Why can't those people decide what's best for themselves? What if having a majority of people who could be arsed to vote makes this place as unpleasant for me (or someone better liked than me) to hang around as sockpuppets do for you?

What if I pretty strongly feel I don't need the majority of posters who could be botherd to vote to decide what's "best" for the community, and that I'm perfectly capable of deciding that on my own?

Cause a while back we decided we wanted formal structures to make policies and rules and whatnot. At the time this was a community that wanted that. Maybe the composition of posters has changed so much that it is no longer the case.

You can always make a proposal to change the way we make decisions. Of course if it gets voted down, then you have to decide if you want to stay a part of a community where on many issues, you do not agree with the majority of posters there.

Of course if it gets voted down, then you have to decide if you want to stay a part of a community where on many issues, you do not agree with the majority of posters there.

Trust me, the thought goes through my head more and more often.

If the latter, how would you propose we suss out what's best for the board?

I think the only way to get rid of the current system of majority rules, is to propose a change and get a majority of people to reject the majority system.

Personally, and I seem to be alone in this (or at least alone in my extremity), I think that sockpuppets are, by definition, rude.

I think they're rude too, there are just asterisks attached. Basically, I feel like one post from Clovis, or someone who posts fic under a second login for privacy reasons, is a different thing than a sockpuppet hijacking the conversation.

There's just no way to write a rule that says, "pseuds are outlawed if they annoy Lyra."

I have never guessed the identity of a single sockpuppet.

I'm not sure I have, either. I guess what I meant was, if someone is posting as the Ferret Liberation Army, I feel like I can assume (rightly or, as I just found about Clovis, wrongly) that it's victor or someone roughly victoresque, because he's The Guy With Ferrets. Whereas if someone were to start posting as Fire Marshalll Bill, I'd have ... precisely no way to guess who it was or what they were doing, other than reprising a Jim Carrey skit.

I'm always wrong about who the sockpuppets are as well. However, that doesn't bug me. So I still don't have problem with them.

For the record, I don't, in fact, care who the sockpuppets are. If someone is using a sockpuppet, that person is, in my opinion, being obnoxiously rude, whoever they are.

Sorry, I think I was misread. The "Them" I was referring to was the sockpuppets. I find them funny and enjoy the levity. Even when I'm not in on the joke, which I never seem to be.

Sockpuppets would work for me if I could check the profile to see who is the "real" poster. That being said, I don't get where all the heat is coming from in this discussion. Not everyone is going to like the same things, and I don't see why airing those feelings is a bad thing or a personal slam on anyone. If Wolfram wants to start a discussion about posters using song lyrics in tag lines and says it bugs him, that's okay--even though I always use song lyrics. I am not doing it to bug him, so why would I be hurt if he stated he was bugged? I might be surprised that he didn't enjoy my incisive and witty choices, but I wouldn't see it as trying to shut me down. Frankly, I LIKE knowing people's quirks and needs. And if Wolfram's idea led to us changing policy on song lyrics. I might be annoyed but if I was outvoted by people who I care about who found it genuinely off-putting, that's okay.

I like meat, but when we have vegetarian friends over we make meatless meals because we love them and want them to be happy and comfortable without seeing their level of comfort with meat as a referendum on our carnivorous choice.

Are you proposing a Seantatorship

Boy, there's an idea that would get shot down in flames....

or saying the will of the voters != the best thing for the board?

Yeah, that's more or less the crux of my argument.

If the latter, how would you propose we suss out what's best for the board?

By discussion. Actually, now that it's phrased just that way, I'm not certain the voting thing was ever meant to suss out what's "best for the board," and using it as such is what's striking me as dangerous precedent. I mean, have we ever used in in that particular manner? So far, it's seemed to be about having or not having new threads. In fact, a number of things that could fall under the perview of "best for the board," such as hosting decisions, are specifically excluded from being voted on.

Cause a while back we decided we wanted formal structures to make policies and rules and whatnot.

Like I said, I disagree that this was the intent when we created the voting procedures. Have we used it in this manner yet?

a sockpuppet hijacking the conversation

Conversations come and go here. They run their course and then end. It's the nature of the beast.

We used it to decide whether/how to ban posters anbd what to ban them for.