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.

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.

What dangerous precedent? We already established guidelines for disciplinary actions and booting peoples ages ago. We ceased to be a bullshit consensus board when we established the voting procedure.

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.

As long as it's not the milkshake song, or getting anything started...

I do appreciate citations on tags.

yes. We used it to decided when people would get warned, suspended and banned.

the entire voting system was set up out of discussions with people getting frustrated that the board was so large now and trying to discuss things only as a way of reaching a decision was never-ending and nowhere going.

My personal perspective on it was a few people trying to actually discuss things, several more people posting over and over their same point or the way they would like the decision to go.

Question for the people who have created and used sockpuppets: did you know that sockpuppets annoyed some people, or is this news to you? I'm just wondering.

Totally news to me. I didn't create Clovis' log-in, but once it *was* created and I had the log-in information, I did use it once or twice. I never suspected that people were bothered by it.