Speculating on Re Regs

Going Forward

Please do not speculate on previous accounts or re-reg's, use the report post function with any concerns.

The purpose of this rule is a bit unclear.

It leaves registered users at a disadvantage in that someone can close up shop, reappear as obviously a re reg and begin borderline trolling in a thread they used to post in (or elsewhere for that matter).

The registered user is expected to pretend to not notice the obvious.

Clarification on the rule is required IMO.

Whilst we are advised not to speculate on posters being re regs, is it OK to ask a poster if they are a rereg?

Also, (sock-pupppeting suspicions aside), why are we advised to report it if we think a poster is a rereg?

What concerns does boards envisage registered users might have concerning reregs?

As far as I know anyone can rereg and it shouldn't concern anyone, except those they have previously interacted with here.

None of this had crossed my mind until I took part in a thread lately where someone identified themselves as a re reg and began their new existence here by throwing brickbats around about other posters.

The second time it crossed my mind was on encountering a moniker (in my case, if I'd closed my account previously) like Going ForwardsBack.

It's a bit obvious that is either Going Forward re registered or someone pretending to be.

And that is where ordinary registered posters are at a disadvantage, by being asked not to see what is going on.

If it appears to be a re reg, why exactly are we prevented from discussing it?

Steve

You don't and can't (as a registered user) fully know why someone was banned in 99.99% of the cases.

The rule simply means 'if you have a suspicion, tell the mods / cmods / admins and let them deal with it'. It's in the same vein as don't backseat moderate.

What do you think anyone has to gain by discussing it in public?

Zaph

Because it's specifically stated in the Boards Terms of Use:

We expect you to act responsibly in posting Material on Boards.ie. You agree, through use of this service, NOT to use boards.ie to:

* defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others
* identify or speculate as to the identity of any anonymous or pseudonymous user

Everyone is entitled to privacy and anonymity on the site, should they choose to avail of that option. You post under the pseudonym Going Forward rather than Joe Murphy or Mick Kelly or whatever. You are availing of the opportunity to remain anonymous, others are entitled to that right too. The only time this becomes an issue is when someone avails of this anonymity by re-registering after they have been previously banned. Then it becomes an issue for the mods or admins to investigate. But if someone closes their account and re-registers but there's no ban in place, well they're fully entitled to do so. Do we like it? No, it's messy and obviously creates work for us if we have to investigate if someone has re-registered to evade a ban, but that's just how it is. Now if that person chooses to divulge information that marks them as a re-reg, either a specific previous poster or just generally, that's entirely up to them. Equally they're entitled to reveal nothing. But either way, announcing your suspicions on-thread or asking someone if they're a re-reg is a direct contravention of the ToU that I posted above and that's why you're not permitted to do so. Is that fair? Well there is a case to be argued on both sides, but as it stands breaching the site rules is more likely to get you into trouble than the other person.

Beasty

Going Forward wrote: »

If it appears to be a re reg, why exactly are we prevented from discussing it?

Appearing to be a re-reg is not confirmation of such. Hence when discussing someone in this fashion you are speculating. Possibly with good cause, possibly not.

What if it's someone who has not re-reg'd? What if they had good cause to re-reg and disassociate themselves with a prior account? Is everyone then "fair game" when it comes to such speculation. Or do we simply respect everyone's right to close one anonymous account and if they so choose start a new one without such speculation?

Bottom line - we are not here to discuss posters and their posting history. We're here to discuss topics relevant to the forum we are posting in. Mods and Admins are are to deal with any issues that may result from re-regs, which is why suspicions should be reported and not openly discussed

The Hill Billy

As for the rule quoted - it is not that the mods have particular concerns about posters who have previously held accounts here. Instead, the mods are suggesting that if forum users have concerns that a poster is a re-reg troll, then they should use the report post function rather than back-seat modding & calling the poster out themselves.

dudara

Calling out re-regs on thread often also results in off-topic discussion. It's best to report it o the mods rather than taking the thread off topic.

The mods will bring it to the attention of the Admins who will investigate and provide direction in the action to take. People re-reg for multiple reasons, some of which are perfectly fine.

Steve

Going Forward wrote: »

The purpose of this rule is a bit unclear.

All of the above said, you hit a mod there nerve methinks.

No harm, no foul.

Hope we explained it amicably enough!!

Going Forward

dudara wrote: »

Calling out re-regs on thread often also results in off-topic discussion. It's best to report it o the mods rather than taking the thread off topic.

The mods will bring it to the attention of the Admins who will investigate and provide direction in the action to take. People re-reg for multiple reasons, some of which are perfectly fine.

I fully agree that "calling out" someone as a re reg, in the sense of presuming to know that they are a re reg would be unhelpful to any discussion. I cannot presume to know whether they've had a different nom de plume at all unless something in their posting style triggers something.

What I'm stuck on is whether it is should be a sanctionable offence to ask them.

It is an innocent question, there are no negative connotations associated with being a rereg (excepting the ban thing) and there is nothing to compel the person being asked to answer.

If they say they're not that's fine, I'm not remotely interested in trying to argue something I would be in no position to prove.

Nor have I said that I want to know or try to have them confirm their previous username.

I don't. Not interested.

My point clumsily made maybe, and TLDR for the above, is why are non re registered users not permitted to ask if they've previously interacted with someone they think they've already interacted with, under a different nom de plume.

It is not back seat modding either, it is trying to inform oneself to make a decision on whether to invest any time responding to someone one already suspects one has responded to at length and in great detail over a long period, albeit 2, 6 months or a year ago.

It's not really something I can ask a mod about either, as in the advice about reporting my "concerns", because they're not likely to be the least bit interested in that concern going on the responses here!

And I genuinely wouldn't expect them to divulge anything in the first place.

As far as they and I would be concerned, it's not their information to give.

I think this should be reconsidered, the blanket "calling out" thing I understand, the denial of a registered user trying to ascertain whether they've already spent a lot of time with someone under a different guise makes the option of re registering and creating a new online presence look quite appealing.

Tongue in cheek:
Maybe everyone is a re reg except me. I seem to be missing out on the fun remaining as I am.

Going Forward

Steve wrote: »

All of the above said, you hit a mod there nerve methinks.

No harm, no foul.

Looks like it.

Steve wrote: »

Hope we explained it amicably enough!!

So far so good

Beasty

Going Forward wrote: »

Tongue in cheek:
Maybe everyone is a re reg except me. I seem to be missing out on the fun remaining as I am.

Well all the posters responding to you in this thread so far signed up before you did (and before the close account function was introduced). I'm not saying none of us had prior accounts, as I don't know (well actually I had one which I made one post with then decided I preferred this name instead:P)

Going Forward

Zaph wrote: »

Because it's specifically stated in the Boards Terms of Use:

We expect you to act responsibly in posting Material on Boards.ie. You agree, through use of this service, NOT to use boards.ie to:

* defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others
* identify or speculate as to the identity of any anonymous or pseudonymous user

Everyone is entitled to privacy and anonymity on the site, should they choose to avail of that option.

You post under the pseudonym Going Forward rather than Joe Murphy or Mick Kelly or whatever.

You are availing of the opportunity to remain anonymous, others are entitled to that right too.

That's a distraction to this discussion and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

How can their their actual identity be compromised by being asked if they're a re reg?

Nobody is talking about attempting to use boards to "identify" anyone, and to suggest that what I am asking has anything to do with compromising their right to their offline "privacy" and and protecting their "identity" is baffling.

You are equating my question with having something to do with asking them about their off-boards identity by inexplicably bringing real names into the conversation.

hullaballoo

Those quoted rules don't prohibit asking the question, "are you a re-reg?" IMHO.

In practice, it may be that asking that question would lead to a mod action but that is a misapplication or stretching of those rules.

osarusan

There are different reasons somebody could close an account though really.

If they closed an account because they were being doxxed, pestered by another user, or similar, then highlighting them as a potential re-registered poster isn't going to do them any favours either.

I can understand the frustration when you get into a debate with somebody and it begins to dawn on you that they are possibly/probably the same poster with the closed account from last week or last month - the poster you'd never bother getting into a debate with because it's a complete waste of time.

Maybe you can report it and let the mods see if they are re-registering to avoid a ban. But if they have re-registered without being in that kind of trouble, there's not much you can do about it.

Going Forward

hullaballoo wrote: »

Those quoted rules don't prohibit asking the question, "are you a re-reg?" IMHO.

Precisely.

And I'm at a loss as to why the potential to expose an anonymous user's identity by asking such a question is being brought in to this conversation.

hullaballoo wrote: »

In practice, it may be that asking that question would lead to a mod action but that is a misapplication or stretching of those rules.

That is the fear that one has, and it has been said already by a mod, of being carded for asking an entirely appropriate adult question about whether we've been here before so to speak, especially when the stock in trade actions or the username points to them being a rereg.

There's no consistent answer being given here.

I have raised it before in a thread (ironically started by another OP about their perception of Inconsistent and Over Zealous moderation in PC" outlining the exact points in my first post here on the subject, the feeling that we are being asked to pretend not to notice what is going on regarding a rereg and being asked to take the brickbats that they threw in our/my stride.

That thread which is informative to read IMO eventually got completely derailed, and inevitably locked, but boards cannot expect grown adults to stifle adult questions about policies that boards cannot adequately explain.

Let's face it, I do come with some baggage, I've have crossed swords with mods.

But I would hate to think that that is a reason for the subject I'm raising not being (IMO) adequately addressed here.

Going Forward

osarusan wrote: »

There are different reasons somebody could close an account though really.

If they closed an account because they were being doxxed, pestered by another user, or similar, then highlighting them as a potential re-registered poster isn't going to do them any favours either.

I can understand the frustration when you get into a debate with somebody and it begins to dawn on you that they are possibly/probably the same poster with the closed account from last week or last month - the poster you'd never bother getting into a debate with because it's a complete waste of time.

Maybe you can report it and let the mods see if they are re-registering to avoid a ban. But if they have re-registered without being in that kind of trouble, there's not much you can do about it.

Sure, but say someone was known as Noddy with their old account.

They closed it for whatever reason (non of my business) and someone then appears as NoddysBack in the same thread with the same views etc,.

They're going to at least look as if either they're the very same person happily and openly announcing they're back and rarin' to go, or is it someone else taking the mick out of and aping Noddy's old online persona?

I'm not saying this has happened by the way, but it's quite feasible to suggest it could.

Reporting the person who, as far as I would be aware, legitimately closed their account and legitimately opened a new account won't actually be doing me any favours IMO.

charlie14

The problem I would have with a re-reg is that someone has been very actively involved in a thread, disappears for a short period and then re-appears under a different name, and then re-engages with others going back over "old ground" is if he/she is only new to the thread.
From what I can see from admin here, the posters the re-reg is engaging with, are supposed to ignore that they are most likely again engaged with a re-reg without even being allowed to ask for clarification if they are.

This going back over "old ground" with a re-reg is not only tedious and time-wasting, it allows the re-reg to pick through posters original posts and highlight them in discussion, without posters being allowed to do the same because they are not allowed to ask if they are engaging with a re-reg.
Imho, this leaves posters at a frustrating disadvantage in discussion and if nothing else, is often, if not fully, at the very least border-line trolling by the re-reg.

osarusan

Going Forward wrote: »

Sure, but say someone was known as Noddy with their old account.

They closed it for whatever reason (non of my business) and someone then appears as NoddysBack in the same thread with the same views etc,.

They're going to at least look as if either they're the very same person happily and openly announcing they're back and rarin' to go, or is it someone else taking the mick out of and aping Noddy's old online persona?

I'm not saying this has happened by the way, but it's quite feasible to suggest it could.

As I said I can see how it's frustrating for you (and me) but how likely is a poster who closed their account (for legitimate reasons) and opened a new one to admit to that?

If somebody has exhausted their credibility on the site and created a new account so they can spout the same arguments, how likely are they to admit to that?

Or particularly if it somebody taking the mick out of somebody else's old persona, how likely are they to admit to that?

Beasty

charlie14 wrote: »

The problem I would have with a re-reg is that someone has been very actively involved in a thread, disappears for a short period and then re-appears under a different name, and then re-engages with others going back over "old ground" is if he/she is only new to the thread.

Anyone who does that is unlikely to admit openly they are doing so and unless they are operating dual accounts in tandem there appears to be little that can be done. Obviously mods can still act if they are considered trolling, and can if necessary take into account their prior record (assuming Admins confirm a link)

charlie14

Beasty wrote: »

Anyone who does that is unlikely to admit openly they are doing so and unless they are operating dual accounts in tandem there appears to be little that can be done. Obviously mods can still act if they are considered trolling, and can if necessary take into account their prior record (assuming Admins confirm a link)

I can see your point that re-regs are unlikely to admit that they are re-regs if asked by a poster, although it appears that to ask is not allowed anyway.

But should it not be a policy that if a poster informs admin that they are suspicious that a poster is a re-reg, and supplies the original name, or names, and the threads involved, that the mods in said threads be made aware as to the possibility of the re-reg perhaps trolling ?

Tokyo

charlie14 wrote: »

I can see your point that re-regs are unlikely to admit that they are re-regs if asked by a poster, although it appears that to ask is not allowed anyway.

But should it not be a policy that if a poster informs admin that they are suspicious that a poster is a re-reg, and supplies the original name, or names, and the threads involved, that the mods in said threads be made aware as to the possibility of the re-reg perhaps trolling ?

...which comes back to the point mentioned earlier, that if you suspect somebody of being a re-reg, report the post and the moderators/admin will deal with it. Re-reg posters are dealt with by admin quite quickly, so if you report a poster and he's still there next day, you can presume that either your suspicions were incorrect, or the poster has a legitimate reason for being back under a different username.

Going Forward

mike_ie wrote: »

...which comes back to the point mentioned earlier, that if you suspect somebody of being a re-reg, report the post and the moderators/admin will deal with it. Re-reg posters are dealt with by admin quite quickly, so if you report a poster and he's still there next day, you can presume that either your suspicions were incorrect, or the poster has a legitimate reason for being back under a different username.

And a legitimate means of playing dumb, bordeline trolling, pretending they're someone completely new?

Which we are asked to pretend not to notice or question.


So to reporting the matter, who will deal with the report, the moderators who subscribe to the same views of the rereg or someone else?

Stheno

Going Forward wrote: »

And a legitimate means of playing dumb, bordeline trolling, pretending they're someone completely new?

Which we are asked to pretend not to notice or question.


So to reporting the matter, who will deal with the report, the moderators who subscribe to the same views of the rereg or someone else?

Usually the admins are asked to check and confirm.

The Hill Billy

Let's be clear - there are two main types of re-reg:

1. Trolls who continually re-reg to cause upset in the forums. These are usually reported by members & the forum Mods pass them on to the Admin team. We then ban accordingly.
2. Former members who have closed their original account & re-registered a new account. As long as this is not to evade a forum ban or other mod action - this is generally ok.

As stated in previous posts, neither type of re-reg should be called out on-thread as this drags discussions off-topic & is also considered back-seat modding.

If you have concerns about a suspected re-reg - report them & leave it to the Mods to take care of it.

That's it is a nutshell.

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

Usually the admins are asked to check and confirm.

How can they confirm it?

They can only suspect it, and even then one person's idea of what constitutes borderline trolling can be different to another's.

It is liable to put mods and admins in a tricky position, of coming back and saying, sure, they're a rereg alright, they're making no bones about it and are entitled to be here the same as anyone else.

Going Forward

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Let's be clear - there are two main types of re-reg:

1. Trolls who continually re-reg to cause upset in the forums. These are usually reported by members & the forum Mods pass them on to the Admin team. We then ban accordingly.
2. Former members who have closed their original account & re-registered a new account. As long as this is not to evade a forum ban or other mod action - this is generally ok.

As stated in previous posts, neither type of re-reg should be called out on-thread as this drags discussions off-topic & is also considered back-seat modding.

If you have concerns about a suspected re-reg - report them & leave it to the Mods to take care of it.

That's it is a nutshell.

Why can't I ask someone if they are? And enquire of them if we've previously interacted?

You are glossing over the concerns of the registered user for some reason and seem hell bent on making up a rule that doesn't exist preventing someone asking asking another adult a simple question.

Annasopra

Going Forward wrote: »

That's a distraction to this discussion and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Thats the main reason I see for these rules. Discussions here are about a topic but changing the course of the discussion into who another user may or may not have been previously can completely derail a discussion off topic.

Annasopra

Going Forward wrote: »

And a legitimate means of playing dumb, bordeline trolling, pretending they're someone completely new?

Which we are asked to pretend not to notice or question.


So to reporting the matter, who will deal with the report, the moderators who subscribe to the same views of the rereg or someone else?

No. You are not being asked to pretend not to notice or to question. You are asked to raise concerns you have by reporting the poster instead of derailing a thread into a discussion about who the poster is or might be or may have been.

Annasopra

Going Forward wrote: »

Why can't I ask someone if they are? And enquire of them if we've previously interacted?

You are glossing over the concerns of the registered user for some reason and seem hell bent on making up a rule that doesn't exist preventing someone asking asking another adult a simple question.

If you are discussing a question on Northern Irish politics why do you want to completely derail the discussion off topic to talk about Noddy? Discuss the Northern Irish politics discussion and if Noddy is basically trolling then report her. What is the problem with that?

The Hill Billy

Going Forward wrote: »

Why can't I ask someone if they are? And enquire of them if we've previously interacted?

You are glossing over the concerns of the registered user for some reason and seem hell bent on making up a rule that doesn't exist preventing someone asking asking another adult a simple question.

Have you not read previous replies? The rule is not made-up - it has been there as long as I can recall. The site history of other posters is really none of your business & they are entitled to their anonymity as per the Terms of Use that you agreed to when you registered.

The Hill Billy

Going Forward wrote: »

How can they confirm it?

Ve haf our vays.

Going Forward

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

If you are discussing a question on Northern Irish politics why do you want to completely derail the discussion off topic to talk about Noddy? Discuss the Northern Irish politics discussion and if Noddy is basically trolling then report her. What is the problem with that?

If I think I'm interacting with someone I've already extensively interacted with what do I do?

There's nothing essentially wrong with being a rereg who wishes to give the impression they're new is there?

Why can't I ask NoddysBack if he's a rereg and if we've previously interacted?

I doubt I'd be the only one who's noticed or suspects that NoddysBack means Noddy is indeed back.

But you're not permitting me to make a legitimate enquiry.

Going Forward

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Have you not read previous replies? The rule is not made-up - it has been there as long as I can recall. The site history of other posters is really none of your business & they are entitled to their anonymity as per the Terms of Use that you agreed to when you registered.

Show me the rule please, that states I can't ask someone.

Hullabaloo thinks there's no such rule.

Why are you dragging anonymity into it??

How does asking someone if they're a re reg affect their anonymity or reveal their identity?

You are attempting to confuse someone's anonymous online identity with their actual identity as far as I can make out and it has no bearing on the conversation.

Annasopra

The rule has been clearly shown. The reasons have been clearly given.

At this stage op you are basically just repeating yourself ad nauseam and refusing to take on board any differing viewpoints.

Beasty

Just to add one point here. A few years ago I enquired if it was possible to ask posters if they were re-regs via PM. I was told by someone in the office at that time that I could not even do that because of data protection rules and the rationale behind introduction of the close account facility. I've not checked again recently as I've had no particular reason to do so, but I'm not seeing any reason for the explanation to differ.

charlie14

Beasty wrote: »

Just to add one point here. A few years ago I enquired if it was possible to ask posters if they were re-regs via PM. I was told by someone in the office at that time that I could not even do that because of data protection rules and the rationale behind introduction of the close account facility. I've not checked again recently as I've had no particular reason to do so, but I'm not seeing any reason for the explanation to differ.

If that is the situation with the office due to data protection, I don`t see how it would be a breach one poster asking another to clarify if they were a rereg or not ?

Beasty

charlie14 wrote: »

If that is the situation with the office due to data protection, I don`t see how it would be a breach one poster asking another to clarify if they were a rereg or not ?

It was what I was advised, as I said it was several years ago. My recollection was it was something to do with the right to be forgotten. It was discussed in one of the private mods forums, but I'm not sure I'll be able to search it out to confirm what was said given the passage of time and my high post count.

Going Forward

Beasty wrote: »

Just to add one point here. A few years ago I enquired if it was possible to ask posters if they were re-regs via PM. I was told by someone in the office at that time that I could not even do that because of data protection rules and the rationale behind introduction of the close account facility. I've not checked again recently as I've had no particular reason to do so, but I'm not seeing any reason for the explanation to differ.

I won't dispute that's what you were told.

Do you think that the protection of the status of someones personal data would be affected by my asking them if they're a re reg?

How?

Personal data protection relates to the protection of actual real world personal details that have been volunteered and accepted for use here by a data controller, not to someone's chosen nom de plume.

charlie14

Beasty wrote: »

It was what I was advised, as I said it was several years ago. My recollection was it was something to do with the right to be forgotten. It was discussed in one of the private mods forums, but I'm not sure I'll be able to search it out to confirm what was said given the passage of time and my high post count.

Like Going Forward I am not doubting what you say, but I don`t see where the problem would be regarding data protection in asking a poster if they are a rereg.

Beasty

Say you actually were a completely new account. It is not going to be a particularly pleasant introduction to Boards if you feel you are facing immediate interrogation from other users

Equally say you have re-reg'd with good reason. Maybe you disclosed something personal on the old account and want to detach yourself from that account. You then get similar interrogation when you start posting. If you answer your new ID is blown. If you don't you then face suspicion you may be a re-reg because someone has speculated that may be the case when frankly it's absolutely none of their business.

If you think someone may have re-reg'd to disrupt a particular thread they are unlikely to own up anyway. So as already stated all you have to do is report your suspicions and the mods can act as they see fit

charlie14

Beasty wrote: »

Say you actually were a completely new account. It is not going to be a particularly pleasant introduction to Boards if you feel you are facing immediate interrogation from other users

Equally say you have re-reg'd with good reason. Maybe you disclosed something personal on the old account and want to detach yourself from that account. You then get similar interrogation when you start posting. If you answer your new ID is blown. If you don't you then face suspicion you may be a re-reg because someone has speculated that may be the case when frankly it's absolutely none of their business.

If you think someone may have re-reg'd to disrupt a particular thread they are unlikely to own up anyway. So as already stated all you have to do is report your suspicions and the mods can act as they see fit

To be perfectly honest with you the impression I get is that regardless of the reason for someone re-registering, and that includes my point about trolling due to the anonymity a new name would give that would be spotted by a mod under the original name as such, nobody really has any interest in doing anything about it.

Annasopra

Beasty wrote: »

Equally say you have re-reg'd with good reason. Maybe you disclosed something personal on the old account and want to detach yourself from that account. You then get similar interrogation when you start posting. If you answer your new ID is blown. If you don't you then face suspicion you may be a re-reg because someone has speculated that may be the case when frankly it's absolutely none of their business.

Exactly.

And this is then potentially violating the rights of a person to privacy which is explicitly against the rules

Annasopra

charlie14 wrote: »

To be perfectly honest with you the impression I get is that regardless of the reason for someone re-registering, and that includes my point about trolling due to the anonymity a new name would give that would be spotted by a mod under the original name as such, nobody really has any interest in doing anything about it.

Well thats nonsense - if someone reregisters to troll they generally get pulled up on it by moderators

charlie14

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Well thats nonsense - if someone reregisters to troll they generally get pulled up on it by moderators

.....on which they would be pulled up much faster under the original name where the mod can view their past posts, rather than them re-appearing as a new poster on a thread.

The Hill Billy

Going Forward wrote: »

Show me the rule please, that states I can't ask someone.

See post #1 (your own) which quotes the forum charter rule.
See post #2 which quotes the site rule from the ToU.

Going Forward wrote: »

Hullabaloo thinks there's no such rule.

No disrespect to m'learned friend, but see above.

Going Forward wrote: »

Why are you dragging anonymity into it??

Because the site Terms of Use is very specific about respecting the anonymity of our members.

Going Forward wrote: »

How does asking someone if they're a re reg affect their anonymity or reveal their identity?

Because by asking such a question it will inevitably lead to speculation about their former identity (see bit about anonymity above) which is:
(a) none of your business
(b) likely to drag the discussion off-topic

Going Forward

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Exactly.

And this is then potentially violating the rights of a person to privacy which is explicitly against the rules

But nobody is explaining HOW asking a basic question to ascertain whether I have previously interacted with someone is potentially violating their personal privacy or data protection rules, other than citing this example of a rereg who would themselves be at fault for having posted something personally identifiable about themselves which they shouldn't have done in the first place if they were abiding by the terms of use.

No one is seeking to publically unmask an anonymous user.

Going Forward

The Hill Billy wrote: »

See post #1 (your own) which quotes the forum charter rule.
See post #2 which quotes the site rule from the ToU.

No disrespect to m'learned friend, but see above.

I would say that asking is markedly different than openly speculating.

It could be said that I intend to ask to stifle any speculation.

Annasopra

Going Forward wrote: »

I would say that asking is markedly different than openly speculating.

It could be said that I intend to ask to stifle any speculation.

Asking IS speculating and frankly that is nonsense because asking only leads to more speculation.

Annasopra

Going Forward wrote: »

But nobody is explaining HOW asking a basic question to ascertain whether I have previously interacted with someone is potentially violating their personal privacy or data protection rules, other than citing this example of a rereg who would themselves be at fault for having posted something personally identifiable about themselves which they shouldn't have done in the first place if they were abiding by the terms of use.

No one is seeking to publically unmask an anonymous user.

Where does it say in the terms of use that a poster cant post information that could identify themselves?

Beasty

Going Forward wrote: »

I would say that asking is markedly different than openly speculating.

It could be said that I intend to ask to stifle any speculation.

That's a pretty ridiculous position to take. The mere asking lends itself to speculation by others. Why do you consider it necessary or appropriate to ask in an open forum where everyone else can see? It turns a discussion on a particular topic into a discussion of a specific poster.

Stheno

charlie14 wrote: »

To be perfectly honest with you the impression I get is that regardless of the reason for someone re-registering, and that includes my point about trolling due to the anonymity a new name would give that would be spotted by a mod under the original name as such, nobody really has any interest in doing anything about it.

You'd be incorrect on that, there is an extensive thread in the mods forums which track people who rereg.

charlie14 wrote: »

.....on which they would be pulled up much faster under the original name where the mod can view their past posts, rather than them re-appearing as a new poster on a thread.

Again incorrect, if someone has closed an account due to warnings/infractions/bans and rereged, the record from the previous account is applied and they get actioned more severely than a new account would ordinarily be.

Going Forward wrote: »

But nobody is explaining HOW asking a basic question to ascertain whether I have previously interacted with someone is potentially violating their personal privacy or data protection rules, other than citing this example of a rereg who would themselves be at fault for having posted something personally identifiable about themselves which they shouldn't have done in the first place if they were abiding by the terms of use.

No one is seeking to publically unmask an anonymous user.

For me it comes down to 1. derailing a thread, 2. the fact that anytime someone reports someone as a rereg it's genuinely 50/50 if they are correct.

Why the need to "out" them? Can you imagine a thread where lets say I was active and rereg.

Someone asks "are you Stheno" and the thread goes completely off the rails.

I changed username a few years ago due to a privacy issue, if I'd done a rereg on it I'd worry about being asked if I was my former name tbh.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Asking IS speculating and frankly that is nonsense because asking only leads to more speculation.

Agreed asking is speculation, and usually wrong speculation.

Going Forward

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Where does it say in the terms of use that a poster cant post information that could identify themselves?

It recommends that they shouldn't do it:

You are encouraged to exercise discretion when providing personal information about yourself on boards.ie. Any personal information which you volunteer in your public profile or post on the forums will be available worldwide to anyone with access to the website.

We recommend you never post your name, address, telephone number email address or anything else that may lead someone to identify you if this is something you are uncomfortable with.

Please note that certain information (such as photographs) which you may choose to provide might reveal your gender, ethnic origin, nationality, religion and/or sexual orientation.

boards.ie does not delete all posts from any member on request, so if you have publically posted identifying information about yourself, then it will remain on the site.

And, I think this is appropriate to our conversation, because it divests boards of any responsibility to warrant the veracity of any identity of any user or what they may post.

Hence my concern at what I see as a deliberate blurring of lines between what are actual personal details and anonymous entities.

Boards.ie Limited does not give any warranty or make any representation as to the identity of any user on boards.ie

Any use of, or reliance placed on, any content or Materials posted to boards.ie by any user, or obtained by you through boards.ie, is at your own risk.