I have a tangential question. Can sockpuppets vote?

I was pissed as hell to get to the end of the thread and find out that y'all decided you had consensed. Some of us have obligations that keep us busy for most of the day, so giving us more than one afternoon to weigh in seems polite.

This, to me, is the main reason I think that some sort of system was needed for discussing important issues, and why people were complaining about "bullshit consensus" in the first place.

I also think, like Debetesse suggested, that it's much better to let there be a general "don't be an asshole" stand on things rather than codify what, exactly, and asshole is.

In a similar vein, I don't like the idea of people having to watch every damned thing they say because it might offend a handful of people. I do think that most people tend to avoid saying things that are sweepingly offensive, except in cases where tempers are frayed. I've been offended by things, and in some cases have even spoken up about them. I've probably said some things that have bothered people to some degree or another.

Guess what? It happens. It happens in everyday life all the time. People bump up against each other's sore spots, and people get upset. From time to time, someone is going to owe someone else an apology or explanation, or someone is going to have to resign him or herself to skimming certain topics. Everyone here is going to be on the minority side of at least one issue at one time or another.

Basically, what I'm saying is that we shouldn't have to tiptoe around each other, but at the same time, if someone is upset about something, that person has a right to say that he or she is upset. Sometimes, that will lead to a change of topic. Other times, the person who is bothered by the topic may have to bow out of a thread until the topic is dropped. The less drama surrounding either solution, the better. That might mean that people who come to the discussion late might have to recognize that the discussion is over, and that getting one's two cents in is like picking at a scab.

(Note: Discussions that will affect board policy as a whole need to be kept going, so that everyone has time to see what's going on and weigh in as needed. What I'm talking about here has more to do with in-thread discussion).

And now that I've said all that...

The sockpuppet case is a little bit different, IMO, because I see it as being more about the way the board is used as it is about what is said on the board. I also think that aurelia brought up an interesting point about the voting. I can't see anything here being so important that people would create or use sockpuppets to hijack a vote, but I don't see how it could be prevented. One vote per IP address (or however that stuff is tracked) wouldn't work because we do have multiple-Buffista households.

The times I have counted votes there have been no (c)sockpuppet votes. 95% names I know and a few lurkers.

Again, it doesn't seem important to me to legislate all potential abuses. It makes more sense (to me) that we use the systems in place if we have a problem.

A note in the profile solves the problem of feeling out of the loop. Blocking the user solves the problem of not wanting to see them at all.

Discussion is good. I believe that those who have created alternate addresses did not intend to offend. They may have confused me at times, but mostly I found it funny.

The examples of sockpupperty for good cause is outside of this discussion for me. Use in Sang Sacre, or as Allyson and Kristen have described makes perfect sense.

I don't feel comfortable to coming to a bullshit consensus on something that was originally proposed to be voted on. Especially in this thread, which I usually avoid. I only came in to see what it the original proposal had morphed into from Bureau.

There's no reason why the hypothetical Malicious Sockpuppet couldn't vote.

And I'm quite certain that I can speak unequivocally for all 500+ of us when I say HELLS YEAH we can be bought.

Hmm....the only problem with that is we don't have SO MUCH money in the bank that I could pay off hundreds of people and still keep the board open. I could rule over nothing, or go along with you people here. HMMMM.

I'd think a covert (and, yes, probably malicious) sockpuppet would be more likely to vote, and I doubt people who are covertly (maliciously) sockpuppeting will be dissuaded by...well, much of anything.

I think we're okay there. The original proposal was this:

Formal proposal: Add to Buffista etiquette the following: "One account per customer. Please don't set up multiple accounts under different names.

The fact that, through discussion, we seem to have come up with a solution that is more workable and less restrictive I think is a good thing, and I don't see that we have to vote for the sake of carrying on. That said, Betsy could certainly amend the proposal to reflect the new idea. But the 'consensus' we've currently reached works for me as it stands.

Reality-check, though: It *seems to me* like the people who posted strong issues with sockpuppets were okay with the idea of identification in the profile. Is that a true read of the situation? In the interest of making sure we're all on the same page, I'd like to see people weigh in specifically on that question, rather than feelings about sock puppetry in general.

I am fine with (a) taking no Official Action against multiple log-ins in general; (b) strongly encouraging people who create jokey sock puppets to identify themselves in the profile of said sock puppet; and (c) generally discouraging the use of same. Then we just keep on keeping on with people not being assholes.

I am fine with (a) taking no Official Action against multiple log-ins in general; (b) strongly encouraging people who create jokey sock puppets to identify themselves in the profile of said sock puppet; and (c) generally discouraging the use of same. Then we just keep on keeping on with people not being assholes.

I'm with Jesse on this.

Can sockpuppets vote?

The couple times I've counted votes, sockpuppets didn't vote. If the question officially comes up, put me in the "one person, one vote" and not the "one ID, one vote" category.

Personally, I enjoy the occasional sockpuppet coming in to lighten things up. (Disclaimer: I've only recently started subscribing to Bitches, so I don't know the history with March.) But I have no quarrel with Wolfram's suggestion of requiring a sockpuppet's profile to include the person's "regular" ID. If people want to go further, maybe require including the word "sockpuppet" in the tagline.

As to whether we need a vote -- IMO, this is a consensable issue, defining what "demon-like behavior" is. But I don't think 6 hours is enough time to be sure we have a consensus when emotions are as strong as some that were displayed yesterday.

(ETA: X-posted with Jesse and Hil. I'm fine with Jesse's proposal.)