Returning Users

[sunny-dave]

There are (at least) three or four currently active users who claim to be "new", but are actually nothing of the sort.

I have no particular objection to this and the previous (I think) AB_ED said that (with a few particularly egregious exceptions) he/she had no objections to returnees slinking back, as long as they behaved themselves and stayed away from contentious subject matter - perhaps posting just in Q&P or Crosswords or similar areas.

The problem at the moment is that (after a period of being Mr/Ms Niceperson), the current batch of Lazarus figures are starting to pick fights and generally return to the habits which made them persona non grata, whilst being quite careful to do nothing quite bad enough to get them 'removed' again.

This is (patently) unfair and far from a level playing field. I've seen some long term posters get some quite nasty/subtle abuse over the last few days - from people whose previous history is not available, thus making any attempt to 'give as good as you get' virtually impossible.

I'd like to suggest that all users have to (initially at least) register from a non-mobile device - thus allowing their ID to be verified against the list (which I'm sure must exist) of MAC addresses known to be used by previously banned users then (if the Ed allows them back) their new username can be linked to the old one.

Yes, I know MAC addresses can be faked - but that's probably beyond most of the people that I'm referring to. It might even catch-out a few of the Spammers too.

[Mamyalynne]

I thought Cathartic was banned in 2010?

[anneasquith]

I wish someone would answer the question from TCL.

[Zacs-Master]

Exacleeee!

[gness]

Oh heck....Zacs is getting his life in order before I head north.....you'll be fine, Zacs.....x

I have, Nailit....and just for pointing out to old Ed that he was incorrect on one thread.....lots of times.....think that's what made him shut me up....... :-)

[gness]

Well I would, Anne....but isn't there a rule about discussing suspended users?

[nailit]

//I wish someone would answer the question from TCL//
Me too. What have we missed?

[nailit]

//but isn't there a rule about discussing suspended users? //
No rule about pointing out 'juicy' threads tho, where suspended user might have been posting...

[anneasquith]

Oh well,_ ok :-)

[douglas9401]

A well known source of peaty whisky, off the west coast of Scotland, that was my first and only thought on who it was.

[Mamyalynne]

Nothing whatsoever juicy, honest - think - being buzzed by a swarm of bluebottles.

[Mamyalynne]

As I said, that's what happens Douglas and is often the sole intention.

[nailit]

mamy, never been any good at cryptics :-(

[jackthehat]

I've already named today's eejit, on this thread...

[nailit]

//I've already named today's eejit, on this thread...//
Think we all know that Minkyme is Islay, just wondered what the kerfuffle was about?

[jackthehat]

Minkeyme is NOT Islay...

Minkeyme is a very-much and often Banned User.

[nailit]

Oh right, I know a couple of ABers (plus myself) that were convinced that Minkey was Islay. Always stand to be corrected.

[pastafreak]

//...Think we all know that Minkyme is Islay,...//
I've seen this mentioned before...and sorry, could not see a resemblence. If it's so...why did I like one, and feel thoroughly put off by the other?

[pastafreak]

Ahhh...the other responses were not there when I voiced my doubt.

[jackthehat]

Islay was not banned.
If and when she wishes to return to the forum, it'll be entirely up to her whether she reveals herself.