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.

Conversations come and go here. They run their course and then end.

Trudy, do you feel that posting as MARCH is the exact same thing is saying "Hey, what are the good restaurants in West Hollywood?" -- another conversation that will interest some people and that everyone else can scroll by? Because that's what I'm getting from you, and I wonder if you can understand that it does not feel that way to the people who are annoyed by sockpuppets.

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

Thanks, Robin. I wasn't sure. It had seemed all thread creation and the like to me.

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.

I don't know. Did we have even a significant minority of people speaking out against booting people, or against certain offenses and whether or not they should be bootable?

Knowing us, the answer there is probably a resounding YES.

I just.... the "if the majority of people vote to ban sockpuppets, it should happen," argument it VERY strongly smacking of the type of thinking that's turning the US into Jesusland right now, and I really dislike that this is now creeping into my board.

I don't have a good grasp on my rebuttal, and maybe I'm wrong, and maybe for just those reasons alone I should just shut the hell up and piss off already, but I'm a little mule-headed.

We ceased to be a bullshit consensus board when we established the voting procedure.

You know, the vast vast vast majority of those consensuses were NOT bullshit. They came out of earnest discussions and people aired their feelings and shared and we evolved and stuff.

Now if we're going to vote on every little thing that bugs someone? And then have gripe-fests in our Live Journals? Eh. Tiresome. Un-fun.

Someone asked if it people who made sock puppets that "thought about that it bothered some people." No, not particularly. Any time I post in any form the question I ask myself is "will this crack up ___" or "has this point been made" or something proactive like that. It's not "oh dear, who might I offend if I say this."

If people feel some sense of unease because of "unknown" posters (and we're ALL at some point unknown) that can easily be aleved by a disclaimer in tag or bio.

I think the point was to ensure that decisions weren't being made by just the talkiest meat who could argue their way past St. Peter despite throwing newborn baby seal out on the freeway for laughs.

It allowed everyone who wanted a voice to have one, even if they're painfully shy, or conflict avoiders.

Otherwise, we go back to bullshit consensus and those of us who can sell the biggest of cynics a Bridge in Brooklyn will always win, ever if we're on the bad crack.

I do appreciate citations on tags.

(I like them, too, but I don't always use them because so often I just have a teeny snippet of a song lyric, and "'coriander stem and rose of hay'-- R.E.M." feels pretentious and off to me. So I don't attribute in those cases, and figure anyone who's curious enough can Google or ask. Sorry if it annoys.)

Trudy, do you feel that posting as MARCH is the exact same thing is saying "Hey, what are the good restaurants in West Hollywood?" -- another conversation that will interest some people and that everyone else can scroll by? Because that's what I'm getting from you, and I wonder if you can understand that it does not feel that way to the people who are annoyed by sockpuppets.

Not Trudy, and not speaking for anyone but myself, to me, yes. I can say "Oooh, sockpuppet. Not for me" and scroll by. And I do understand that the sockpuppets really annoy people. But, to use one example, so do people talking about parties I wasn't invited to. It's happened, and it hurt, but who am I to tell them not to talk about their good time?

Sorry if it annoys.

No, no. Just easier on lazy folk like me.

majority rule is probably not gonna go away. I am in no way loving the country right now, that just means I have to get more active and effective in getting my view points across if I want them to become the majority.

And it is not as if most of what we will be debating as board policy with have a measurable element so as to determine what is "better" for the board other than what the posters view as being best for their personal use of the board.