On 10/12/07, Flameviper Velifang theflameysnake@yahoo.com wrote:
Did you read my message? The point is that you cannot simply presume things. Perhaps they can't use e-mail or create an account elsewhere. Maybe they can.
Can't use email? Doubtful. Anybody can create an anonymous, free email account with Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail, and so on, in a matter of minutes. Requests coming from such addresses are generally only declined if there's some reason to suspect foul play, in my experience.
I agree that we should try and streamline the process. I agree that blocking account creation on shared and widely shared IPs isn't something to be taken lightly, especially done in the long term. But when it's done, it should be done specifically in order *to* create a roadblock -- we're trying to keep some abusive idiot(s) out, after all.
But the point isn't the technical feasability of creating an account, it's
the image we project of ourselves.
Those are both important avenues of discussion, I think.
One thing to keep in mind, there's no other site on the net which makes itself this prominent, this available, this open; because of this open, anonymous nature, the tools with which we close off access in cases of abuse can wind up being rather blunt and cumbersome. Without the cooperation of school and/or ISP staff, there's sometimes no option but blocking.
Should we be concerned that we may be locking out genuine, earnest contributors? Absolutely. But at some point, there has to be some limit to the level of abuse we're willing to have thrown our way. Surely people can understand that. From experience on unblock-en-l, the majority of upset people emailing us are upset because they feel personally accused by the block messages they're seeing -- that's something I'd definitely like to avoid, whenever possible.
That doesn't account for discouraged people, necessarily. But what are we to do? What productive, all-encompassing solution is there, here?
There are cases in which blocking account creation is appropriate, and cases in which it isn't. It all depends on potentials, costs and benefits. Individual cases can be discussed, but in terms of a general change in policy, I don't think there's a silver bullet.