Well, one is a direct suppression of freedom of expression and one isn't?

As msbelle pointed out, we have lots of rules about how we can express ourselves and where. And no one can or is trying to ban all sockpuppets from the Internet. If you're into it, you can go to Sang Sacre, or another board. I don't think "No sockpuppetting" is any more supressive than "whitefont current-season TV discussion," and it will affect fewer people.

Right now outlawing sockpuppets feels more like the latter example.

I respect your thinking, Susan, though I still disagree. Thanks for your response.

hte proposal of a true ID in the profile is a very good work-around. Any SP who doesn't do this we know is not following hte rules.

If we had three choices -- ban sockpuppets, no change, or allow sockpuppets with attribution in the tagline or profile -- I would vote for allowed-with-attribution. The performance aspect bugs me, but I can deal with it much mroe than I can deal with not knowing who is posting.

I'd be fine with consensing that it was a matter of etiquette and good citizenship to avoid sockpuppet abuse. That the expectation is that the puppetteer volunteer the information in their profile, and if they don't, then somebody can ask them to do so.

I'm all sorts of good with that. (And again, my apologies to anyone who was annoyed by Clovis burbling in a thread other than Sang Sancre. Yes, I am worried that my fanged rabbit annoyed people. Look, you people *knew* I was crazy.)

That seems to get around teh ID issue that bothers people.

I would like to point out though, that no one had suggested banning or even warning anyone, so discussion of the "demon-like behavior" was not really fitting.

There is no reason why I couldn't post:

Dear Jesse,

I will mock you like a mocker who mocks.

sincerely, silly psued I think is funny

not that I'd suggest legislating a set formula for how to express one's attempts at humor, but let's not act like anyone was gonna get thrown off the board or that the elimination of sockpuppets would remove all hopes at humor.

FWIW, Jilli, I always loved Clovis' posts.

I'd be fine with consensing that it was a matter of etiquette and good citizenship to avoid sockpuppet abuse. That the expectation is that the puppetteer volunteer the information in their profile, and if they don't, then somebody can ask them to do so.

Looks good to me. Maybe this could be an entry in the FAQ.

Not to mention that Clovis got his own place card and a favor at our wedding.

I like the attribution-in-the-profile solution; as connie points out, it not only lets you know who's got their hand up the pseud-of-the-moment's ass, it will also make it clear who is and isn't willing to play by the rules.

Though I will probably never, ever look to see who's doing Clovis or the FLO. In my mind, it really is them, and as long as I don't click on the profiles it always will be.

SInce Betsy is the original poster, she is the one who will decide if she wants this to go to vote.

Will someone go look up on the voting rules if this can become a policy just by consensus (also was a post made in Apoc. about this discussion so as to include anyone who wants in). And for clarification, if someone posts under an obvious sockpuppet without Iding themselves do(es):

1) they get one warning - then posts deleted by a stompy?
2) anyone asks for ID and they either comply or we go into the previously established, warn in thread - move to bureau......steps(and where are those outlined again).
3) something else

Sounds like a good plan to me, too.

Anybody object to this? The proposal is that we update the FAQ or etiquette to say "If you create an alternate identity, please note who you really are in the profile."

I'd be most comfortable with voting as a formality, but I'm good with skipping it if everyone else is.

And, no, I don't think a vote is necessary here. Does anybody?