Well, I don't really want to start another thread about this topic, wish not personally to be in the limelight, and I'm aware that the poll on this thread topic is old/ended or whatever, I'm posting on this thread without relation to the particular poll that's attached to it.
I'm posting this for the reason that I'd like to turn what's recently occurred about this issue of socks, or even bans for other issues, into something more positive.
I'm a strong believer that a lot of lives negative issues can be turned into positive ones, when reflection has taken place and behaviour is then adjusted.
I'm sure a lot of posters here have been banned from other places and felt annoyed about those decisions, sometimes on reflection those decisions were justified, other times not such as we see on TPV thread at DIF for example .
My personal experience when I first came to SZ after being banned from DIF, my search engine brought me here from entering something like 'David Icke forum cunts' or something like that.
I got the impression quite early on and I think it's because I can type a fair case, that some members had decided that I was possibly 'sock'.
I was expected to answer that question ''Had I posted before''.
I guess this is where I went wrong, simply because I 'd taken so much crap from the DIF moderation posse, I really felt not like complying to this question and had pointed out that to answer such a question was not in the rules.
Yes, I admit it, I was still in DIF self defence mode, and should have thought that through, it appeared then that because I had brought up the topic of the 'rules' I was now going to be on a short leash as per my connection to the rules.....
Some debates that had taken place 'mainly' in a thread about Russell Brand, and his recent revelations had become a bit personal and I found myself in a bit of debate with a few members, and debate about 'editing posts'.
I had explained that I was dyslexic and had to often edit my posts due to frequent spelling errors, poor grammar and general typos, and that I an adult version of ADD. I provided this link then
www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=257283
As I had been pulled up for referring to someone as a 'retard' I wanted to ensure the members then that I would probably come under the term 'retard' (myself as I have had a lot of issues which caused problems with my education).
It seemed a bit like this information about my ADD was either being ignored or disbelieved, I don't remember a response.
I had been given a final chance to say whether or not I had posted before, I had stated as an answer something like '' If I answer how do I know I will be believed''
The next time I had logged onto SZ my membership status had been deleted.
Some of which I will accept as my own fault, some of which appeared to be a bit of paranoia about issues with socks before I had arrived.
(I had said that I had the same user name at DIF cousin_frothy and that my posts are there to see.
After being banned I decided to go DIF and create a new account, much of my time was on the TPV threads and on a thread about the Woolwich trial, my comments on the Woolwich trail were welcomed not my comments on TPV threads, hence banned.
I had thought about my time at SZ and wanted to give it another go, after what had happened I didn't want to turn up again and be mistrusted from the outset, I was very unsure what the members would have thought, and tbh I didn't want to swallow my pride and come begging for forgiveness, so I decided to just start fresh and see how it went, I thought I might come clean when the times was right and possible relationships had been constructed over time.
I had alluded once or twice about who I was but was not sure if anyone had noticed, (by making possible excuses for C_F's behaviour).
Anyway here we are, I'd linked some photo's from a cousin_frothy's Photobucket account where the URL had spilled the beans.
I want to thank you all for giving me this chance to redeem myself and want to thank especially Weeman & Gilly
Weeman for taking up my case , I know that you were speaking about possible flaws in the system and not always personally supporting me (per say).
And for Gilly for being a good friend and seeing that I had not really been the person that I had presented/been presented as, when I was banned as cousin_frothy.
I also want to thank everyone who took part in the poll, I have not thanked any individual posts, and I don't hold any hard feeling towards those who might be concerned about my reinstallation.
And finally to thank the forum facilitators for permitting this process to take place.
That said I really think it's time to rethink this 'sock' business, my personal view is that as long as they're acting within the rules and not causing issues of harassment or manipulation then I personally don't see the problem.
Surely if a poster is out of order it doesn't matter if they are a sock or not, as long as they are not causing problems by shit stirring.
However if we are going to disallow socks, and have that as a forum policy I am the last person here that should be disputing that.
So now surely if there is to be a law for banning socks it needs to be reviewed, there will be the odd case where a person has been wrongly accused and banned, or in my case seen as reformed character but had to use the 'sock' to prove this.
I suggest this situation to be reviewed, I suggest that if we have any other genuine posters that are found out to have created a 'sock' account, not to cause problems but because they like SZ as a concept but felt that they'd
'Got off on the wrong foot and fallen out with members beyond repair, thus been banned but were unsure about restarting in the same name.'
or
'Felt that they'd been unfairly treated, did not want to revisit the 'issues' so simple either got banned or deactivated by request and then 'retried'
I don't think those two issues can be treated in the same was as the behaviour of a 'classic sock/troll' or whatever.
From reading what I have read it appears to me that Thor and Weeman appear to have their fingers on 'the pulse' of this issue and perhaps a forum committee could be established to create criteria such as
1) What are the actions of this 'sock'
2) Are there any mitigating circumstance.
3) How did this sock interact with the other members, what issues did the negatively pose
4) Have they after been found out/admitted showed remorse .
5) Do they have any genuine reasons that could have caused them to create this covert 'second coming'.
I guess there is plenty more to think over than simply that, perhaps a lot of these issues can be avoided by either having an appeal process in which they can ask to have a day back at the forum to plead their case, or not.
I'm sure once the opportunity to appeal has been taken/not taken the these individuals should be banned if they return without creating an appeal at the time or if their appeal had been turned down.
TBH if socks in the classic sense 'shit stirrers' want to come back they will, most of the newer internet providers have modems/routers that create new IP's after been either switched on/off for half an hour or overnight, so there would be no need for them to appeal, as it's quite likely to involve lots of apologising etc....
I hope some good can come out of all this, I'm now stepping out of the spotlight, I went to get back to posting about the other topics, and with only final sorry and thank you all, I'll let this go now.
(ps I'm not editing so you'll just have to work with any spelling errors or typ0's as you find them
)
(pss thanks for putting me emailed message up oi
)
pas possible 
by 
