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.

(ie. a few posts as the sockpuppet, after being "warned" by someone).

Don't forget the first "try to work it out in thread" step. Or is that presumed to be "Tell me who you are, sockpuppet!" "No, you should guess," as a failed "working it out in thread?

yeah - so ok - is THAT document (cheesebutt in LINKS or linked to from the FAQ?)

FTR - here is the voting procedure:

- No other proposals are currently on the table.

- You post a formal proposal (use words like wherefore!) in Bureaucracy.

- Four other people say "I second that".

- Someone in Bureaucracy volunteers to count votes.

- A Stompy Foot opens Light Bulb immediately.

- You post in Press the text of your proposal, and link to Light Bulb.

- You post the text of your proposal in Light Bulb.

- Light Bulb discussion for (roughly) 4 days.

- You take the text of your proposal and phrase it for the final ballot (You may change the language from your original proposal if you choose, or not).

- You send the final ballot text to Jon B.

- Jon B. notifies you that the web ballot is ready and gives you the link.

- You post in Press the final ballot text, the link to the ballot, and the dates and times of voting opening and closing (3 days total).

- You post in Light Bulb the same as you've just posted in Press, ending discussion in Light Bulb.

- You wait for the voting period to end and the vote-counter to count.

- The vote-counter reposts the final ballot text with the results (number of votes, winning vote, percentages).

______ I am for following the guidelines as they are set forth, especially since nothing changes until that time and nothing needs to be changed right this very second.