Thread:RePeat/@comment-5111283-20150217235959/@comment-4257955-20150218205532

Harold89 wrote: Riolu777 wrote: Harold89 wrote: Rio

" via http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/LEGO_Message_Boards_Wiki:General_Policy?oldid=369759 Hmm, well that was the rule when this account was active, alongside Peat's. I had only known after Peat had gone inactive on her main, so it wasn't in violation of this rule, seeing how TME was thereafter the only account she used.
 * Do not impersonate other users or use duplicate accounts or other IP addresses for the purposes of circumventing bans, or pretending to be a completely different user. You also may not vote twice on any poll or community discussion using any method, or use a duplicate account or IP address to promote or discredit either side of a community discussion or vote."

Also, if it's general knowledge now that this account is hers, then see the current dupe rules: We can ask her to verify this account as hers on its user page to further validate its existence, but otherwise this account is no longer breaching any rules or guidelines. Rio, as talked about in our conversation, you did not know about it being her dupe until she stopped using her main. I am still confused, however: Why was she not banned when it was found out - by the other admins/user - that this was her dupe? It broke the rules.
 * Duplicate accounts are not permitted unless they are clearly connected to the main account. It must be stated on the user page to which account it is connected.
 * Duplicate accounts must have a valid reason for existing. Invalid reasons include cases where the account could be used to evade a block or ban, impersonate another user, or discredit any vote.

Also, actually, it is breaching the current rules. It is both not connected to her main account, and it also does not have a valid reason for existing. Even if someone gives me a valid reason, it still breaks the old dupe rule of "pretending to be a completely different user.  " It is inexcusable that Peat got special treatment from [at least one of] the admins. Peat had a dupe when this old rule was in place, and it was not banned or blocked. I remember a specific scenario when LFY brought a dupe on. It got banned immediately. Later, LFY said that he was using it to test things. Yes, LFY has a pretty bad history with dupes, but he wasn't even given a single moment on that dupe to do his testing - or trolling, even if he was lying. The point is, yeah, maybe he was lying and he was gonna troll/spam on it. It got banned. However, Peat's dupe gets to be on chat all the time? Why was she given this special treatment?

@Loney: (having quoting problems at the moment): It doesn't matter, Peat was pretending to be a completely different user when the rule was in tact. That is breaking the rules. And according to your edit, it is Peat's main account. The thing is, if Peat had stated it was her main account, than that would have been allowed. But, no, she broke the rules by pretending to be a different user. But, it was not.

@LBB: I actually do not think so - I think all dupes that apply to the rules should be allowed.

@Rio: Oh, ah, I see he was confused that it was an old rule I was posting.

@Loney: Yes, that is true. However, later, when the policy /was/ made that dupes pretending to be a completely different user were against the rules, TME should have been dealt with.

@LBB: heh

But yes, the dupe should be banned. It broke the old rules, and presently, it is breaking the new rules. I have no clue. One reason that could be possible is that, seeing how Peat hasn't logged in as her main in nearly a year, the admins who knew this (as I didn't know until the last few months) knew from there on after that TME would be considered her "main."

Refer to my postulation above.

And I wouldn't say outright that it is breaking any current rules, seeing how it is now common knowledge that they are the same person. It would be unfair to ban this account before Peat has a chance to respond, and to put on TME's userpage that TME is Peat, hence validating its existence under the new rules. TME last logged in yesterday, as asserted above. Is it that much to ask to give her a chance to log on again and validate this account, instead of witch-hunting for its immediate punishment? While you are correct to call out the admins who knew of this at the time, this really isn't a dire error or instance of oversight. Instead, this is coming off as a bit legalistic, seeing how far back this occurred. I will let the other admins who were involved with this input, however. And we should, again, wait for TME to log on again to reply to all of this.