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.

Interesting position from the someone who posted the rules, including the demon-like behaviour piece. Discussion ensued, it happens.

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.

Well, in fact, if someone who wasn't here for this discussion (say), chose not to obey the new potentially consensed rule about posting in their profile, they could get thrown off the board, couldn't they?

I'm fine with the profile thing, I haven't and I'm not ever going to sockpuppet anyway but I strongly disagree with over-regulation of fun, and will heartlessly kill countless electrons who never hurt anyone, in that cause.

I did not mean it wasn't fit to discuss. I meant JSW bringing it up as if we were discussing banning people was not an accurate reading of the proposal.

Perhaps I did miss someone actually suggesting that we ban the sockpuppeteers, if so I apologize for mis-speaking.

does anyone know where the language is for the steps on voting and the steps on banning? are the votes recorded anywhere so we can see the language?

I'm consensed.

Is that the cheesebutt document, msbelle? If not, I'm pretty sure it was on someone's to do list, but I have no idea if it got done.

My thought is that an unIDed SP goes into the same warning queue as we already have in place.

Right, it would qualify as "rude" I think, and would be considered in that context.

Let us add it to the FAQ, no vote, and make an announcement about it. How's that?

Well, in fact, if someone who wasn't here for this discussion (say), chose not to obey the new potentially consensed rule about posting in their profile, they could get thrown off the board, couldn't they?

not immediately.

it might be the cheesebutt - where is that?

I'd just like to refer to the process that has been agreed upon. I am pretty sure that we were supposed to announce the opening of lightbulbs with a post in Press with the original proposal and that discssion should stay open for X number of days before anything was made policy.

Are you saying that this entire discussion violated established policy and effectively never happened, msbelle?

Dare ya.

Cheesebutt.

Well, in fact, if someone who wasn't here for this discussion (say), chose not to obey the new potentially consensed rule about posting in their profile, they could get thrown off the board, couldn't they?

not immediately.

Instead of a blanket no-sockpuppet rule, people would be expected to ID themselves in their profile. To not do so would be considered rude - particularly when asked to identify themselves - and that rudeness would be actionable but only within context. Rude is not an automatic banning. It is considered within context, and has to be brought over to Bureau as a formal grievance where it would be discussed. Like that.

Making a formal announcement means everybody should be apprised in the change in board etiquette.

not immediately

No, they would have to demonstrate "consistent demon-like behaviour", with unidentified sockpuppetry *now* defined as such (ie. a few posts as the sockpuppet, after being "warned" by someone). I think that comfortably constitutes being within the ambit of the conversation.