Admin accountability vs stalking Options Rating

[Jonny Cache]

Okay this is my bias on this topic:

1. For 8 months in 1995 I was stalked by a guy called "Rob" who said that he was going to kill me in training for a year long serial killing, the first day of which looked virtually identical to the events of the Port Arthur massacre, and I am personally in no doubt whatsoever that he was the man firing the gun that killed the 35 people there. This was a serious, and very traumatic event that changed my life. I am not in any way supportive of any form of stalking.
2. From late 2002 — early 2003 a girl called "Julie" cyber-stalked me in relation to some chat messages, basically because she thought that my RL name "Adrian" was a girl's name (I never said I was a girl, she just assumed). She put up an attacking web page about me, which included my photograph, full name, real address, real phone number, and called me a paedophile, insisting that I was currently on trial for raping her own 2 year old daughter (she didn't actually have a child at all). I tried to have her charged, but it turned out that her address, including which country she was in, was false, as was her name and all personal details. After a year of pursuing the case, it turned out that she was a serial cyber-stalker, and destroyed lives of many people at random. She was finally given restraining orders (but oddly no jail time) and forced to stop it.

So I know about stalking. I know about cyber-stalking. I would not support any form of it. I would not support any conduct that would in any ways encourage it, or lead to it.

I think that knowing someone's bias is important. It is important to note that whenever I am talking about stalking or cyber stalking, I am talking from a point of view of loathing it, hating anything that suggests that it is in any ways okay. But I am also talking from a perspective of knowing that many people who do this actually claim to be the victim. Both Rob and Julie claimed that I was stalking them! This isn't always the case, but it is often an excuse that is used by people, to help them to get away with these crimes. We must be very vigilent in determining that it is true.

This is relevant in the case of Wikipedia admins, because they do claim that they are victims, even when in fact they are distorting history and changing reality. We must be very certain that they are in fact victims. It is true that there are some cases where they are stalked — the Amorrow cases spring to mind. But by in large it is a quest for truth — and trying to find out the truth about something is NOT the same as stalking! There is a whopping great world of difference!

Whenever we see any work of knowledge, we need to determine its bias. Wikipedia's worst ever policy is the "Neutral Point of View" policy, because it is unattainable. Yes, blame Larry Sanger for this, because this wasn't Jimbo's idea. What they should instead have is a "State your Point of View" policy. It is fine to have bias, so long as we know what that bias is. Say who you are, so that we can research the author a bit, as well as the subject.

The thing is that if someone wrote about something which they have basically no bias about, what it is saying is that they really don't know much about it. I couldn't care less about the Telletubbies so I could write something relatively unbiased about them - but how useful is it? We need the bias, but what we don't need is for people to pretend that it is neutral.

No encyclopaedias are unbiased. No books are unbiased. But we can at least determine what the bias is.

We have seen on Wikipedia that US Congress has abused the system to try to make themselves look better, for political power, and possibly even winning a presidential race that could change world history. We have seen the dangers in people using bias. We have seen the dangers that the new rules on Wikipedia can bring.

By all means keep the lists of Simpsons, South Park and Spongebob episodes. I love those shows, and I love to use Wikipedia to look up things about them. But keep out of all of the political things - unless they can say who they are, so that we can determine what bias there is.

Morning now, but still pre-coffee, so don't expect too much.

My third thoughts still say that the situations you experienced have two kinds of causes:

1. The motivational forces, positive and negative, that exist in individual people.
2. The systematic fields of influence, positive and negative, that act on people.

One of the systematic factors that catalyzed the bad reaction, that released the disturbances within those people you encountered from their normal social controls, was precisely the permission to operate under a false name.

That is why responsible newspapers do not print anonymous letters to the editors. Among other things, they know that their readers would accuse them of concocting the letters themselves, especially if the letters expressed a strong point of view on a political issue known to be favored by the publishers, or if they otherwise pandered to the ends of yellow journalism, which they by their nature often do.

All of these are problems that civilized societies have met and addressed — long time passing — though of course the address is always ongoing as new wrinkles appear in the envelope. But the Chat Room With Delusions Of Grandeur that we know as Wikipedia continues to remain so gol-dern WikiPigheaded about learning the lessons of civilized society.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 12th March 2007, 1:54pm

[Somey]

From Talk:Daniel Brandt:

This is just a game apparentely. Brandt fights to keep public information about himself private and then claims that because he does this the artice is not up to scratch. So desperate is Brandt to keep his picture out of wikipedia that he has never done a TV interview, despite no doubt many requests for him to do so. He has thus disposed of tens of thousands of dollars in potential earnings to keep his picture out of here. I would be very easy for a motivated individual to get a picture of him.

Y'see, the thing about this is, when they use the term "stalking" to refer to what their critics do - when the correct word would be "exposing" or "identifying" - then this word gets into the heads of the less intellectual, nuttier crowd among them. There's clearly no shortage, as this quote proves beyond any conceivable doubt. (Tens of thousands of dollars in potential earnings? Given the business he's in, I would think he's probably lost that much because of the article!)

And pretty soon, they start thinking they're justified in engaging in actual stalking.

How soon before they really start doing it? Is Brandt going to be unable to leave his house now, or walk out of the office to get a sandwich, or go to the movies with his grandchildren, without having some fascist goon from WP follow him around with a digital camera, waiting for "just the right ugly shot" to come along?

Though I wouldn't advocate doing anything that in any way could be construed as "stalking", as this would only prove his point that Wikipedians are invading his privacy.

Like it isn't proven already?

Oh well, at least Mr. Tobias has some sense! There are some limits, apparently. Of course, publishing someone's name and personal details on Wikipedia isn't "stalking" - that's only if you publish someone's name and personal details "off-site."

Thanks for clearing that up!

[guy]

Of course, publishing someone's name and personal details on Wikipedia isn't "stalking"

Only if it's sourced to a reliable source. If it isn't, it needs to be deleted.

[blissyu2]

I think that part of the problem with this kind of thing, especially with cyber stalking, is that people who are doing the stalking can very easily pretend to be the victims.

For example, let's imagine that imaginary person X (let's call him John Smith) decides that they don't like imaginary person Y (let's call her Jane Doe), and that they are going to run a smear campaign against them, designed to cost them their job, have people call them and abuse them, and perhaps also get people to physically harm them, because Jane Doe was rude to John Smith, and wouldn't go out with him.

So John Smith decides to do a search on Jane Doe to find out what is going to hurt her the most. He decides to make up a story that Jane Doe has committed horrific child abuse against her young son. He fabricates photographs, using PhotoShop, gets photos of other children that have nothing to do with her, and so forth. He then says that this is an "exposure" of Jane Doe, because Jane Doe is such a menace to society. He then goes around to everyone he can find to warn them of this horrible person.

Jane Doe writes to him to ask him to take down the filth, so John Smith insists that Jane Doe is stalking him. He then may even convince someone to let him get a restraining order, or else pretends that he has (occasionally the legal system will fall for this trick too). Then Jane Doe may decide to fight back, and say how horrible John Smith is. It doesn't matter what Jane Doe does, John Smith will insist that he is the victim.

Eventually, Jane Doe gets some kind of proof, perhaps with legal assistance, to stop John Smith. At that point, John Smith says that the whole thing was a joke, and 9 times out of 10 he walks off scot free. Meanwhile, Jane Doe has probably been getting phone calls every day, had welfare at her house, maybe even lost custody of her son briefly, may have had someone break in to her house and assault her, had to change her name, move house, and has also lost her job.

It is relatively simple for people to use this ruse when they want to hurt someone. This is why we must be very careful and very certain. It is very simple to say that "Wikipedia admins are being stalked" but you have to look at what they are really doing. Why would anyone want to stalk them? How are they being hurt? Is it legitimate? If someone has done some harm to you, you have a legal right to find out who they are, and to contact them. If someone owes me money, I can call them for it and it cannot be considered to be harassment. This is the same kind of thing.

Don't be fooled by these protests. But at the same time, don't actually hurt innocent people.

[The Joy]

I think one should be very cautious about revealing administrators' identities. I agree with Blissyu2 in that we should be very selective in who the WR chooses to out.

It definitely depends on what kind of subject editors and admins are dealing with, such as living people articles. Trying to find the identity of an admin that just deals with subjects like Pikachu and Bulbasaur would clearly be immoral.

How soon before they really start doing it? Is Brandt going to be unable to leave his house now, or walk out of the office to get a sandwich, or go to the movies with his grandchildren, without having some fascist goon from WP follow him around with a digital camera, waiting for "just the right ugly shot" to come along?

Now I do know that in US law that no one can post a picture of someone on the web without that person's permission. So even if they do physically track down Mr. Brandt and place his picture on the Wiki, he would have the law on his side in asking it to be taken down. No exceptions or excuses! The picture also has to be free, or in rare cases, fair use, and unless Mr. Brandt granted anyone permission to do so, he should be safe.

I know that doesn't exactly assuage any living person with an article from fear of Wiki-fanatics taking pictures of them on the street, but its a small comforting thought.

[Kathryn Cramer]

Now I do know that in US law that no one can post a picture of someone on the web without that person's permission.

Which law is this? Are you talking about it violating the person's right of publicity? Or what?

Regarding what is and is not "stalking", there is more than one definition of the term. In this context, I presume we use the legal definition, which is pretty restrictive and varies from place to place. The dictionary definition is much looser (and not necessarily negative).

(One key element of legal definitions tends to be "criminal intent to cause fear" and I think usually the fear needs to be fear of bodily harm. If a group of people collectively convince themselves (no matter how erroneously) that loss of anonymity entails a threat to their physical well-being, are attempts to learn their identities conducted with an "intent to cause fear"? Pseudonymous people may feel they are stalked even if they are not.)

This post has been edited by Kathryn Cramer: Tue 13th March 2007, 2:43am

[Jonny Cache]

One key element of legal definitions tends to be "criminal intent to cause fear" and I think usually the fear needs to be fear of bodily harm. If a group of people collectively convince themselves (no matter how erroneously) that loss of anonymity entails a threat to their physical well-being, are attempts to learn their identities conducted with an "intent to cause fear"? Pseudonymous people may feel they are stalked even if they are not.

I think that most of us here are humane in our sympathies with people's irrational fears, moments of everyday psychopathology, and especially when those conditions pass from acute to chronic.

But we are concerned here with the qualifications that are required of people who intend to collaborate on the production of a high quality reference work, and however much we may feel for them, people on the slimmer verges of reality may simply not be up to the task.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Tue 13th March 2007, 3:16am

[blissyu2]

It is an opinion, and one that varies (also the legal definitions of it vary too).

On one hand, we cannot simply say that in all cases "outing" someone is wrong, nor can we say that in all cases it is right.

On the other hand, people who claim to be "Victims" may be the other way around.

I take one Snowspinner as an example of someone who claimed to be a victim, but most certainly it was the other way around. Slim Virgin is another key example.

Where people refuse to be accountable to their own malicious actions, and claim that they are being "stalked" when someone tries to use legitimate legal means to make them accountable, there is no problem.

On the other hand, yes, going after random Pokemon editors is another issue entirely.

[The Joy]

Which law is this? Are you talking about it violating the person's right of publicity? Or what?

Now that I think about it, I don't know if such a law exists. All I know is that written permission is sometimes needed before a photograph of someone is placed online. This may be just a courtesy by organizations such as schools who may fear the possiblity of lawsuits if they post photographs online without permission.

Sorry if I mislead that there was a federal law (there may be, I don't know).

Regardless of if a law exists or not, it would unethical and likely a violation of stalking if Wikipedians did try to hunt down Mr. Brandt and try to take his picture. I would like to think he'd have a case against them if such an event should happen.

How does Thomas Pynchon and J.D. Salinger get away with being famous and not having their photographs taken? Now that just amazes me!

As to whether "outing" people is ethical, I believe that holding administrators accountable may require exposing their biases and thus who they are. In the case of Essjay, he basically outed himself and utilized his false credentials to sway opinion. If I'm editting a physics article, for example, and a self-proclaimed physicist came along and editted it, I would defer to him as I have no knowledge of physics or anything. But if he turned out to be a liar and the article was wrong, I would be very angry and would not be sympathetic to his plight after he was outed.

So I say, if administrators are using their powers irresponsibly to pursue their own agendas and exposing their identities stops the abuse and helps the Wiki (and isn't a form of vendetta), then so be it.

[Somey]

Now that I think about it, I don't know if such a law exists. All I know is that written permission is sometimes needed before a photograph of someone is placed online. This may be just a courtesy by organizations such as schools who may fear the possiblity of lawsuits if they post photographs online without permission.

But it's a Catch-22, isn't it? If I post a photograph with a name attached to it, and say "this is Jayjg" or "this is David Spart" or "this is WAS 4.250," who's to say I'm lying? Them? Of course they'll say I'm lying - you assume that's what they'll say. What do they have to lose?

The thing is, the photograph could be of anyone, and the name just something I made up. And if I actually did that, the chances that the person whose photograph it is would ever find it are infinitesimal. Even if that actually happened - and again, there's no conceivable way it could - all I do is say "oops, sorry, I goofed, please forgive." And that settles it - no problem! Case closed.

But Wikipedia wouldn't even do that, would they? They certainly didn't in my case.

Meanwhile, the anonymous entity whose details I made up can't prove I'm wrong without identifying himself - so I still win, don't I? And no law has been violated - none whatsoever.

The fact is, there is no law protecting the anonymity of individuals on the internet. None, zero, squat, squadoosh. However, if someone is already identifiable, then that changes things - the person does have rights in that case. But we're not concerned with them, because we already know who they are, right?

That's what makes it all so much fun, folks! It's just like Wikipedia - we can bash the anonymous ones all we want, and there are no real consequences! The best - sorry, worst they can do is blow off a lot of hot air about "stalking," which really only makes everybody angrier, and accomplishes absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Meanwhile, exposure is our only leverage. That's because they won't listen to reason, won't show an ounce of respect for common human decency, and can't even handle simple logic, even when it's in their own best interests to do so. That's why they're ultimately doomed. We may be helping to speed things along a little bit, but what we do is trivial compared to what they're doing to themselves, and they'll continue to do it until they're gone.

[Kathryn Cramer]

Meanwhile, exposure is our only leverage.

This isn't just a Wikipedia problem. It's a generalized Internet problem. What makes the Wikipedia situation exceptional is that trolls can hide behind claiming to be "editing" and "administrating" when a lot of it would be simply called trolling in another context. Some of the "editors" aren't much different than Charles Johnson's "Lizardoid Minions" at Little Green Footballs, except that the LGF crew for a time felt they could exert that power on any web site with a comment section and the Wikipedian admins restrict themselves to Wikipedia for the most part.

Sometimes such anonymous people are violating laws or ethics of their profession etc. But there is really nothing much you can do about it unless you know who they are. (No one is going to track them down for you so you can bring them to justice; not your local cops; not the FBI. If you want a law enforced, you need to know who they are.) Insistance on the sanctity of anonymity almost always demarks a Responsibility Free Zone. I am deeply suspicious of people who feel they need that.

[taiwopanfob]

Now that I think about it, I don't know if such a law exists. All I know is that written permission is sometimes needed before a photograph of someone is placed online. This may be just a courtesy by organizations such as schools who may fear the possiblity of lawsuits if they post photographs online without permission.

The law in most countries worth the name is that you can take a picture of anything you like and publish it for (in USA-speak) "editorial use". So someone could hunt down Brandt, take his picture as he chomps on a pizza in some food court (should he actually patronize such places), and write up an article saying "This is Daniel Brandt, investigative genius." Or something. The primary restriction on this practice is stuff that falls into the category of "bad light". For example, you would probably get into trouble if you used a picture of Brandt as he walked by an adult video store.

Anything beyond editorial use requires a release from the subject, this set includes not only people but even identifiable property. Most sane photographers seek to obtain a release, even if the expected use is editorial, as such images are more valuable to their clients. (Most stock houses vastly prefer released images to non-released.)

[blissyu2]

I think that really there are 2 main solutions:

1 = informing

2 = exposing

If Wikipedia were an organisation that was honest, accepted criticism, did not punish people for criticising them, and did not block critic sites on their spam blacklist, then we could be satisfied simply with informing people. If people who wish to visit Wikipedia could simply visit a web site like this one, and find out some of the problems, then that is all that we would need to do.

The problem is that Wikipedia censors out all criticism, to quite tyrannical levels, which leaves us with no choice but to expose these things. We can't simply inform the average Wikipedian, because if we do that on Wikipedia then we are likely to get banned. So we have to find out who is doing these things, expose them to the media, and hope that in that way people can find out some of the things that goes on.

For me, what does it matter that Essjay isn't who he claims he is? It doesn't make a difference to me, nor does it make a difference to most people who read this forum. We all know that Wikipedia isn't perfect, that it is biased, that we can't rely on its information. Who cares if he is a professor as opposed to being a university drop out? What difference does it make?

But the problem is that there are people who do rely on this information, and these people aren't able to easily find web sites like this. As far as they are aware, Wikipedia is foolproof, or if there is a problem it is only very minor. So we can inform them.

[Jonny Cache]

For me, what does it matter that Essjay isn't who he claims he is? It doesn't make a difference to me, nor does it make a difference to most people who read this forum. We all know that Wikipedia isn't perfect, that it is biased, that we can't rely on its information. Who cares if he is a professor as opposed to being a university drop out? What difference does it make?

I think that people are persistently missing a very important point.

The Wikipedia Party Lie is that Wikipedia Policies do not depend on knowing the Real World referents of usernames. Then the Wikipedia Elite turn right around and write Policies against Alternate Accounts, Conflict Of Interest, Public Accounts, Single Purpose Accounts, etc., etc., etc.

What do they do this?

1. Because they care one hell of a lot about the Real World referents of their ordinary users' usernames.
2. Because they want to distract you from asking about the Real World referents of Their Own Usernames.

Does it matter if Jreferee = Jimbo Wales?

Maybe, maybe not.

Does it matter if IronGargoyle = Angela, or take your own wildest guess?

I'm guessing that the truth value of that equation would make a big difference to a whole lot of people.

You would think by now that we would have learned the lesson that anytime some Administrator or Minion makes a critical decision in the direction that Wikipedia takes, no matter how innocuous-looking the WikiPortfolio on their user page, that we ought to be asking the following sequence of questions:

1. Who was that masked (wo)man?
2. Yeah, ok, but who was it really?
3. No, seriously now, who was it?
4. GOTO 1.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 14th March 2007, 4:28am

[blissyu2]

This (partially) gets back to another point.

Some Wikipedia admins (e.g. Jayjg, Slim Virgin, Snowspinner) spend a lot of time trying to prove that some newbie, or just plain someone equals someone else, hence that they are sock puppets etc, but very rarely with any kind of real proof. In other words, they guess. For my account, I think about 5 of the supposedly "proven" sock puppets are actually me - and they can prove this because I wrote "Hi its me". All of the rest they are guessing. And most of the rest I can pretty easily prove are not me. Oh, because someone writes on one of the most controversial topics around, and disagrees with Wikipedia's line, which goes against everything anywhere on the web, therefore its me? Come off it now. Or because someone doesn't like Slim Virgin, it is me? Like there isn't anyone else that disagrees with her? This is all just guesswork.

Now, when these people are doing this, they are spewing IP addresses out there, and identifiable information. Information that can be used by someone off the street to track you down and hurt you. On top of that, they are lying about you. How much of what they say about anyone they've banned is true? It is all utterly made up, invented.

In many cases, therefore, what Slim Virgin and co do IS stalking, in a very real, and very menacing sense.

By exposing them, and identifying them, are we therefore stalking them? Not in the slightest. We are trying to bring them to justice.

Don't get fooled by this distinction. You have a legitimate reason to find out who is committing a criminal act against you.

Their cries of "oh no we are the victims" often are just to disguise what they are doing.

[Somey]

Now, when these people are doing this, they are spewing IP addresses out there, and identifiable information. Information that can be used by someone off the street to track you down and hurt you. On top of that, they are lying about you. How much of what they say about anyone they've banned is true? It is all utterly made up, invented.

I don't want to sound like I'm defending them, but there really isn't that much someone can do with just an IP address, and in most cases that's all they've really got, isn't it? The fact that they're lying about people is more problematic. They're probably right only about half the time, if that, which would be a terrible percentage for a professional investigative unit - but since it's Wikipedia, they probably think they're doing a real stellar job if they can reach that 50 percent plateau...

I guess the way I see it is that it hardly seems necessary to identify most of them - in the case of people like User:Jayjg and his sock-buddy User:David_Spart for example, their POV is quite obvious. They're Jewish, they're pro-Israel, they defend articles on those subjects, and you hardly need know their real names or ages (or see photos of them) to figure that out. The problem in those cases is not that we don't know who they are; the problem is that their ludicrously trollish and asinine tactics risk turning otherwise rational and decent people into anti-semites, and I don't think I can ever forgive them for that. They may think their behavior a "necessary evil" in order to get that POV across, but based on what I've seen, I don't believe that for a nanosecond. They're far worse than most of the people they attack.

As I wrote in the other thread, Jayjg is a very careful man, and if we ever manage to find out who he is, it'll probably be because he tells us himself - or someone else does, either as a betrayal or as a slip-up. But regardless, I just think he's small potatoes now. Enough of these people have been identified already to make it clear that at least 98 percent of these people have no business trying to produce a major reference work, or for that matter, a minor one.

As for the other two percent, well... I just feel really sorry for them at this point!

[Kathryn Cramer]

Enough of these people have been identified already to make it clear that at least 98 percent of these people have no business trying to produce a major reference work, or for that matter, a minor one.

As for the other two percent, well... I just feel really sorry for them at this point!

Um, yes.

Also, the collective "editors" have invented a whole mythology around editing (or their concept of it) to justify anonymity and pseudonymity. Professional editors for the most part edit under their real names. There is real money at stake. Real editors can make or break people's literary careers. The decision to reject someone's book can cause the author to lose his or her house if he or she unreasonably projected an endless upward trajectory for book advances.

So. Why is it that Wikipedia editors need soopersecret pseudonyms and real editors don't? I don't think it is to protect their professionalism. It is to protect their amateurism.

This post has been edited by Kathryn Cramer: Wed 14th March 2007, 12:29pm

[Jonny Cache]

So. Why is it that Wikipedia editors need soopersecret pseudonyms and real editors don't? I don't think it is to protect their professionalism. It is to protect their amateurism.

Partly that.

That is what draws the Flies, but what about the Lords?

You have to keep trying to remember : One of the nicest things about pseudonyms is that you can have as many of them as you want. Being able to Vote Early, Vote Often (VEVO) is a big boost to the power of the Wiki-Ward-Healers, and Power is what they are really after.

The other nice thing about pseudonyms is that they allow you to disguise the structure of your coalition network. A person can participate in one group under one name, while participating in a different group, possibly even an ostensibly opposing group, under a different name. A dissemination devoutly to be wished.

Then again, you have to remember that many of the Movers and Shuckers of Wikipedia are professionals at something — they are professional con-artists of a consummate skill, and who knows what else? — and there is certainly nothing amateurish (except the LUV ) about the way they sheer their sheep.

Which brings up the other benefit of a refringent anonymity — the way it helps you to hide your real interest in the enterprise, and to hold yourself harmless from conflict of interest charges.

Of course, all of this stuff works far and away better if you have on hand a ready supply of really n00bile marks. And to sum it all up, if you'll excuse the expression, one of the best ways to guarantee a constant supply of ediots is to have a School for Hivewits that decimates what bits of wits the wikipupae might have brought with them coming in.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 14th March 2007, 1:10pm

[Kathryn Cramer]

Then again, you have to remember that many of the Movers and Shuckers of Wikipedia are professionals at something — they are professional con-artists of a consummate skill, and who knows what else? — and there is certainly nothing amateurish (except the LUV ) about the way they sheer their sheep.

Which brings up the other benefit of a refringent anonymity — the way it helps you to hide your real interest in the enterprise, and to hold yourself harmless from conflict of interest charges.

Jonny

Having had the opportunity to be taken by a Real Live Con Artist (Joseph A. Cafasso aka Gerry Blackwood and many other names and Internet handles), it seems to me that Ryan Jordan, if that is really his name, should have rung much larger alarm bells with the WP Powers That Be. Were they naive? Or what? Wales & co.'s reaction strikes me as deeply odd.

Lying about your credentials is not the same thing as going by the name "Ming the Merciless." Wikipedia actually has a pretty good article on confidence artists and grifters. And by the definitions in the entry last time I read it, Essjay is definitely a grifter. Why is Daniel Brandt's discovery of the situation more of a problem for them than the fact that their darling Essjay is a grifter?

I find Wikipedia's contageous pseudonymity -- the way in which it encourages people who would never think of using an alias except in a context like this to become pseudonymous -- disturbing. The hangman traditionally wears a hood, but the rest of us shouldn't feel the need.

This post has been edited by Kathryn Cramer: Wed 14th March 2007, 2:16pm

[Jonny Cache]

Kathryn,

I think that you are probably not seeing the Driver for the Ropers and the Shills.

I began my own study of con games last year, and gave a preliminary report here:

Confidence Games & Pyramid Schemes : There's One Born Every Nanosecond

There's a couple of good references listed there.

I also went out and bought up all the videos I could find on con game themes. Some of these are extremely enlightening about the psychological underbelly of the confidence game, both grifter and mark.

Jonny