Troll Alert

by mssickels on Dec 15, 2007 11:17 AM EST

Our resident troll has adopted a new tactic.

He is now creating accounts with usernames extremely similar to those of established users. For example, he used the name "WayneCampbell06", a play on long-time established user WayneCampbell05". He has done this to at least one other member that I know of. He keeps switching his IP, although we have adopted new technology to track this, are on his trail, and will be contacting his internet provider.

I don't want a great deal of discussion about this. The troll, for whatever psychotic reason, is trying to take this website down. He thrives on attention, so while I don't want this thread to devolve into a discussion about the troll, I wanted you to BE AWARE that he might try creating an account with a username similar to your own. Be alert if you see anyone doing this to you, or to someone else, and inform the moderators, me, or John.

Tweet Comment 41 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Yep

I think people on this site should be intuitive enough to notice the name difference, call it out, and be done with it. No namecalling, no Joba accusations, no fighting back, because the bigger of a deal you make about the troll, the more you let them win. Like a virus, a troll is only dangerous with hosts to bind to, so the best thing you can do is to show some restraint and ignore them.

Hey fish, leave those kids alone!

by The Congo Hammer on Dec 15, 2007 12:07 PM EST reply actions

Will extreme

force be used if necessary?

We must purge this website of its demons so we may become the prospect discussing utopia we were when this website started.

If war must be declared on this SOB, then so be it, amirite?

by SenorGato88 on Dec 15, 2007 2:27 PM EST reply actions

lol

Can't wait until he tries that with my nickname. Might be the most appropriate one for him though, hahaha.

by pedrophile on Dec 15, 2007 2:51 PM EST reply actions

He's got me, I think

note the difference between siddfynch (me) and siddfinch.

by siddfynch on Dec 15, 2007 3:01 PM EST reply actions

the secret

short names.

by Galt on Dec 15, 2007 3:06 PM EST reply actions

Troll

The Gall of some people. :-)

by GregJP on Dec 15, 2007 3:10 PM EST up reply actions

Not Really

I can think of one way to spoof your name already. :) Mahalo

Matt

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

by WayneCampbell05 on Dec 15, 2007 5:11 PM EST up reply actions

nah

writing 6alt or Ga1t looks pretty dramatically different than Galt

by Galt on Dec 15, 2007 6:45 PM EST up reply actions

GaIt vs Galt

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Dec 15, 2007 6:49 PM EST up reply actions

Actually

That looked the same in the comment when I was writing it, but it's in a different font when it posted and looked different.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Dec 15, 2007 6:50 PM EST up reply actions

Ga!t ? or Ga|t ?

by pedrophile on Dec 15, 2007 7:39 PM EST up reply actions

take this web site down?

What do you mean by that? Do you think he'll try to add some malicious iframe or something? Contacting his ISP should do the trick for now. Heck if you have any of his past IP's you can find him although he may be trying to use some proxy service/browser like TOR or something like that. But he'll probably just change ISP's and start anew if that is his/her desire.

I agree with Congo. Just ignoring the troll will do more damage than anything else. Once that occurs he'll move on to some other blog and troll there.

by acr on Dec 15, 2007 5:56 PM EST reply actions

How many people sign up for this site in one day?

Can't possibly be more than a couple dozen. Can't those names just be reviewed by mods and tossed if they resemble present posters?

by Flynn Blake on Dec 15, 2007 6:39 PM EST reply actions

I say we close the border.

No more Joba.

Side effects: No other new posters can join.

by omambiyick on Dec 15, 2007 7:43 PM EST reply actions

Or

just close regular registration process and make any new applicant go directly thru John and have them all provide proper ID and references.... :)

by bluechipper on Dec 15, 2007 7:47 PM EST up reply actions

Question

Since when is it illegal to post on a discussion board? Joba may be annoying, but he's not doing anything illegal. It's called free speech.

If I'm wrong, please correct me, and direct me to any relevant literature.

by spoondoggie on Dec 15, 2007 8:50 PM EST reply actions

Domain

it depends on the domain. By joining a site such as this, there are typically terms of service, rules of behaviour, etc. This is John's site. Joba can say anything he wants to on his own website, blog, etc but here, he (like all of us) is subject to John's rule.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 15, 2007 8:55 PM EST up reply actions

is there a user agreement

or code of conduct? I don't remember signing one, but maybe I missed it.

by spoondoggie on Dec 15, 2007 8:59 PM EST up reply actions

Of course

by signing, I mean clicking on a box.

by spoondoggie on Dec 15, 2007 9:03 PM EST up reply actions

No idea

It's been way too long since I joined for me to remember.
Even if there isn't though, it's still John's World so to speak.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 15, 2007 9:05 PM EST up reply actions

well

even though I'm not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure that without some sort of upfront agreement, it doesn't matter who's 'world' it is. That's the beauty, and ultimately the problem with the internet.

by spoondoggie on Dec 15, 2007 9:08 PM EST up reply actions

what are you talking about?

i'm no expert on internet law, but, first of all....

who said anything about illegality?

second of all, what would the legality of what Joba does have to do with anything said here?

third of all, it's untrue that what you believe is a formal contract of any kind would have to be signed to adhere to certain rules of behavior, especially when somewhere's behavior is demonstrably disruptive and unreasonable.

furthermore, John has issued specific rules, that Joba would reasonably be informed of, directed at Joba about the terms of him staying on the site -- he has disobeyed them, and has signed up with NEW accounts having already been informed of these rules, making this a perfectly valid contract

finally, your belief about the "beauty" of the internet is untrue -- the same rules that apply to the rest of the world apply to the internet. as i said, i'm no expert on internet law, but there's nothing different about the internet that makes John's property not his property, and prevents him from creating terms of service, or from pursuing action against those who violate these terms.

what you believe is the "beauty" of the internet are not differences in LAW, for the most part, but practicality concerns (i.e., we can't keep up with all the illegal things that go on in the information age) and jurisdictional concerns. for the most part, i don't think you're talking about separate rules of the internet.

maybe someone more expert than i am can tell me where i'm wrong......

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 15, 2007 9:23 PM EST up reply actions

all very good points

I wasn't saying that there are different laws, just that unless he breaks an actual law (and last time I checked, being annoying and creating various user accounts assuming different identities isn't against the law - keep in mind that everyone on this site is pretty annonymous unless someone actually named their kid pedrophile), there isn't much that can be done.

In terms of illegality, jeri mentioned that "although we have adopted new technology to track this, are on his trail, and will be contacting his internet provider", so I just figured some form of action was going to be taken.

Once again, I am anything BUT an expert.

I hope everything gets settled, because I enjoy reading about prospects and all of this trouble including us getting annoyed by it makes baby Jesus cry. And it's almost his birthday.

by spoondoggie on Dec 15, 2007 9:36 PM EST up reply actions

"anonymous"

well, that's what people think -- they're anonymous, so they can do anything.

the point of tracking Joba is that he's about to cease to be anonymous.

as for breaking actual laws, i think that's what's unclear. but, generally, intentional, disruptive, malicious behavior on someone else's property can be fit under some law. people make the mistake -- not just on the internet -- of believing their behavior has to have some specific name to be against the law. a lot of the time, if it seems like it should be illegal, it is.

beyond that, we're not even necessarily talking about criminal law here. it seems like we're in the land of contracts. and Joba is almost certainly breaking one with John. losing internet service -- or having it restricted in some way -- is not a criminal punishment -- it's a contractual loss, based on Joba's breach.

again, i'm just taking guesses here, because i'm not an expert, but i don't think Joba's as protected as you do....

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 15, 2007 9:45 PM EST up reply actions

re:

I definitely believe John has the right to create any terms of service he wants. This site is his property. He can form them and make consenting to them a required part of acquiring a membership.

The only thing that has me scratching my head in this is the whole reporting the troll to his internet service provider. Considering this troll hasn't threatened anybody, only attempts at severe annoyance, would he have violated his service provider's terms of service?

by McLovin on Dec 15, 2007 9:43 PM EST up reply actions

agreed

that's the hardest connection to make.

on the other hand, i neither specifically know what the terms of service with internet providers are, generally speaking, nor what partial remedies they can offer to solve a problem like this.

again, i'm not sure how the law classifies and restricts Joba's behavior.

by bleedjaxblue on Dec 15, 2007 9:48 PM EST up reply actions

I'm sure

they were lying trying to scare him off.

They can do nothing to traok Joba or anyone else. Reporting him to the ISP will get them nowhere as the ISP isn't going to want to get in the middle of this and open themselves up to headline risk - and they know John isn't going to sue anyone.

by Galt on Dec 15, 2007 11:16 PM EST up reply actions

nonzero chance

and the point is, there's no reason for them to risk it.

an ISP isn't going to just go around cutting off service from people because the admin of some random website says they are being mean.

by Galt on Dec 16, 2007 12:13 AM EST up reply actions

further

just imagine if you were such a tool that you were doing this from work. As has been stated. Whether you are denied service is irrelevant. Just think coming to work Monday and being called into your bosses office. Or being escorted out the doors.

And before anyone thinks that is harsh around this time of year - what about the people leaving this site for other sites and costing $.

by pedrophile on Dec 16, 2007 7:23 PM EST up reply actions

Actually

There are laws against internet harrasment. What we are all experiencing here really isn't that uncommon and probably falls under cyberstalking. Usually action is only taken when some creeper is chasing a younger girl or an ex or something, but what Joba has been doing is illegal and if John wanted to he could take legal action. This site has some good info:

http://www.wiredsafety.org/cyberstalking_harassment/definition.html

It is incredible how much it all sounds like Joba.

by kaisertown on Dec 15, 2007 10:10 PM EST up reply actions

I should elaborate

on the legal action part. First John would have to create some kind of Terms of Service that every user would have to agree to (I can't remember if I clicked a little box when I signed up, the site may already have this). Then John would probably have to hire a lawyer who specializes in internet law. The lawyer could easily track down Joba. John with the help of the lawyer would then have to prove that it was in fact Joba (tough since we have deleted all his posts and accounts including all the IP addresses he has used), and that Joba was in fact harrasing the board.

At least that is my understanding of the law, but internet law is constantly changing along with the interent itself, so I may be off a little.

I also wanted to elaborate so everyone could see how time consuming and challenging it would be to pursue that avenue so everyone didn't jump down John's throat asking "why havn't you done this already!" cause it isn't that simple.

by kaisertown on Dec 15, 2007 10:17 PM EST up reply actions

It is incredible how much it all sounds like Joba

And that, in a nutshell, is what Joba the Great accomplished on his site ... alienating a bunch of diehard prospect hounds and forever associating his hero with JtG's trolling, anti-social behavior and general jerkiness. Way to go, kid. You done good.

by Flynn Blake on Dec 15, 2007 10:24 PM EST up reply actions

ignorance of the first amendment

The first amendment protects people from the government curtailing their right to free speech.

It says nothing about what a private institution can control.

And not only that, but "right to free speech" doesn't mean that you have a right to be heard either.

by Galt on Dec 15, 2007 11:12 PM EST up reply actions

I love free speech arguments

when they are used in places they don't apply here...

it's the government who is not supposed to infringe on speech except in special circumstances...

Free speech and other constitutional protections are not applicable where there is no state (government) action. This blog is not an example of state action...

If you want to spout off constitutional arguments, learn some constitutional law

by SLK on Dec 16, 2007 3:47 PM EST up reply actions

Free Speech

You will find no greater advocate of free speech than me. BUT Joba crossed a huge line when he started impersonating other posters and trying to get people mad at them. Any sock puppet suspected of being Joba will be instantly deleted. So far, every sock puppet that has come under suspicion has turned out to be Joba. Joba is a sick individual who is abusing this forum, and we will do everything we can to stop it.

by John Sickels on Dec 15, 2007 10:23 PM EST reply actions

"free speech"

doesn't apply to you anyway. You aren't the government. Feel free to delete at will.

by Galt on Dec 15, 2007 11:13 PM EST up reply actions

Wait...

Are you talking about me? You're talking about me aren't you? aren't you!? just you wait, there's a "Your mom" joke with your name on it...

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 16, 2007 12:37 AM EST up reply actions

How about

a threshold of posts (100?) before you can start a topic. Many boards do that. If technically feasible that would deter a lot of that stuff.

just my 2 cents.

by alskor on Dec 16, 2007 9:00 AM EST up reply actions

Terms of Service

I doubt this is necessary. This is not public space. Any time you walk in a store or mall they can remove you at their discretion I believe. And of course the same is true here.

Everyone has certain terms with their service provider. And I believe a service provider can cancel your service for no reason. If you are enough of a nuisance to a website and they report you it's most likely that your service will be canceled.

by pedrophile on Dec 15, 2007 11:35 PM EST reply actions