Why? Some people may change nickname simply because their interests have diverged. And in such a case, knowing their old identity might be something they do not want to be revealed, simply out of principle (for me, I don't think anyone has any business "informing" themselves on my activities, or "stalking" any one person/online identity in general).
Mostly because of why this site exists, the genesis of the rift between SB and the Sietch wasn't benevolent and what happened to these people was as closes as you can get to an act of violence as possible without braining someone. That's probably why this is receiving so much blowback an why Invictus and others are deeply concerned about how friendly and tolerant and even..protective at the expense of this site...the Sietch staff are towards SB in general.
I made the analogy of a battered spouse once and it enraged 'em enough to pull a frame job on me and I suspect it did because it hits home and is tragically accurate.
People here weren't just thrown off a site..Many of them helped build that community, some put in contributions that likely spanned from the time they were teenagers to the time they were parents of teenagers. As recompense they cordoned off from the site, caged like animals told to "rehabilitate themselves and learn to act like functioning human beings" and then after all that? Hurled out...By people who basically fabricated evidence claiming they were Nazis.
Some of that succeeded against some of them...and they're just..flagelents who would burn this site down to appease their buddies in Whitehall..Self harm is usually the first sign of severe trauma after all.
I can sort of...given the history involved completely understand why many of them would take objection to any attempt to shield the people who wronged them..from..justified...exclusion.
Simply put..the Sietch has earned the right to be hateful and indignant toward SB users...and in their position I would absolutely assume malice in someone from SB who hides what they are...then give them time to prove themselves.
I wasn't part of that...I have my own clique and my own forums I frequent and I escaped the shitstorm because I really only came to SB passed say 2012 to laugh at people..Having completely lost faith in that site and its users.
But I can understand it..having been through the kind of shit they went through and because I do actually give a damn about this place and where it's headed...I sort of adopt that stance in dealing with SB'ers who hide..if I suspect that I'm dealing with one.
I also follow the "pay your dues" system..so it ain't like I won't turn around and embrace the same people like a brother once its clear their intentions aren't malicious.
In either case..my position is more...This rule isn't being written to protect users but to harm users the mods don't like.
This is a policy implemented to sanction abuse..under a mask of protecting people. It's a post hoc justification for the abuse we've all seen over the last few weeks.
That has been my main gripe from my first post.
That has always been my gripe.
I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend you (via metaphorical stabbing you in the ribs) by responding to you quoting me and asking for an explanation for my post.
I promise to restrain myself from disagreeing with you because I don't want to discredit or brigade you. For that I sincerely apologize.
Naw, you didn't nor did ya Caesar me.
I'm just pointing out it was awful jumpy..and looked like it was part of a pattern..Which you responded too, in a rather revealing way.