Trick ,'First Date'
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
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?
Second the consensus isntead of voting.
I'd rather skip the voting, if it's possible.
My thought is that an unIDed SP goes into the same warning queue as we already have in place.
One not-actually-invested comment on the consistent demon-like behaviour.
If posting as a SP is rude (read demon-like), then every time an SP posts, they're being rude, which is automatically consistent demon-like behaviour.
Given that Jessica clearly accepts the initial premise of rudeness, her deriviation seems sound to me.
[screw it. not worth it.]
I'm fine with not voting.