in reply to Re^2: A New Respect
in thread A New Respect

Is that the only criticism you have of his comments? I gave jZed a ++ for them, because I think he summarized the situation very well, and in a reasonably humane fashion.

There is a clearly stated rule about creating multiple nicks without consulting the powers that be. The rule says that you don't do that. It's pretty bleeping obvious that if one of the gods IMO correctly removed someone's ability to use a site facility for a period of time, and that person then then creates new accounts in order to flout that restriction, then that person has broken a (clearly stated) site rule. Unless, of course, that person also received permission to create new nicks from the same people who banned him.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: A New Respect
by ysth (Canon) on Mar 28, 2006 at 11:54 UTC
    It's pretty bleeping obvious that if one of the gods IMO correctly removed someone's ability to use a site facility for a period of time, and that person then then creates new accounts in order to flout that restriction, then that person has broken a (clearly stated) site rule.
    This is now a clearly stated site rule: Site Rules Governing User Accounts.
[reply]
Re^4: A New Respect
by ysth (Canon) on Mar 12, 2006 at 19:20 UTC
    The clear rule is that you can only use one account to vote with, and must notify the gods of (not "receive permission" for) any additional usernames.
[reply]
      I'll take that answer as a "yes". Thanks for clearing that up.
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion