So some douchebag is impersonating me on Reddit. I post as manboobz. He (or she) posts as manboobz_. (That is, with a little underscore at the end.) Luckily most of the faux-manboobz’ comments are fairly easy to tell from mine — this is not someone with a great sense of subtlety — so at least some of the regulars have figured out that this bonehead is not actually me. Not all of them, unfortunately.
As impersonating someone else is a violation of Reddit’s rules, and an asshole move to boot, I politely asked the Men’s Rights subreddit’s mods to ban the faux-me. Here was the response:
Stay classy, AnnArchist!
Pecunium, please get out of my head! 🙂
Feeling ninjad? I prefer to think of it is two people seeing the bloody obvious, and singing in harmony.
There’s more than one of these people at BU? Sweet Celestia of Equestria.
@Pecunium: I am not an attorney, but my father is. I used to work for him, so I have some basic understanding of law. I also know that one of the easiest ways to void a contract is to make it not apply to you or the situation at hand. And the best way to do that is to see if there is any “wiggle room” in the contract. “wiggle room” meaning terms and definitions that are general and not specific. The more specific a contract is, the harder it is to get out of it.
…brony? ^^
I’m still stuck on the unassailable logic of “I have to make David look evil! But I’ll have to make up evil things to do this, but that’s justified because he really is evil… as proven by the things I made up.”
David’s actual beliefs play no part in this scenario.
Brohoof, Baglesan.
Brandon, stop contract ranking. It’s an ASSHOLE move, whatever the fine print. Suggesting anything about this could be good-faith is insulting our intelligence harder than a PSA about “remember not to chew on granite, kids!”
Dammit, hellkell, first you beat me to “disingenuous” and now you beat me to “are you a lawyer now?”
Nevermind, I’ll just sit back and enjoy this popcorn. Anybody want some?
I’ll take some popcorn.
Brandon: Your basic understanding of the law… = thinking a proxy is a contract. I’m not impressed.
Take, for example, The more specific a contract is, the harder it is to get out of it., which is the exact opposite of true.
Remember Prince, and the odd sigil he used for a couple of years as his name? That was because he had signed a very specific contract, which gave the rights to all the music, “Prince” made to someone he didn’t want the rights to belong to.
A quick trip to court, a name change and suddenly “Prince” wasn’t writing music, and none of the rights went to that person. When the contract expired, back to court, another name change, and all is hunky dory.
Because a very specific set of terms, e.g. “no one may use an exact duplicate of someone else’s name and avatar” which would allow someone to have a slightly different avatar, and the exact same name and be completely within the terms of the user agreement.
I’m eating Starbursts and switching between this and Judge Judy on Youtube. So deliciously trashy right now! 😀
In this case AnnChrist didn’t really do anything wrong. He didn’t concede to someone that doesn’t respect him, he answered with a pretty general statement without name calling or vulgarities. He just said it ain’t happening, without being rude.
Nice to see that Brandon thinks ignoring the spirit of a user agreement, because someone who has specific duties is just fine. Perfectly honorable even, since he wasn’t “rude”.
I want to make it clear I didn’t send the k ike message because I’m a. not an anti-Semite, and b. that actually is pretty threatening. I’ve also never emailed him, I posted a few comments calling him a “pussy feminist mangina bitch” and variations thereof.
Seriously, doodz. BU has like 30,000 students and that’s not counting the professors (8-10K) and the tens of thousands of nearby residents who mooch off the servers. Since Hugo is a total douche, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think there’s a few other people in the general vicinity who don’t like him.
@Pecunium: And your prince example would only be relevant if David actually changed his legal name to manboobz.
Haha, I’m looking back, and I love how Schwyzer responds to hate mail. “We’re judged by those who won’t keep our company. By that standard, I’m blessed.” What a smarmy toolbox.
Brandon: What? My example is that an overly specific contract makes it much easier to get around.
That you can’t see the principle being discussed, is why I don’t think you understand the law as osmotically as you think you do. Understanding how the law works is all about being able to extrapolate principles from examples (that’s what Law School, esp. First Year, is all about).
But you get hung up on the fact that my example was about names, and fail to see that it was really about over specificity. Take a look at those credit card contracts, note how “vague” and broad the obligations the credit card companies impose are, and how specific the responsibilities they assume are.
That designed so they can claim as much as possible (as being in “the terms” while being able to deny as much as possible (as being, “outside the terms”).
MRAL, why are you jumping to defend yourself over the Hugo thing? You didn’t do it–but you’ve called people on here things that are equally nasty without a qualm. Why not just use it as another notch on your bad boy bedpost?
Step back, Pecunium; I’ve seen Legally Blonde like 5 times, so I think that I might be the proper match for Brandon knowledge-of-the-law-wise. 😀
(Don’t actually step back! I adore your takedowns.)
I don’t think I’ve said anything as nasty and/or directly threatening as the k ike message.
Also, calling someone a “pussy feminist mangina bitch” is not against the law. That’s just my opinion of him, and he banned me, so whatever, but that’s as far as it goes. Telling someone you want to assault them is kind of skirting that line.
@Pecunium: No because a man that changed his name to a friggin symbol is in his own special class of stupidity.
Also if the Reddit user agreement actually stated ““no one may use an exact duplicate of someone else’s name and avatar”. I might be more on your side. However if we tacked on “and screen name”. I would agree with you. Personally, I think the owners of Reddit made that part “loose” so they get the ultimate decision on what is and isn’t impersonation.
Each contract is looked at separately and to conflate Prince’s experience with this one is pointless.
But would Prince have any claim to demand usernames named “prince” are impersonating him?
Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
@Brandon, well, if he were dropping references to Prince’s songs, past, idiosyncrasies and overall acting like a parody of Prince, then yeah, I’d say he would.
Brandon: No because a man that changed his name to a friggin symbol is in his own special class of stupidity.
A class of stupid that earned him several million dollars. We should all be so stupid.
But would Prince have any claim to demand usernames named “prince” are impersonating him?
Any use? No. But someone who made a sigil much like his, and then went to fora in which Prince participated, using that similar sigil; while making comments meant to make Prince look stupid… yeah, he’d have a case.
Unless you are trying to argue that “manboobz? is as common a name on the internet as, “Prince” or perhaps Brandon?