Away/Back thread

[The_Chosen_One]

Anyway, would n't it be possible to delete any sockpuppet accounts, and ban anyone from creating them in future?

I'm for free speech and all, but fraud is still fraud, whether it be IRL or online. And even one complaint of a person pinching someone's online ID should be taken seriously by all.

Not to be picky, but aren't you already taking someone else's identity? Steve-O of Jackass fame? Also using a copyrighted image for your avatar?

Yes I'm being pedantic about things, but where do you draw the line? I think if the person is defrauding you or hurting your reputation online (assuming you have a good one to begin with), then perhaps something should be done about it.

If anyone took the sock-puppet of your seriously, even after it's been explained, then you might have a case, or those people believing it are royally stupid.

And aren't you doing the same as well? What about Sir_Les? odeon? Hmmm?

I chose this one because of the bullshit from last year, yet still get shat on regardless.

Fucking arseholes.

That's my point. Do people honestly believe that people here are the real deal regarding Avatars or Usernames?

I think there is an understanding that when you post here, you may get trolled. Fight against it too much and you'll just get trolled harder it seems. In all seriousness, if you don't like it, no one is forcing you to post.

No one is forcing me, right. But I've got just as much right to be here without having shit thrown at me as any other member. How come cbc, Loup, Weakling and others who are my 'friends' don't get picked on? I'll tell you, it's because some of you have thought I was an easy target because I bothered to speak my mind instead of sit in the dark waiting to be called. Yeah, it's meant to be fun, and yeah, I've had a go at Judy and razor and some others. But when some of you get into me, you tend to go too fucking far and it isn't just joking around.

This is meant to be a forum for everyone to have their chance, not just a selected few to push around whoever they like and get away with it.

[Adam]

But I've got just as much right to be here without having shit thrown at me as any other member.

No one has that right here.

[The_Chosen_One]

That's a bit different. That's a 40+ year old creating a fake profile to start a relationship with a kid. Hardly the same thing

Exactly the same thing. Just interchange the people involved.

[Adam]

That's a bit different. That's a 40+ year old creating a fake profile to start a relationship with a kid. Hardly the same thing

Exactly the same thing. Just interchange the people involved.

Huh? That is the same as Scrap taking the piss out of you? or are we talking about something else?

[Callaway]

fraud? its not a crime to create a sockpuppet. i think its rather hilarious

Well I just spoke to someone who ha a legal background, and it is fraud.

Misrepresentation of a persons' identity, be it online or otherwise is a crime.

I can even do a wiki search if you'd like.

And here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29

where does that say it's fraud?

genuinely asking btw, can't be arsed reading it all

The case of the Megan whatever her name is was mentioned. Although the appeal was tenuously upheld, because of an argument of some 1973 act allowing fraudulent content to be posted, the misrepresentation is still there, and therefore that is where the crime was committed.

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 in conflict with Drew's daughter. After "Josh" ended the relationship with Megan, Megan committed suicide.

Drew's conviction was for misrepresenting her identity, in violation of the MySpace terms of service. The Los Angeles U.S. Attorney successfully claimed that this was covered by federal computer fraud legislation against "accessing a computer without authorization via interstate commerce."[25][26] Drew 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."[27] On 3 July 2009, the appeal was tentatively upheld.[28]

You don't think this was different?  Lori Drew intended to deceive Megan Meier into thinking she was really a boy named Josh Evans, she pretended to have a relationship with Megan and broke it off and actually drove Megan to suicide.  Even so, Lori Drew's appeal was upheld.

The purpose of the sockpuppet was parody.

[The_Chosen_One]

fraud? its not a crime to create a sockpuppet. i think its rather hilarious

Well I just spoke to someone who ha a legal background, and it is fraud.

Misrepresentation of a persons' identity, be it online or otherwise is a crime.

I can even do a wiki search if you'd like.

And here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29

where does that say it's fraud?

genuinely asking btw, can't be arsed reading it all

The case of the Megan whatever her name is was mentioned. Although the appeal was tenuously upheld, because of an argument of some 1973 act allowing fraudulent content to be posted, the misrepresentation is still there, and therefore that is where the crime was committed.

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 in conflict with Drew's daughter. After "Josh" ended the relationship with Megan, Megan committed suicide.

Drew's conviction was for misrepresenting her identity, in violation of the MySpace terms of service. The Los Angeles U.S. Attorney successfully claimed that this was covered by federal computer fraud legislation against "accessing a computer without authorization via interstate commerce."[25][26] Drew 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."[27] On 3 July 2009, the appeal was tentatively upheld.[28]

You don't think this was different?  Lori Drew intended to deceive Megan Meier into thinking she was really a boy named Josh Evans, she pretended to have a relationship with Megan and broke it off and actually drove Megan to suicide.  Even so, Lori Drew's appeal was upheld.

The purpose of the sockpuppet was parody.

Whether it was parody or not, it is still fraud. Fraud by any definition is misrepresenting a persons' identification to deceive. That is exactlywhat sockpuppets do, because they are created by an account holder to either 'mimic' someone's identity to get a reaction (same as trolling), or to totally deceive the intended target and thus manipulate that person into either doing something untoward (like suicide) or at the least causing some anguish and hurt.

Now I always thought that fraudulent activity was not to be tolerated anywhere, beig the crimnal act it is. Obviously I'm wrong.

And it's blatantly obvious nobody gives a shit either.

[richard]

ok i think i get it now, its ok for you to razz people online, but as soon as someone does it to you

 its a matter for the courts to decide.

i seriously doubt ANY court would take your pathetic case, but go ahead and sue scrapheap for beating up that pussy.

loser!

[The_Chosen_One]

ok i think i get it now, its ok for you to razz people online, but as soon as someone does it to you

 its a matter for the courts to decide.

i seriously doubt ANY court would take your pathetic case, but go ahead and sue scrapheap for beating up that pussy.

loser!

Jesus richard, learn to pull your ignorant head out of your ignorant arse and read ffs.

You're about as pathetic as you can get.

[Adam]

No one gives a shit about this "case"  because it's fucking stupid

If you can't handle someone taking the piss out of you then you probably shouldn't even be on a site like this tbh

[The_Chosen_One]

No one gives a shit about this "case"  because it's fucking stupid

If you can't handle someone taking the piss out of you then you probably shouldn't even be on a site like this tbh

Fine. At the end of the month I'm gone. Period.

I know when I'm not wanted. Pity I joined here in the first place. I thought things had changed, got to enjoy it here, made some 'friendships'. Should have know better. Ask for help I get shit on from above. Expect people to listen to what I've got to say, get a mouthful of fucking abuse in return. Even from people I respected as well.

[richard]

All rise, the honorable judge of the universe is here you may be seated.

one at a time! one at a time!

Mr. Steve-0, what is your basic complaint?

*steve-o* well your honor, i was posting on a internet forum and someone used parody against me and created a sock puppet and basically said i was a fucking pussy. I'm very upset, i havent eaten much and lossed countless days and nights, of sleep!

The honorable judge interupts, Mr. steve-o your case is dismissed! you are a fucking pussy, your wasting my time! i could be at the pink flamingo playing disc golf, but instead im here to tell you this, if you dont like a forum and feel people are being mean to you, why do you continue to stay?

[The_Chosen_One]

Fuck off richturd.

Why don't you stick your head in a freezer, wait 2 days, and hit the fucker with a sledgehammer. Then nobody would have to put up with both your ugly face and your bullshit.

[Callaway]

fraud? its not a crime to create a sockpuppet. i think its rather hilarious

Well I just spoke to someone who ha a legal background, and it is fraud.

Misrepresentation of a persons' identity, be it online or otherwise is a crime.

I can even do a wiki search if you'd like.

And here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29

where does that say it's fraud?

genuinely asking btw, can't be arsed reading it all

The case of the Megan whatever her name is was mentioned. Although the appeal was tenuously upheld, because of an argument of some 1973 act allowing fraudulent content to be posted, the misrepresentation is still there, and therefore that is where the crime was committed.

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 in conflict with Drew's daughter. After "Josh" ended the relationship with Megan, Megan committed suicide.

Drew's conviction was for misrepresenting her identity, in violation of the MySpace terms of service. The Los Angeles U.S. Attorney successfully claimed that this was covered by federal computer fraud legislation against "accessing a computer without authorization via interstate commerce."[25][26] Drew 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."[27] On 3 July 2009, the appeal was tentatively upheld.[28]

You don't think this was different?  Lori Drew intended to deceive Megan Meier into thinking she was really a boy named Josh Evans, she pretended to have a relationship with Megan and broke it off and actually drove Megan to suicide.  Even so, Lori Drew's appeal was upheld.

The purpose of the sockpuppet was parody.

Whether it was parody or not, it is still fraud. Fraud by any definition is misrepresenting a persons' identification to deceive. That is exactlywhat sockpuppets do, because they are created by an account holder to either 'mimic' someone's identity to get a reaction (same as trolling), or to totally deceive the intended target and thus manipulate that person into either doing something untoward (like suicide) or at the least causing some anguish and hurt.

Now I always thought that fraudulent activity was not to be tolerated anywhere, beig the crimnal act it is. Obviously I'm wrong.

And it's blatantly obvious nobody gives a shit either.

Is this skit from Saturday Night Live "fraudulent activity" or a parody?  Do you honestly think Tina Fey intends to deceive people into thinking she's really Sarah Palin and that Amy Poehler intends to deceive people into thinking she's really Hillary Rodham Clinton?  Or are they just imitating them to be funny?

Do you think the real Sarah Palin and Hillary Rodham Clinton should sue Tina Fey and Amy Poehler for identity theft?

[The_Chosen_One]

Oh fuck it. Nobody ever tries to understand what I'm saying, so why the fuck do I bother?

I've at least had a go, and nobody really gives a fuck. Try and say the least little thing, and people throw it back in my face.

Obviously people want sheep to just follow them and do their bidding. i've tried not to be like that, but that isn't what people want of me.

If people actually bothered to read, and stopped playing bullshit games with semantics, then maybe things could be different.

[Scrapheap]

If people actually bothered to read, and stopped playing bullshit games with semantics, then maybe things could be different.

It wseems to me that you're the one playing bullshit games with semantics. Parody ISN'T fraud and fraud isn't parody.

I made a rather obvious PARODY of you and you're acting as if I stole your bank account number and spent every dime that you had.

Keep falsely accusing me of fraud and perhaps, I dunno, I could sue you for defamation?? Dueling lawsuits anyone??