I reread what I wrote, and I guess it seems a little harsh. I didn't really mean it that way. What I mean is something along the lines of "it's obviously a troll, our attention wasn't needed to figure that out".
While the comments might be individually amusing, the fact that they are a) sock-puppeting, and b) off topic degrades quality of the discussion overall.
I suppose it depends on your definition of trolling. I think the intent here is to be amusing, and I was under the impression that trolling is supposed to be malicious. I know pg had a recent essay about it, maybe it would give us a definition to go by. I haven't read it yet.
I don't oppose "sock-puppetting". We should judge posts based on their content, not who we think wrote them. Sometimes it communicates better to post different perspectives under different names.
It seems to me that posting under multiple names, if you want, is a natural extension of anonymity and privacy.
(Note I do not "sock-puppet" here. I asked PG and he disapproves.)
Sure, we should judge posts based on content, but someone's motives should be taken into consideration with sock-puppetting. Why does someone want to say something that they don't want to attach their name to? I'm not saying there are or aren't good reasons to do this, but I would be suspicious of comments that someone insisted on making anonymously.
Another problem with sock puppets is that these sites run on the principals of democracy. Allowing multiple accounts ruins that.
I actually remember this user from Reddit - after having seen the "let's go shopping" thing a few times in comments I just had to see who it was. And even though it is an obvious troll I thought it was OK. I think it was funny as hell. As long as it doesn't spread.
