On 11/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:15:03 -0500, "Wily D" wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that anyone's suggesting abuse is *routine*. I will suggest it's most likely "fairly" to "quite" scarce, although I cannot verify this myself. All that you or I know is that it can and has happened, and almost certainly will in the future at some point or another. Reviewing the list I don't see any indication that anyone believes it's "routine". Did I miss something?
I must be missing something. Why are we even having this discussion if there is no evidence of present abuse, and no contention of likely abuse outside of the normal range of human fallibility?
Guy (JzG)
You objected to an offhand comment about illegal checkusers being the only way to detect nonabusive socks, saying checkusers could never be illegal, and there was some discussion about whether this is true, because it seems that it may be possible, given the terms and conditions of use and our checkuser policy (at least, a violation of contract).
You also object to the casual assumption that checkuser abuse is routine, although I'm not sure anyone made that assumption. Since the comment was directed at me, I inferred you meant *I* assumed this, so I felt it was probably appropriate to clarify that I don't think checkuser abuse is routine, I would guess that's its quite uncommon, although obviously I have no knowledge of the situation beyond my ability to say that checkuser has never been used abusively towards myself.
It is a seperate interesting question: "How often do we expect checkuser abuse?" but I really have no answers to that.
Cheers WilyD