Maybe sock puppets should be required to have the tag: Hello! This is ____! I have created this persona for humorous purposes!

I would be absolutely fine with that, incidentally. I'm not as bothered by the conversations (which are silly but can be scrolled past) as I am by the masking.

a) offends my database sensibilities

Weirdly enough I get this. I like scrolling my mouse over newbie's id numbers to see how many subscribers we have. And then I have to mentally subtract 10 numbers that were used by SPs. I have this irrational wish that we could get those user id numbers back. I don't know why.

We seem to do okay with dealing with posters who get out of hand. If a sockpuppet DID get into stalker territory, or did start posting out of hand, then I'd imagine we'd deal with it the same way we deal with ANY poster who did that. Why do we need to eliminate them on the off chance they could get way out of hand? It seems to me that we already have a do deal with those extreme cases.

makes b.org feel like somewhere else. And not in a nice somewhere else place.

I see this argument alot, and it's lost its impact for me.

So elements of b.org resemble other places. So what? There were probably good things about those legendarily evil Other Places. In the desperate attempt not to be like those Other Places, things get jumped on awfully quickly. I don't buy the slippery slope theory. I've got cleats on.

You didn't think March's fixation on Kristin was kind of creepy? Clearly, in this case Kristin seemed to beokay with the joke.

I didn't. For two reasons. One is that March seemed jokey in the face of repeated comments by Kristin about the suckiness of March. And, two, because of Kristin's reaction to March. She thought is was funny and not weirded out by it.

The thing that scares me is that someday, there will be a March who *won't* be an innocent injoke. And I really don't want to have a precedent that says we're okay with sockpuppetry.

In that case, I think the rules of ettiquette for any poster would apply. If anyone starts getting nasty, we have steps in place to deal with them and ban if necessary.

In that case, I think the rules of ettiquette for any poster would apply. If anyone starts getting nasty, we have steps in place to deal with them and ban if necessary.

All the wrod on the wrold. Let's enforce the rules we have before coming up with new ones.

I like Trudy's solution, if it would make everyone more comfortable.

To be fair, for a minute or two when March showed up and I didn't realize who it was, I was totally creeped out because of the stalkery feeling. However, it became apparant pretty quickly to me that it was a joke, and I figured out soon after (the tweedy tag was a direct reference to the fact that Trudy used to mock me when I first joined the board for being "all entitled and tweedy" because I was from CT--it was my tagline for a long while) that the tagline was Trudy's way of letting me know who it was.

I totally agree that sockpuppeting as a way to troll is a totally different beast. I just would hope that either a clarifying tagline (with the posters real pseud) or a direct inquiry (if I hadn't figured it out, I would have asked March directly or taken it to B'cracy) would allow us to keep fun little moments like the FLO or Clovis or March etc.

We seem to do okay with dealing with posters who get out of hand.

Absolutely. This is one of our mechanisms for discussing what's out of hand. That's what Bureaucracy is for.

I think a lot of my unease would be calmed if sockpuppetteers noted who they really were in the .sig line. This may not be humorous enough for everybody.

Getting annoyed about sockpuppets to the point of forcing debates and votes strikes me as the most trivial use of post time I can imagine.

If people become annoying then we have the means in hands to deal with it. When will the debate come around to content of taglines or the format of IDs?

When it comes to a vote, I'm voting for sockpuppets.

What connie said with a large helping of OMG, this is an issue, WTF?

Control issues much?

There were probably good things about those legendarily evil Other Places

No, they were all completely and utterly without redemptive value.

Of course not!

My point, and mine alone, is that if what I come here for is no longer here, I no longer come here. Not a big deal if it's just me. But it's something I've seen mentioned by more than one person, more than one time. So it ain't just me.

It's possible that it's a cranky set of five people who have to deal or leave. Or it's something that's not of sufficient value to the people doing it that they stop.

Without discussion who will know?