoke out the people who are breaking the rules
Click to expand...
We will probably have to add a new section regarding this rule to our staff duties explanation pages.
 
Propellus said:
But I do have a single question though, what if someone became aware of someone else sockpuppeting and doesn't report it due to them being afraid of what's going to happen to them?
Click to expand...
Being fear-mongered like that is atrocious to even think about.

Let me put it this way. Reporting someone for illicit behavior, especially if it's harmful, shouldn't be something to be afraid of. If they're afraid of us, they shouldn't be, as we will happily examine any supposed rule-breaking and the eyewitness is mostly never at fault, and even if they admit they have done some wrongdoings, their punishment will likely be mitigated due to their earnest attempt at making amends, though this can vary depending on what exactly happens at the time.

And as for the person they are tattling on, frankly if they are worried that doing so will cause them to attack them, then they should cut ties with that person, as that would be a toxic relationship if one feels they have to earn the care and respect of their fellow user, within reason.

TL;DR: Please don't be afraid to report to us, and if you're afraid of your friends attacking you for reporting them, you probably shouldn't be friends.
 
DemonGodMitchAubin said:
I mean I agree, but I think it should be more specifically about staff
Click to expand...
For staff members, it's a no-brainer. It doesn't need to be said. I think it is already mentioned in the staff info pages that reporting rule violations is part of their job. And decisions regarding them will be taken by the HR group depending on the situation and severity.

This is specifically for regular members. Not for someone who just knew and didn't report because they didn't care or chose to stay away from the issue for whatever reason. But for those who are actively participating and encouraging the act. It makes them accessory to it.

What we need more discussion on is how harsh the punishment should be for complicity.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
So what about this issue? I would still appreciate draft text help for that.
Click to expand...
I think the current text in the responsibilities section sufficiently conveys what is expected:
  • Reporting rule-breakers in order to maintain a congenial atmosphere within the wiki.
This thread is specifically for deciding regulations for regular cases, so let's focus on that.

In my opinion, since making socks to get around a ban is generally automatically a permabannable offense, aiding such activities should at least result in a 1 year ban for the participating users.
 
I think that seems way too harsh. I don't want to go on a massive ongoing banning spree against otherwise well-behaved members, so we likely lose lots of productive contributors permanently. Maybe 1 month would be enough?
 
Antvasima said:
I think that seems way too harsh. I don't want to go on a massive ongoing banning spree against otherwise well-behaved members, so we likely lose lots of productive contributors permanently. Maybe 1 month would be enough?
Click to expand...
While I can understand your intentions, but we can't be letting people and their culprits get away with even more sockpuppetry
 
AKM sama said:
In my opinion, since making socks to get around a ban is generally automatically a permabannable offense, aiding such activities should at least result in a 1 year ban for the participating users.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing though: what does "aiding such activities" mean in this context?

Do we give 1 year bans to people who simply know a sockpuppet is there for not reporting it, same as we would give members for say, actively defending a sockpuppet when users point behavior suspiciously similar to a banned user?
 
Propellus said:
While I can understand your intentions, but we can't be letting people and their culprits get away with even more sockpuppetry
Click to expand...
Well, I just don't want us to wipe out a large part of our productive members via too harsh punishments. It seems better to give comparatively mildern warning sentences or at least keep the evaluations case-by-case-based rather than constraining ourselves to specific one fit for all sizes ban times.
 
Last edited:
Crabwhale said:
Here's the thing though: what does "aiding such activities" mean in this context?

Do we give 1 year bans to people who simply know a sockpuppet is there for not reporting it
Click to expand...
That is my main concern, yes. It seems way too draconian for my tastes.
 
For the record, I don't think we should have an absolute ban timer for users that indirectly or directly are complacent in a sockpuppet case. I think it should be case-by-case, and even then the punishment should in general be much lesser than that of the actual sockpuppet user.
 
Yeah, I don't think the more grey areas should be punished. Some people are either unsure, or are afraid to become a harassment target for not outing people. And some people are in difficult positions where they don't want to betray a friend nor do they want to betray the staff and just don't want to be forced to chose one over the other.

But rather, encouraging friends in question to make socks and straight up lying to others about them not being socks even if they know full well that socks are present are the parts that are really punishment worthy. Context of the situation is key and not people's staff positions or friendly relationships with the people in question.
 
Last edited:
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Yeah, I don't think the more grey areas should be punished. Some people are either on sure, or are afraid to become a harassment target for not outing people. And someone people are in difficult positions where they don't want to betray a friend nor do they want to betray the staff and just don't want to be forced to chose one over the other.

But rather, encouraging friends in question to make socks and straight up lying to others about them not being socks even if they know full well that socks are present are the parts that are really punishment worthy. Context of the situation is key and not people's staff positions or friendly relationships with the people in question.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm implying, we shouldn't blame the other people much for not exposing them due to them being afraid of what's going to happen
 
AKM sama said:
  • In case a blocked user is using a sock-puppet to get around the ban, if other users are also working to maintain it a secret or are encouraging this action, they will also be held accountable.
Click to expand...
I agree with just about all of this, but I will bring up the minor point of defining what "working to maintain it" and "encouraging this" means. For example, we could all agree that knowingly entering a thread to support a friend using a sock is probably encouraging it. What if you were on a thread, and were later alerted that a sock of another user is arguing on your side? Are you obligated to say something?

Personally, I am of the belief that if someone knows about a sock contributing or affecting threads that the user is involved in, that the user is obligated to say something. I can understand not wanting to report a thread, but if you knowingly let that sock support your view point, that starts to feel shady. That being said, I can fully understand softer perspectives on the matter.

Similarly, we should probably establish an idea for how long a punishment would be. If we need an example, we can take the non-staff users in the Char case that were clearly knowledgeable and supported what he was doing. I am not implying we should retroactively punish them, but use their circumstances as an example of what we would do.
 
Moritzva said:
Personally, I am of the belief that if someone knows about a sock contributing or affecting threads that the user is involved in, that the user is obligated to say something. I can understand not wanting to report a thread, but if you knowingly let that sock support your view point, that starts to feel shady. That being said, I can fully understand softer perspectives on the matter.
Click to expand...
I agree with your perspective. Do you have some suggestions on how to word the rule to make it clearer?

Antvasima said:
Well, I just don't want us to wipe out a large part of our productive members via too harsh punishments.
Click to expand...
A large part of our productive members do not indulge in aiding socks. So don't worry about that. How many times have you encountered this particular problem of other members aiding a sock? I am willing to bet not more than a few times.
 
Aye. We can't go around punishing people with no obligations towards our communities not for actions they took, but rather the actions their friends are taking. A staff member knowing about a sock and letting it slide is a serious issue as the staff are who we can (and, indeed, must) rely on to deal with such a situation. Failure to do so is an indicator of a severe drawback and I would say that failure warrants demotion in most cases.

But a normal member? That feels like a slippery slope. If one member of a friend group were to get banned, he may decide to dig his own grave a bit deeper and make a sock. He tells his friend, thinking he is a Clever Lad. Can we really expect the friend to rat out his pal? Are we expecting our users to have a higher obligation to a random battleboarding site? As long as they aren't themselves taking action to harm the site (such as aiding their friend in sockpuppeting), I am strongly opposed to punishment being handed out.
 
Well, maybe we could just make it light punishments of 2 weeks to 1 month or so, in order to find a balanced solution?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Clarification Of Sentence Phrasings And Addition Of Expected Punishments For Each Type Of Rule Breach For All Rules Pages
Replies
19
Views
2K
GarrixianXD
GarrixianXD
Dark_Soul20189
  • Locked
The Necessity for references rule change/addition
Replies
29
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DarkGrath
Proposal for Site/Forum Image Standards Revision
3 4 5
Replies
175
Views
9K
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
Mr. Bambu
  • Locked
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
2 3
Replies
80
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Discussion Rules lil Revision
Replies
39
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top